Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 October	13 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete. JGHowes ^talk 21:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mormon Murderers[edit]

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

Not a coherent list, no references. Naraht (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete three items, one a redlink = not a list. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while WP:SALAT gives broad leeway on what stand-alone lists are appropriate for the encyclopedia, I think that listing people by their religious affiliation and whether or not they've murdered someone is opening the encyclopedia to WP:BLP issues and is basically unencyclopedic. Quickly searching, I wasn't able to find any analagous articles, List of Jewish murderers, List of Catholic murderers, List of Muslim murderers are all redlinks. Also surprisingly few similar AfDs, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish criminals being the only one I can find (and being from long ago). Either way, I don't think lists of this format should be kept (although if it is kept, it should be moved to List of Mormon murderers). Ajpolino (talk) 23:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another poorly supported intersection of criminals with their reputed religious faith. Of the three entries on the list there are Ted Bundy (a tenuous link based on happenstance of birth), Mark Hoffman (legitimate LDS scandal) and a non-biography that does not even mention LDS. A search may bring up other notable murderers from the American Southwest, but does this intersection define anything? • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gene93kI linked the brothers to Utah v. Lafferty, the other choice is the book about the brothers, Under the Banner of Heaven which clearly talks about them being part of a fundamentalist branch of LDS, perhaps that would be better. So, the last one is *somewhat* connected. And Bundy was baptised LDS at almost age 30, I don't see any relationship with his family as being the reason.Naraht (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Under the Banner of Heaven is a biased, anti-religious book that has been picked apart as problematic in many, many ways. To build an article around its false narrative is horrendous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article also incoherently groups together people from what are actually very different religious traditions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. Rollidan (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source. Barca (talk) 01:26, 16 October 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 reads: Sources found (with some difficulty) subsequent to nomination that indicate notability. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways of Hearing[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NBOOK. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know what the ref URL in the article is about, even just trying to go to the root domain times out. But, I was able to find book reviews in The Guardian, Financial Times London, Birmingham Post, and The Times Literary Supplement. I replaced the unverifiable quotes in the article with content and refs (except the TLS review, I put those details on the Talk page in case any other editor has access to it because I don't). Schazjmd (talk) 22:02, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep has a couple reviews cited which confer notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just checking - when I looked for refs I found a number for a different book with the same name, by Damon Krukowski. That’s not what you’re finding, right? Mccapra (talk) 04:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Schazjmd: thanks for finding those. I have a subscription to the Financial Times but a search on that site does not show any sign of ref 3. I’ve also looked on the Birmingham Post site and can’t find ref 2 either. Could you provide a link to them please? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mccapra, I found them all through my library proxy. I haven't found a way to figure out a non-KCLS proxy URL from a site I access that way. I searched through the library's ProQuest db, in case the latter part of the URL is of any help to you: /docview/228688700/fulltext/D0E9FB93633E4572PQ/15?accountid=46 and docview/323669040/D0E9FB93633E4572PQ/3?accountid=46 Schazjmd (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. As you said I can’t make them work as I don’t have access to ProQuest. Mccapra (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep exercising WP:AGF regarding the paywalled reviews of his works in three reliable sources as detailed above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of God in Divine Order[edit]

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

No secondary references. --ServB1 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD didn't get logged as it was malformed when created. I've fixed these issues. Iffy★Chat -- 22:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim of notability, so probably qualified for speedy deletion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a single denomination in a suburb of Tulsa OK, no significant coverage, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHURCH.Goldsztajn (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with other editors. Does not pass WP:GNG because lack of third party sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:06, 20 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretive neo-street[edit]

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

No sources and none can be found from searching Google. Bellowhead678 (talk) 20:42, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything on "interpretive neo-street", or on "swindon neo-street dance" or on "a half-twizzle, a 45° right-arm shaka maluga and 3 torso double twists, separated by duck-walks and bovine cantering". (Honestly, that description makes me think somebody made this up.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax - Whpq (talk) 13:59, 18 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Newz[edit]

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

Unreferenced. May no longer exist Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sourcing found. Google Books gives only passing mentions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think such clear-cut cases should be speedy deleted. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:39, 14 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brainjam[edit]

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

No references Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no sourcing found. Only 20 google results for Martin Wolfende + Brainjam, nothing on GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced and I cannot find anything even remotely resembling a reliable source in my own search. -- Whpq (talk) 14:02, 18 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 20:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nail Hearts Clip[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. No coverage at all except for writeups on university website. Rogermx (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything either. Haukur (talk) 12:12, 18 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 20:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TraveLibro[edit]

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

Unreferenced advertising created by the owner. Rathfelder (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A simple search on Bing yields mentions the company in Entrepreneur, Tech in Asia, Business Today, Inc., and more. [1] From looking at these sources (which meet WP:RS), it seems evident that the article should be kept on the English Wikipedia. Being a travel-related company with a connection to blogging/vlogging, I would also imagine that more sources about TraveLibro would be released soon. Carajou (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another advertisement. Barca (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear-cut advertisement. No significant coverage in reliable sources, hence failing WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 02:21, 16 October 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of female chefs with Michelin stars[edit]

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

I'm not sure the notability of this article is sufficiently supported by the sources. Sure, the fact that the chefs in this article are women is mentioned in the sources, but how big of an issue is their gender? Along the line of this article, should we also make an article for chefs of African descent with Michelin stars? For red haired chefs with Michelin stars? For obese chefs with Michelin stars? I'm sure that in all the reliable sources about Michelin starred chefs, i could dig up plenty of characteristics other than gender that are mentioned a dozen times in reliable sources, but does that establist sufficient notablitity to warrant an article about it? There may be other lists of female xyz on wikipedia, but that's not an argument to me. If anyone thinks gender is enough of an issue to warrant a list, please support by references. Also, since this is a very inactive corner of WP, let's give the debate a little more time than a weekPizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 19:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources indicate that highly-skewed gender representation among Michelin-star winners (Michelin laureates?) is a topic that has received documentable attention. It goes beyond just mentioning that the chefs in the list are women; the gender ratio is a, if not the, primary focus of multiple sources, in the article and elsewhere [2][3][4][5]. When it's the case that of the 120 or so three-starred restaurants around the world, only about six are run by women [6], people tend to write about it. The same is not true, to my knowledge, for chefs belonging to the Red-Headed League. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep largely per XOR. It's a useful reference, and this divide is covered by multiple sources. The additional information added makes this non-redundant to a Category. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 22:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep. We have women's lists for a variety of reasons, helping to compensate for the gender gap on Wikipedia. Earning Michelin stars represents notable achievement in the profession. The list is adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 07:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is exactly what i was afraid of: this vote seems to be more about pushing a political agenda then wondering whether there are sufficient sources to warrant this article. The fact that one of XOR's (few) sources is yahoo news and one of David Eppstein's sources isn't even in English makes me further doubt the motives of people voting keep here and the notability of the topic.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 22:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disparaging the motives of people who contribute to an AfD is, baring presentation of evidence in support of it, an attack upon the person rather than the content of what they write. I strongly encourage you to reconsider. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ipigott literally states it's about the gender gap. That's a political motive. Trying to frame my objection to that as attacking the person is attacking the person yourself and gaming the system on top. Please refrain from doing so. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 07:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Yahoo link was to their copy of an Agence France-Presse story. There is no requirement that sources for Wikipedia articles be in English. (When the subject is gourmet cooking in general and le Guide Michelin in particular, one might reasonably expect a fraction of references to hail from outside the Anglosphere.) I wouldn't call five sources "few"; in my experience, three or more is generally enough to tip !voters to "keep". None of the five I found in my quick WP:BEFORE were in the article yet when I checked, so they're cherries on top of the sources that were already present. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good point about the French sources. I still think the amount of sources is a bit meagre. Especially as a fraction of the total sources in the article. The other voters obviously think otherwise. I really hope this is not politically motivated for the majority. PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 07:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with a possibility of snow) per XOR, The extremely skew gender imbalance of Michelin Star recipients is clearly a notable topic, well demonstrated by the sources. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per XOR, there is a demonstration that female chefs recieving Michelin stars is a notable subject in reliable sources. It is not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:39, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although many of the references are for individual listings, references 14 ("The Rise of the Female Michelin Star Chef"), 16 ("Michelin 'Can't Do Anything' to Change Lack of Female Representation"), 38 ("10 Female Chefs"), 42 ("les femmes chefs étoilées"), and 61 ("Why do women chefs keep missing out") are all specifically about the general topic of the list, female chefs with Michelin stars. That is, this topic "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as required by WP:LISTN. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article serves as a good reference to study and compare women's excellence across fields and professions. Stirpicult (talk) 13:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I would like to note that while the subject might be an 'inactive corner of WP', AFD itself is not. We're seeing plenty of commentary here on this AfD, so I don't see a need to keep this open for another week just based on that. Given that so many voices are saying keep, I think we're at consensus as is. So, an extension to gain consensus is not needed either. I have to concur with others here that the subject itself is notable, given the coverage in reliable sources. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there's no need to keep it open longer than a week, assuming the responders here all came here independently. I mention this because part of the responders identify on their user page as being involved in feminism or women subjects. I value the opinion of neutral editors more on the subject.PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 07:53, 17 October 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) 18:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Gebhardt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG by a far mile. Only source available is a brief (probably paid) obituary in a state newspaper. SD0001 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. SD0001 (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear violation of not memorial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few other possible sources, but they were not significant coverage. FWIW, I am Episcopalian, too. Bearian (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG, per nom. Alex-h (talk) 07:57, 17 October 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. JGHowes ^talk 17:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Violence against women helplines in Pakistan-Free legal aid and helplines[edit]

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

Not appropriate content for Wikipedia per WP:NOTHOWTO - this is a list of resources, not encyclopedic coverage of the topic. creffett (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, highly promotional. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTHOWTO. Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Some informations in this page should be transfered to List of domestic violence hotlines#Pakistan. Some informaion is suitable for Violence against women in Pakistan and Domestic violence in Pakistan.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is mostly word-for-word duplication of content in Violence against women in Pakistan. There seems little point in creating a redirect from this lengthy article title to that one, as the latter ought to be found just as easily. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note This article was created during a WikiGap event. --Saqib (talk) 07:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not encyclopedic, Alex-h (talk) 09:37, 17 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CIBC Development[edit]

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

As written, this defunct corporate real estate development holding company is unremarkable with its real estate assets long since sold to other institutional buyers. Article is completely unreferenced and a quick Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search reveals extremely little press coverage, limited only to one or two articles covering the sale of assets—matters that themselves are considered trite, trivial, and which fail WP:SIGCOV. As the corporation is defunct, there is no prospect of future WP:SIGCOV significant coverage. Thus, both as written and future potential, it fails WP:GNG, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH, and is arguably WP:CORPSPAM. Arguably never should've been created in the first place, so would favour delete as the name itself is an implausible redirect for CIBC. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD Closer - If delete is the result, I have done a quick check of the three property-related stub articles listed in CIBC Development and the first and last mention the disposition of the properties. The middle one, CIBC Tower, does not mention the sale, date of sale, or buyer, so will likely want to make sure that information is transposed there.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:13, 12 October 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. – Joe (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tchapo[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of his musical releases have been critically reviewed. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Most of the sources in the article either doesn't work or are interviews granted by the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Quite easy differentiating a clearly non-notable 2010s Nigerian musician from a probable notable one. This definitely falls in the former. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:53, 14 October 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) 14:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omajemite Don Emmanuel[edit]

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

I considered an A7 CSD, but I guess beinga CEO of anything is a credible claim of significance. Nevertheless, I can't find any independent sources giving significant coverage, seems to fail WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and is not notable. A Google search of him doesn't bring up anything. This article should have speedily deleted. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He should not be delete .

Link to him here https://ejesgist.com/author/admin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omajemite (talk • contribs) 13:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some people may not appear on Google search. That doesn't mean they are not notable. Some people do things and people don't know about until is brought to light.

He is the CEO of Ejes Gist and Newspoint. Co-founder of Ijawvoice Newspaper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omajemite (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. This article clearly fails WP:GNG. I also conducted a Google search and it brought up nothing. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 17:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Omajemite I suggest carefully reading Wikipedia:Notability. You also appear to have the same name as the topic of this article. Please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. This article therefore appears to meet the criteria for speedy deletion, see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11._Unambiguous_advertising_or_promotion. Greenman (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Include Omajemite Don, for being the CEO and Certified Journalist. He can be considered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogheneyoma Grace (talk • contribs) 21:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, The article is not supported by independent reliable sources, is not notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:48, 17 October 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) 12:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarinetania, Greenland[edit]

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

I believe the first mention of this name was either a prank or a test added by 86.26.9.129 (talk): special:diff/286460068. It has polluted other websites. Any geologists/historians have reliable books on Wegener to confirm? Roy17 (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Roy17 (talk) 12:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a potential hoax, and barring that, as an unverified place. Can't find any reliable sources searching for the placename or on "Alfred Wegener" "Death." I've gone ahead and updated the articles and edited other wikipedias to remove the place name. Not in the placename directory I searched, either. SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not found WP:RS to WP:V. Greenland is a poorly mapped place and this is potentially a village. I have only found passing mentions but will continue to search. Lightburst (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also continuing to search. Bearian (talk) 15:41, 16 October 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) 12:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Haining[edit]

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

Can't see how this meets any notability. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 11:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, found only passing mentions of him participating in local festivals. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kablammo (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:47, 13 October 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. Tone 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Txtm8[edit]

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

I mistakenly PRODed this not spotting that it had survived PROD in 2010. The topic is a short-lived local advice service based on texting. No evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delee. Fails WP:GNG. I was able to find a few passing mentions (eg [7] [8]) but no in-depth coverage. Of the references currently in the article, one is not independent, and the other two are supporting background statements that aren't about the article subject. Also noting that the only editor to add significant content to the article (who was also the editor who removed the 2010 PROD) appears to be a conflict of interest account. Lowercaserho (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the search results come about a phone Cricket TXTM8, which seems like a notable product that doesn't yet have an article. Beyond that I found passing mentions in [9] or [10]. Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:45, 19 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Lottering[edit]

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

The footballer has never play in a fully professional league or appeared in an international match, thereby failing WP:NFOOTY. There is an article in a local newspaper, which is insufficient for him to qualify for WP:GNG. Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:33, 14 October 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. Tone 08:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Break the Chair[edit]

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

Apparently there was an earlier article about this band that got deleted. This article was created by a band member. Does not pass WP:BAND. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unable to find anything related to this band. All the results are about the act of breaking the chair which is expected. The band has not released any notable song or album and lacks significant coverage in reliable media. Hence it fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG.--DBig Xrayᗙ 11:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only sources are social media. Band name + member names or band name + album name turn up nothing on regular Google and even more nothing on GBooks. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here to support a claim of notability and nothing reliable and verifiable found in a Google search. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alansohn (talk • contribs)
Delete - Perhaps the article's creator thought the band was notable because they once jammed with Metallica, but that probably falls under WP:1E. I can find no other reliable coverage on the band outside of that one event, with only the usual social media and retail links. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concerns brought up by the others are the same as mine. Fails most measures of notability.KingofGangsters (talk) 21:51, 16 October 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. Tone 10:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshio Ishizaka[edit]

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

The prod was removed, but I'm still not seeing how this person is independently notable. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are "independent of the subject" as required by our general notability guideline. The first two sources are primary per this, not sure about the reliability of the third one. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:NOTINHERITED applies. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it is generally harder for senior Japanese businesspeople to clearly meet our notability standards because of cultural norms that mean they’re much less likely to be in the public eye than their counterparts in the USA or some other countries. That said, the ja.wiki article has more sources, including national daily newspapers. A google search on his name in Japanese throws up a number of other sources, though nothing decisive. Executive VP of the world’s largest car manufacturer is pretty significant, so overall at the moment I’d be inclined to keep. Mccapra (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply being vice president of a company does not guarantee notability and we have a policy called WP:NOTINHERITED that deal with such cases. None of the sources on the ja-wiki provides significant independent coverage as required by general notability guideline and a Google news search for "石坂芳男" (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) yield only five links and they're all passing mentions and are insufficient for a WP:BLP. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is not much in-depth coverage in the media regarding the subject apart from passing mentions in various publications (at least in publications that use the Latin script, e.g. English, Spanish, French, etc.). Since Japanese uses a different script than English, I'm open to being wrong about this, however. It is very well possible that his name, as written in Japanese, produces many results. Does anyone have this subject's name in Japanese? If so, I'd be happy to search for it in Bing. Carajou (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Japanese businesspeople are less likely to meet GNG because they are not in the public eye" boils down to "these people are not notable." Wikipedia is built of verifiability. There are lots of people who have had huge impacts on events and developments over time, operating out side the light of public coverage. If we do not have reliable sources to show these people have actually been impactful we do not create articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 14 October 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 It (novel). This is a closing of all three characters' articles at the same time. The way the articles are now, there is a plot synopsis (already covered in the novel), adaptations (movies articles) and appearances in other media, which can be covered in some short sentences somewhere. Those points have been outlined in the discussion. If there are more sources with analysis or so, then maybe return separate articles but not in the present state. Tone 12:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beverly Marsh[edit]

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

Again, deprodded without rationale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It (novel) - The three "It" characters currently at AFD could have probably been bundled together as a single nomination, as they all have the same issues. That said, my response will be the same for all three. None of the character's demonstrate any independent notability. The sources available are either reporting on things such as casting announcements, or are purely plot summaries. The main article on the novel has a fully plot summary, including their full roles in it, as well as the information on their casting in both adaptations. As plausible search terms, they should redirect there. Rorshacma (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "Zero real world notability." There's sources talking about Beverly (reliable ones) already in the references section. Argument is invalid. The end. 2604:6000:130E:49B0:14B0:D20:E47A:B253 (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft.Updated to keep below
Wow... This one... On the SAME DAY the page was created, it was turned into a redirect. Then there's the 7 days before deletion nominations with a blank Talk page... Looks like it's still under construction. Give them time (and help, ideally...), and maybe sources will develop... if not, maybe the draft will be abandoned and speedy deleted. -2pou (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I searched for sources to save this and found nothing but plot synopsis, film and book reviews with tangential coverage. There really wasn't any significant coverage to warrant a seperate article on Beverly Marsh. Redirect is the best solution.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: Thank you for following up with feedback and closing the loop (on all three of these).
The CinemaBlend article on Beverly (already linked) is actually an excellent example of a source that satisfies GNG with a good breakdown on the character. It's a lot of plot, but it is interwoven and concluded with analysis. It looks to be the only one, though... I defer to the discussion. -2pou (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma and 4meter4. Daask (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to It (novel) per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Americana has published a good journal article that can be attributed to the It characters: [11]. It's Plot in Part I/Part II, but the intro/conclusion are analysis.
Stronger subjects of analysis and what they represent are Eddie, Bill, Mike (no wiki article, though), and Audra (no wiki article again); while discussion is weaker for Richie, Ben, and Beverly, but all do come together as representations of Baby Boomers.
Putting it out for consideration as a source to establish notability.
These have potential, but I don't have access [12] [13]. -2pou (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these sources may be substantial, but without getting access to them it's impossible to say for certain. I do agree that the first journal article provides some unique analysis of the character outside of the traditional text. Unfortunately, unless we can actually see all the journals (or if another editor with access can vouch that the material is substantial by WP:AGF), then the decision to redirect is really the best one.4meter4 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources e.g. [14] (page 149), [15] (page150-151), [16] (page 39-40).----Pontificalibus 12:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at Special:diff/919590895
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since GNG seems to be satisfied now. Multiple sources have been identified between that have some significant coverage of Beverly. Already sourced CinemaBlend article discusses the strength of women she represents. Americana Journal discusses her representation of an aspect of Baby Boomers. The linked Dark Descent essays give enough context to show she is being analyzed on p 150 especially, being considered King's idea of the role and nature of women. Also found this book [17] which breaks her down on p. 95.
That's multiple independent, reliable, significant sources. The article should be improved not deleted. WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article. Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. -2pou (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SIGCOV & WP:NEXIST a notable character Wm335td (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There seem to be a couple good statements in the sources above, but I don't think it's enough to actually hold an article. TTN (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I am not seeing anything beyond some mentions in passing. If a fictional character is mentioned in few sentences in few books this is still not sufficient for a stand alone page. There is no evidence that the book mentions found above go beyond a few mentions in passing in few sentences.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 18 October 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 It (novel). This is a closing of all three characters' articles at the same time. The way the articles are now, there is a plot synopsis (already covered in the novel), adaptations (movies articles) and appearances in other media, which can be covered in some short sentences somewhere. Those points have been outlined in the discussion. If there are more sources with analysis or so, then maybe return separate articles but not in the present state. Tone 12:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hanscom[edit]

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

Again, deprodded without rattionale or improvement. Apparently this editor doesn't understand what "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page" means. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It (novel) - The three "It" characters currently at AFD could have probably been bundled together as a single nomination, as they all have the same issues. That said, my response will be the same for all three. None of the character's demonstrate any independent notability. The sources available are either reporting on things such as casting announcements, or are purely plot summaries. The main article on the novel has a fully plot summary, including their full roles in it, as well as the information on their casting in both adaptations. As plausible search terms, they should redirect there. Rorshacma (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:49, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero real world notability." Explain what adding "real world" means to the notability of this topic. 72.43.200.112 (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all these articles or at least Draftify These are main characters in a hugely popular and acclaimed novel which has been adapted several times. A simple google search gives tons of coverage in both books and reputable sites. The failiour here is not in notability but in effort put into the articles.★Trekker (talk) 18:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Updated to keep below
Again... 7 days after creation something is being nominated for deletion? Again... Talk page is totally blank with no constructive feedback for article improvement. No time given to even potentially complete the article. Why is the answer to delete instead of help these people out? Unless what was done WP:BEFORE proves zero notability beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there is no information provided to help me know whether that is true or not. -2pou (talk) 18:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I searched for sources to save this and found nothing but plot synopsis, film and book reviews with tangential coverage. There really wasn't any significant coverage to warrant a seperate article on Ben Hanscom. Redirect is the best solution.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma and 4meter4. Daask (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Americana has published a good journal article that can be attributed to the It characters: [18]. It's Plot in Part I/Part II, but the intro/conclusion are analysis.
Stronger subjects of analysis and what they represent are Eddie, Bill, Mike (no wiki article, though), and Audra (no wiki article again); while discussion is weaker for Richie, Ben, and Beverly, but all do come together as representations of Baby Boomers.
Putting it out for consideration as a source to establish notability.
These have potential, but I don't have access [19] [20]. -2pou (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these sources may be substantial, but without getting access to them it's impossible to say for certain. I do agree that the first journal article provides some unique analysis of the character outside of the traditional text. Unfortunately, unless we can actually see all the journals (or if another editor with access can vouch that the material is substantial by WP:AGF), then the decision to redirect is really the best one.4meter4 (talk) 01:24, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again a failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. Secondary "real-world" sources discussing the character in detail were found following a simple search, these include [21] (pages 132-133) [22] (pages 140-143) and [23] (page 33).--Pontificalibus 12:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at Special:diff/919590895
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's enough context in The Dark Descent link to show Ben is significantly covered, making multiple sources found to exist here. The article should be improved not deleted. WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article. Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. -2pou (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The topic doesn't seem to have the potential to hold its own. The above sources seem to be trivial mentions, so they can't actual add substance to the article. TTN (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I am not seeing anything beyond some mentions in passing. If a fictional character is mentioned in few sentences in few books this is still not sufficient for a stand alone page. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 18 October 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 It (novel). This is a closing of all three characters' articles at the same time. The way the articles are now, there is a plot synopsis (already covered in the novel), adaptations (movies articles) and appearances in other media, which can be covered in some short sentences somewhere. Those points have been outlined in the discussion. If there are more sources with analysis or so, then maybe return separate articles but not in the present state. Tone 12:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Denbrough[edit]

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

Again, deprodded without rationale or improvement. Zero real world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to It (novel) - The three "It" characters currently at AFD could have probably been bundled together as a single nomination, as they all have the same issues. That said, my response will be the same for all three. None of the character's demonstrate any independent notability. The sources available are either reporting on things such as casting announcements, or are purely plot summaries. The main article on the novel has a fully plot summary, including their full roles in it, as well as the information on their casting in both adaptations. As plausible search terms, they should redirect there. Rorshacma (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Zero real world notability." What do you mean "real world"? Cause there are citations in this article. 72.43.200.112 (talk) 18:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to establish real world notability. TTN (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to Draft.Updated below
This article was in existence for 7 days before being proposed for deletion? What? The Talk page is totally empty... The nomination is so vague and doesn't give me any idea of what was done WP:BEFORE nomination. The burden of proof should not be falling on the creators here, but the nominators. How do you even know that people are done working on it or looking for sources? -2pou (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I searched for sources to save this and found nothing but plot synopsis, film and book reviews with tangential coverage. There really wasn't any significant coverage to warrant a seperate article on Bill Denbrough. Redirect is the best solution.4meter4 (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rorshacma and 4meter4. Daask (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Americana has published a good journal article that can be attributed to the It characters: [24]. It's Plot in Part I/Part II, but the intro/conclusion are analysis.
Stronger subjects of analysis and what they represent are Eddie, Bill, Mike (no wiki article, though), and Audra (no wiki article again); while discussion is weaker for Richie, Ben, and Beverly, but all do come together as representations of Baby Boomers.
Putting it out for consideration as a source to establish notability.
These have potential, but I don't have access [25] [26]. -2pou (talk) 23:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these sources may be substantial, but without getting access to them it's impossible to say for certain. I do agree that the first journal article provides some unique analysis of the character outside of the traditional text. Unfortunately, unless we can actually see all the journals (or if another editor with access can vouch that the material is substantial by WP:AGF), then the decision to redirect is really the best one.4meter4 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems everyone above arguing for deletion has failed WP:BEFORE. Numerous sources discussing directly in detail. In "Kyle Christensen & Scarlett L. Hester (2019): The horrors of white male innocence in IT (2017), Critical Studies in Media Communication, DOI:10.1080/15295036.2019.1662071" the authors devote several paragraphs totalling around 1000 words discussing the character in detail. Other sources for example discuss the Bill Denbrough character as an author stand-in e.g ([27], [28], and [29]), and this is also discussed in numerous contemporary newspaper reviews of It (novel). Plenty of other sources found by using Google Scholar or similar resources.----Pontificalibus 11:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Updating to Keep per above new findings. Thanks @Pontificalibus: Concur with WP:NEXIST arguments. The sources need to exist, not necessarily be present in the article. Incorporating them into the article can help, but that just goes to show that the article needs improvement not deletion. -2pou (talk) 15:12, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist per request at Special:diff/919590895
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BEFORE reveals sources WP:NEXIST. Pontificalibus found a few. WP:ATD Wm335td (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to It (novel). No indications of any non-passing, non-trivial coverage beyond WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES sentiment. I have reviewed the scholarly work [30], but the character does not to be discussed outside few sentences in passing; ditto for the books (through I could only access 1 out of 3, the others report as copyright blanks to me). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 18 October 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 Autobots. Tone 08:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skydive (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the versions was a Decepticon. I can't tell how notable it is though. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. I know about the Decepticon, but most Skydives were Autobots, so this target should be a good idea. ミラ P 17:50, 17 October 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. Tone 08:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Windblade[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Probably the most interesting Transformers AfD I bothered looking at... I didn't even know this was a Transformer since it wasn't in the title like most others, but clicking the link to see, I found it was a female transformer. I haven't paid attention to Transformers for probably over 25 years now, but surely that's notable, I thought. Sure enough, it does seem to be notable. A simple Google search revealed a bunch of news back when the character was created covering both the creation, controversy, and praise for the concept.
A USA Today article, one Mary Sue article is already linked and then here is a review from them, there was a Comics Alliance article/interview because of the creation, and there are at least 27 critics that have written about the comic (thanks, Comic Book Roundup). That's already two or more GNG sources equating to multiple, so I'm not going to look any further.
Notability is not in question. The article should be improved not deleted. WP:NEXIST in the WP Notability test says that the sources only need to exist, not be present in the article. Incorporating them will strengthen the article, but that can be done over time. -2pou (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Transformers: Windblade. It's better to put the character in context of the actually notable work rather than have a standalone, fancrufty article on her. All the mentioned sources are arguably about the actual comic book in question._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After further looking at the term, I think that the name should also be made a disambiguation, rather than a redirect, due to the existence of Wind Blade._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, surprisingly enough, largely due to the pretty extensive write-ups the character received in USA Today and The Mary Sue. However, the article does need to be pretty much re-written entirely, to actually be about the notable aspects of the character that were covered in reliable secondary sources (the circumstances of her creation, the fan backlash, etc.) rather than the current mountain of un-sourced plot summary and toy catalog information. I actually do agree with Zxcvbnm's suggestion for a merger with the article on the comics, however I think it should be done in reverse - the comics' article should be redirected here. From what I can gather, there were actually a couple different comics with the same name, and it would make more sense, to me, to briefly cover them all in the overall article on the starring character, rather than vice verse. A hatnote can be added to this page to help direct readers looking for information on the Wind Blade. Rorshacma (talk) 18:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Windblade, and merge The Transformers: Windblade into it (maybe just redirect, considering how bare bones it is). There's coverage to support a good article, and the character encompasses the comic series. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to discuss any possible mergers
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite. Notable. Lightburst (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Needs some work but is notable. Alex-h (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep / merge with The Transformers: Windblade. USAT article is not bad. Mary Sue is good except it is a niche outlet, not much better than a blog. I think that's borderline, but merger with The Transformers: Windblade miniseries may be the best idea. Right now the character looks more notable than the series (review links, anyone?). One more source for WB: [31]; kotaku.com is a relatively major sf news site, so it's a decent source. That's probably enough to push it into the few notable transformers that can survive the current articlecide in this area :) PS. But the article needs a major writeup, remove most fancruft, add section on reception... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Should be rewritten, subject is notable. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 15:24, 18 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Ahmed Malik[edit]

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

No notability at all as a scientist, and none yet as a philosopher. His papers in either field are almost uncited. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shoaib Ahmed Malik is becoming well known now. One of his articles have been publishded in the famous 'Muslim 500'. So I think this page should be kept at Wikipedia. The revealer (talk) 14:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 06:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I point out that the item in Muslim 500 is an article by him, not an article about him. DGG ( talk ) 15:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete few academics are notable less than 5 years after they get their PhD, and he seems to be no exception to this general truth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Negligible citation counts on Google scholar suggest that it is WP:TOOSOON for academic notability for his scientific work. And his work in theology is described by the article as also very preliminary: "currently preparing for a PhD" and "due to be published in 2021" looks like WP:CRYSTAL to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He is preparing for Ph.D in religious studies but already has a Ph.D in Chemical Engineering. The revealer (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 15:28, 18 October 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. Tone 08:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sathya Sai Super Speciality Hospital[edit]

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

An unapologetic promotionally written piece, possible created and or maintained by a COI and/or Paid editor who apparently returned after a four year hatius as soon as the csd-spam template was added to contest the deletion on the talk page on humanitarian grounds. Listing for community input, and preemptively conceding that AFD is not cleanup but let's be honest: four years of the cleanup templates and they elicit no action, but the deletion template gets a response? Its pretty clear that it'll be deletion of the status quo, so lets do take that into account here. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete And yes, seriously this garbage was on wiki for four years? — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 - Unadulterated spam, per my original tagging; part of the Sai-Baba-walled-garden, that was subject to 2 Arbitration cases, in the wild west days of Wikipedia. FWIW, I spot no minimally significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources except in Leder, Drew (2016). "Rethinking Clinical Practice: Toward a More Materialistic Medicine". The Distressed Body: Rethinking Illness, Imprisonment, and Healing. University of Chicago Press. pp. 78, 79. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226396248.003.0006. ISBN 9780226396071.; the subject thus fails WP:GEOFEAT. ∯WBG^converse 04:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sathya Sai Baba Super Specialty Hospital

Keep, because the hospital+ seems obviously significant/substantial/notable. See the pic here. The buildings and architect and so on are worth noting. Sorry to the well-meaning editors here about all the promo that needs to be stripped down. But, wp:TNTTNT essay, to which I contributed, gives multiple reasons why we should not delete an article on an obviously notable topic, just for it to be created again without the baggage, although wp:TNT argument is attractive. --Doncram (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wot the actual fuck? Where are the sources? ∯WBG^converse 11:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:INDIA member here. This article is about 2 hospitals. The article needs significant cleanup, but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. --DBig Xrayᗙ 07:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, I am a member of WP:INDIA as well but over here, we need sources ..... And how did you add one hospital?! ∯WBG^converse 11:29, 18 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enso OS[edit]

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

not notable, linuxinsider.com & medium.com are not enough and reliable, the medium.com cite a blogspot.com web-log as the source! and linuxinsider.com covers all Linux news. Editor-1 (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 04:21, 12 October 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. Tone 08:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Siamak Taghaddos[edit]

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

Co-founder of some non-notable companies. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by general notability guideline and no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 04:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill investor investing in run of the mill companies, with run of the mill connections between the two. The page verges on spam for his investments. Bearian (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable businessman. Company acquired by a Citrix Systems a public company for $173 million. Founder of a U.S. national day recocognized by President Barack Obama. Request Wikipedia:Cleanup instead to remove any spam-like content. 303Cadogan (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — 303Cadogan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]
Keep. I concurr with User: 303Cadagon that he is a noteworthy businessman. The Wikipedia article does have citations from very reliable and well known sources which provide more than passing mentions such a the Boston Globe, Forbes and Inc. Magazine.[32] [33][34] On top of this he is mentioned by CBS News and USA Today.[35][36] And User: Cadagon mentioned the company was bought by a Citrix Systems a public company for $173 million. The founding of a national day recognized by President Obama appears to be noteworthy too but I would have to know more about how many national days there are already (my initial research appears to show there are about 1,200 national days[37], but I am guessing few of those have been recognized by a US president). For me, the icing on the cake is that he was fairly recently considered one of the most 30 influential entrepeneurs and the list included other noteable entrepreneurs.[38].Knox490 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Knox490: There's no automatic inherited notability. Sources used to establish notability under WP:GNG need to be independent, reliable, and in-depth; of the sources you mentioned above and those available in the article, all are passing mentions. The Forbes piece is from a contributor, which would not normally be considered independent or reliable as per WP:RSP. Under30CEO doesn't have a proper editorial structure hence failing WP:RS and co-founding a non-notable national day does not grant notability so, do you mind reconsidering your !vote? Thank you GSS ^💬 03:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: User: GSS, thanks for making a good point about inherited notability in relation to a part of my argument. I will not make that mistake again. As far as general notability of this person, unfortunately Wikipedia has poorly defined standards of notability such as "substantial" coverage by "reliable" sources. If Wikipedia clarified what "substantial" meant, AfD discussions would be more harmonious. As far as "reliable" sources, unfortunately news organizations aren't what they used to be and that is why trust in mainstream media has plunged amongst the public.Knox490 (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that this individual is not-notable may be a case of too soon, or may be a case of one of thousands of companies that have a moment in time where they are successful to the point of getting some coverage, but not lasting coverage.VViking_TalkEdits 13:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable businessmen. There is nothing here to prove notability, WP:TOSOON for now. FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 15:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've identified three major sources that discuss Siamak Taghaddos, including CBS News [39], USA Today [40], and Inc. [41] (see WP:THREE). Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmbaker88: Are you kidding? None of these sources independently talk about the subject and give no depth.

#8 Mentioned his name twice in passing - avid Hauser and Siamak Taghaddos are two of the smartest young entrepreneurs I know. and My partner, Siamak Taghaddos, and I worked for six years..

#9 mentioned his name one in passing - So three years in, Grasshopper's founders, David Hauser and Siamak Taghaddos, shut down the formal program.

#10 again provides nothing, but only - Siamak Taghaddos, 29; David Hauser, 29 Boston Provides virtual phone systems to small businesses.

So, can you please explain how these sources discuss Siamak Taghaddos? Take a look at WP:GNG, if you can't understand then refresh your page and read again and again until you understand what are the requirements. Also, looking at your voting history you appear to have a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies and FYI WP:THREE is an essay, not policy nor guideline. GSS ^💬 07:57, 19 October 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jinmi Abduls[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources in the article and on Google doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. As a matter of fact, majority of the sources in the article are press releases about his music. None of the subject's singles have been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So I did some search to see that he clearly fails WP:NMUSIC, the references I got online are information on his songs, wasn't talking about him. I saw a video interview with NDani, whatever is there can's be independent. Cable interview is the only source that can make a claim in contributing to GNG, albeit weak. The manner at which he fails NMUSICIAN, I don't think a weak GNG should be considered. HandsomeBoy (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources contained in the article about Jinmi Abduls are not major publications, e.g. The Native Magazine [42], Nigerian Sounds [43], etc. On a personal note, this is unfortunate because the music produced by the artist seems to be well done and well produced. [44] Perhaps more sources will be released in the coming years and this article can be recreated then. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:30, 19 October 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. Michig (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Boyz Don't Scream[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this film per WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 00:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find anything either, apart from the occasional listing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Sionk (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no reliable sources reviews listed at IMDb external reviews, and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This movie title does not meet the requirements provided at WP:MOVIE or WP:GNG in general. Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:31, 19 October 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.