Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 October	6 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Bevelander[edit]

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

I can't find much about this professor that would serve to satisfy WP:NPROF, except that he seems reasonably highly cited. What I can't determine is whether these cite numbers (a dozen in the space between 50 and 100) add up to "significant impact on discipline" in Political Science/Sociology. I know that in plenty of disciplines they wouldn't. So, input please; will be happy to withdraw if this is considered a Big Gun. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All right, consensus seems pretty clear that these cite numbers are sufficient. I'm going to withdraw. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:23, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:Prof on basis of GS citations. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: worldcat identities page [1] suggest that subject likely meets WP:AUTHOR. I'm willing to give this page the benefit of the doubt, as a later career academic and multiple books published by uni presses. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Borderline. Citations for co-authored papers are in the range of 50-100, but there are quite a few. Several books. Leaning keep, through mostly because I think we need to be more inclusive for academics. If we were to look at our criteria strictly, pretty borderline. But if we were to compare academics to sportpeople, a senior academic like him is way up there in notability - since we are so inclusive in sports, if we were as inclusive in academia, we would probably have entries for grad students...--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Piotrus: Sounds like a discussion for changing WP:NPROF rather than for its interpretation for this particular article. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @MarkH21: Unfortunately such discussions don't go anywhere, at least so far, so I think the other way, i.e. summarizing deletions outcome, might be better. Hence, my vote here. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Citation figures sound like this passes WP:NPROF. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. /Julle (talk) 01:59, 9 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) 01:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllHome[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable furniture company; de-prodded by author. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. See also: WP:LISTED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:05, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable company. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand on this comment - I just spent a bit of time looking for sources. I found a lot of short articles about its stock market listing, but almost nothing about the company itself. From the very brief mentions in the articles I found, I learn that its a chain of home improvement stores, mostly in Manilla - and that's it. I didn't see anything that seemed to approach the criteria at WP:CORPDEPTH, so I'm convinced this is a delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:04, 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K12Planet[edit]

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

Defunct and unreferenced Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the previous afd was interesting; Back in the days, simply saying "people use it" was a legit keep rational. Unfortunately, this fails WP:GNG; Aside from passing mentions, there is little coverage of this website. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 15:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and lacks third party sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:04, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan McMurray[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Deproded by creator. BlameRuiner (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks notability. Barca (talk) 01:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - playing in top tier of Northern Ireland Football League is not enough to satisfy notability requirements as it is not a fully-professional league. Dunarc (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NFOOTBALL. Wm335td (talk) 17:13, 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. czar 20:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DISQO[edit]

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

No independent references. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to have vanished without trace. Mccapra (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have any independent references, and doesn't seem to exist anymore. Hei314 (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and the main website is out of business. --Wario-Man (talk) 17:55, 11 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 merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blacque Jacque Shellacque[edit]

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

Obscure Looney Tunes character; article was initially redirected due to notability & sourcing concerns, however the character was also removed from the target article (List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters) for the same reason, so a redirect is confusing and offers no benefit to the reader. If notability and unsourced original research are the issues, I'm inclined to think that we should just delete instead.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

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

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

– PC78 (talk) 05:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page should remain because the character was revived in both The Looney Tunes Show and New Looney Tunes, and thus has modern relevance. James Gordon (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless sources are found. I could maybe see Rocky and Mugsy having some kind of potential, but that's based on absolutely nothing but my initial thought seeing their names. TTN (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete all per TTN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters per WP:HEY. I found two references which analyze the character in two different ways, one in terms of playing into the evil foreigner with facial hair trope, and another looking at morality tales as told to children (in this case the evils of being a thief). I also found that the character inspired a type of poker/blackjack hybrid game that has been published in a poker game book. This may not be enough for WP:SIGCOV on its own (others should comment), but it would fit nicely into the list article which needs referencing and expansion. If kept, unsourced material should be weeded out. I request that the nominator either close as merge, or re-list so others can have time to look at what I added to the article. @TTN: and @Erpert: please comment again, as the article has changed with added referencing and is no longer completely lacking sources.4meter4 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Now, I would !vote merge Rocky and Mugsy to List of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies characters per 4meter4 but still delete the rest. The sources in Blacque Jacque Shellacque are either brief mentions about him or don't mention him at all; and as for Count Blood Count, well, aside from being a very, very minor character, the article has no sources and its tone is, frankly, laughable. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 18:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um... all of the sources in the article do mention Blacque Jacque Shellacque. I just researched them and added them. I didn't think it was really enough to warrant it's own article either, but it's certainly enough to be included in a list.4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More than brief mentions? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 13:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say they offer brief analysis, but are really not that substantial. Enough to warrant a merge to the list, but not necessarily an article. I'm still hoping to dig offline for references. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow an opportunity to evaluate the recently added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per 4meter4. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge per the above and the cursory glances done so far, I'd say. Might have some notability, but not standalone notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 13:25, 11 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of federal subjects of Russia by GDP per capita[edit]

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

This article is all original research, according to Wikipedia policy. All information in the article is created according to WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. RobertGraves (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of articles like this exist Category:Gross state product, they are encyclopedic. The World Bank is a reliable source for information. Dream Focus 16:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and please close it immediately as this is an invalid application of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We also have similar articles for many other countries such like the United States, China, Germany, Switzerland, etc. They synthesise information to produce something of encyclopedic interest in a similar way as the list of lakes by area does.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:06, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. No reason to delete, but can someone please explain why the GDP per capita is compared with other countries? Does this add anything? I believe it should be removed. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: The comparison seems to appear in the lists for European countries but not in those for non-European ones, which might be a result of the application of some manual of style to Europe-related articles. Anyway, the column is not misleading and illustratively explains where a region stands compared to other countries.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the comparisons are particularly helpful, especially for the smaller regions, whose numbers are inflated by fossil fuel and mining industries and very low population density. An export-heavy monopolised industry generating big profits for out-of-state investors in a region with low wages, low property prices and low costs of living is hardly comparable to an affluent sovereign country with a balanced economy and low relative poverty. Daß Wölf 20:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Where these data for federal subjects of Russia came from? I do not see them in sources currently cited on the page. Note that the page was created by an indefinitely blocked contributor. These data look like an outright disinformation. For example, Chechnya receives huge amounts of federal money. Are they counted here? Probably not. My very best wishes (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RS & WP:NEXIST Wm335td (talk) 16:57, 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. czar 20:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nemanja Cavnić[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Deproded by creator on the grounds that subject played 1 game for Zeta in UEL. --BlameRuiner (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He has not played in a fully professional league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you, or nom. BlameRuiner, checked for Montenegrin sources Sir Sputnik? I've been unable to locate a reliable name translation. Just wanting to double-check, as we can't deny GNG if we haven't looked there. R96Skinner (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the article. I wasn't aware of the above-mentioned notability criteria; I just assumed Cavnić was notable enough, but I agree he seems not to be. What would it usually take for a footballer to meet WP:GNG? --Stempelquist (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG Wm335td (talk) 16:58, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mugen Rao[edit]

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

Non-notable. Previously claimed (obviously untrue) to be the lead in Gerak Khas and I suspect that "supporting" is also very much overstating the case. At most this would merit a redirect to a list of reality show contestants like we do for other reality show contestants, if we have such a list. Obvious promo. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, promotional biography. -- Begoon 18:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable artist. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 21:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems to be created for promoting the subject as the latter is currently taking part in a reality TV show Bigg Boss Tamil 3. Abishe (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, concur with nom and Abishe, this is being promoted by fans of a reality television show, who are under the misguided impression that appearing on Bigg Boss Tamil somehow makes the contestants automatically notable, this should be treated no differently than the AfD for Tharshan Thiyagarajah. Dan arndt (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasons. The promotional smell is strong with this one. Ravensfire (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and a similar afd to Afd on Tharshan. Beastranger (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per reasons above. Barca (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SNOW Wm335td (talk) 16:59, 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. RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Riaz[edit]

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

Nothing to show this person is notable. They are a contestant on a reality show, and that's about it. At most, redirect to the show's article. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable, promotional. --Wakowako (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see any evidence of notability. 15:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete,No sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 10:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same. Hughesdarren (talk) 09:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and close per nom. Meeanaya (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's rationale. Not meeting WP:GNG, WP:PROMOTIONAL. Wm335td (talk) 17:01, 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. czar 20:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myra Amiti[edit]

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

Notability not demonstrated. Article says she "recently she is started her career as actress" and as I can see only acted in one short film. Way WP:TOOSOON. Muhandes (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Muhandes (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one short film to her credit as an actress up to now, but she is only 21 so there is plenty of time for her career to develop and qualify for an article in the future, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:43, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis[edit]

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

Despite the passage of time with the template messages on the article, there still seem to be a lack of independent sources to establish the notability of the subject. Bsherr (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bsherr (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reasonably sized firm but that doesn't automatically confer notability. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability but if any turns up, I'm happy to look at them. Until then, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 00:53, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging November 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP participants who are active: Bearian (talk · contribs) and Arxiloxos (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arxiloxos (talk · contribs)'s comment at the November 2011 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP:
They are reasonably large and well-known, especially in Southern California, where the business pages regularly cover the comings and goings of their attorneys and, perhaps more significantly, report on them as one of the more significant firms. I agree that a lot of what comes up in searches is marketing material, but there's also significant independent coverage: for example, a 2009 report on their cuts in associate salaries as setting a trend for the profession[2]; a 2005 report that Anaheim would be hiring them as outside counsel to deal with the NFL[3]; a 1993 report including them as one of the significant SoCal law firms leading a then-popular trend of opening offices in Mexico[4]. There are certainly other law firms out there that have a higher public profile, but I think Allen Matkins gets enough.
Here are more sources I found:
1. Djordjevich, Vera (2006). Vault Guide to the Top Southern California Law Firms, 2007 Edition (2 ed.). New York: Vault.com. pp. 16–20. ISBN 978-1-58131-413-7. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
  According to The Wall Street Journal in this article, "Lawyers looking for the scoop on the nation's biggest law firms now have a place to go. The newest edition of Vault Inc.'s Guide to the Top 100 Law Firms, which hit bookshelves Monday, offers the ins and outs from the perspectives of more than 11,000 associates."
  The book notes:
  Twenty-five years ago, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory operated out of one small office in Los Angeles and another in Orange County. Today, the firm has over 200 lawyers in six offices throughout California. The firm's specialties are real estate and litigation, but it's also well known for its corporate and hospitality work, while the securities, employment, bankruptcy and tax practices are also quite successful. So successful, in fact, that the firm appears on most of California's top lists, including that of the Los Angeles Business Journal (ranking No. 29 out of the top firms in L.A.), the San Diego Business Journal (ranking No. 18 in the San Diego area) and the Daily Journal (ranking No. 23 out of the top 50 firms in California). The firm has even made The National Law Journal's list of the nation's largest law firms, the NLJ 250, where it currently ranks at No. 192 (up from 197 in 2004). Chambers USA recently ranked Allen Matkins the No. 1 real estate law firm in California.
  Name partner Michael Matkins was recently listed among the Best in the West, due in no small part to the L.A. office's representation of a joint venture that acquired nearly 150 acres of land for a housing development in the former Ford Ord, near Monterey, Calif. More than 20 government meetings and an additional 60 community meetings occurred before the deal could be completed. Matkins also represented another joint venture in an unusual public-private partnership to modernize the Los Angeles Air Force Base which, according to news reports, was almost closed due to "significant seismic concerns." Other notable clients on the firm's roster include Catellus Development Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, Sares-Regis Group, Marriott International, Fox Entertainment Group, JPMorgan Chase, Washington Mutual, The Home Depot, IKEA and Exxon-Mobil.
  The book contains perspectives of the firm's associates.
2. Armstrong, Jason W. (2011-02-23). "Riding the real estate roller coaster: an inside look at how Allen Matkins rode the industry's highs and lows and retained its leadership position". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 124 (36). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.
  I do not have access to the article.
3. Randazzo, Sara (2010-11-23). "In cross-complaint, equity fund disparages Allen Matkins' work". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 123 (227). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.
  I do not have access to the article.
4. Dewey, Katrina M. (1990-11-19). "Allen Matkins adapts to market". The Los Angeles Daily Journal. 103 (230). Daily Journal Corporation. ISSN 0362-5575.
  I do not have access to the article.
5. Taylor, Steve (March 2011). "And Three, Two, One, Action: LA Law Firm Showcases Itself with Short, Engaging Videos". Of Counsel. 30 (3). Aspen Publishers: 3–4. ISSN 0730-3815.
  The article notes:
  Let's get back to the positive, and that would be the innovative use of video deployed by Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, a 240-attorney Los Angeles firm that focuses primarily (although not exclusively) on real estate law and business litigation. The partnership has produced several news- broadcast-style short videos that grab the attention of even the most cynical legal- marketing critic. The professionally crafted video news releases offer practical legal tips, interviews with experts, both legal and academic, lively caption and graphics, and are narrated by a former TV news reporter.
  While they promote the firm, they're not about the firm. The VNRs cover topics such as the future of the California commercial real estate market, the nuances of the Dodd-Frank legislation, new regulations that affect business owners, and other such matters.
  ...
  One of the most compelling videos shows Dr. Eileen Nottoli, an Allen Matkins envi-ronmental lawyer, serving a several-week stint as a foster parent for a guide dog for the blind while the Labrador's visually impaired human partner recuperates after surgery. Now, viewers learn primarily about the Lab and the idea of foster-parenting, but they also get more than a glimpse into Allen Matkins's community outreach efforts and well, frankly, its compassionate culture. After all, the dog spends his days with the very likeable Nottoli in the Allen Matkins offices in San Francisco.
  The article contains quotes from Adam Stock, Allen Matkins's chief marketing officer.
Cunard (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I thank Cunard for digging up those sources, but I'd point out to qualify as significant coverage, there has to be at least several independent, reliable, and comprehensive, if not exhaustive, works to establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. I may change my vote, but for now, it's a delete, possibly a soft-ish delete, due its state as WP:CORPSPAM. That's not to say someone can't re-create the article, properly sourced, and which establishes its notability, possibly using offline sources. It'll just have to go through AfC, which isn't a bad thing. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:17, 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. czar 20:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LiveU[edit]

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

Unremarkable company. Does not describe what is notable about it. A web search does not show any sources to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. -Lopifalko (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC) Lopifalko (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim to notability is that it ‘developed and patented the technology for cellular bonding for remote news gathering’. Not sure if that supports a stand alone article though. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Keep. My university library gets over 700 article hits (including journal articles) on this topic. Whether, it's all promotional/tangential or if there is significant coverage would take a tremendous amount of time which I am not willing to invest. That said, my suspicion from the sheer amount of hits is that it is likely going to pass WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of this makes for a compelling argument founded in our guidelines/policies. If you do decide to "invest" some time, let us know what types of references you find. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:29, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - to be kept it would have to explain why "portable live video acquisition solutions" and "cellular bonding" are considered notable. . . Mean as custard (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:27, 10 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. czar 20:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vecino (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only lists one page and is not necessary. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has 4 entries now that were found in less than 5 minutes of a search. A valid WP:DAB by the surname. We can even add Vecinos entries (since "vecino" means a neighbor, and "vecinos" means neighbors) like Vecinos (which possibly needs to move to Vecinos (Mexican TV series) in my opinion), Vecinos (Colombian TV series), Vecinos, Salamanca, and Ramón Vecinos. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I'm going to rename it Vecino (surname). (Or does that count as a deletion and the creation of a new page?) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've also created Vecinos (disambiguation). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that is very good! KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SKCRIT apparent Nomination withdrawn. And improved page. Wm335td (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after WP:HEY or rather addition of 4 entries now a valid WP:DAB.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:52, 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. Invoking WP:NOTAVOTE here. The weight of WP:PAG based argument and analysis of sources seems to come down in favor of deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue–green alliance[edit]

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

This listicle is completely unsourced and fails WP:LISTN, as it consists of a bunch of unconnected examples of alliances between political parties of varying ideologies or single parties with a certain ideology. Blue-green as an overarching descriptor for a list is useless, since colors aren't consistently applied based on ideology. The lead itself mentions this, stating that blue could be either conservative or liberal or even a non-political organization (i.e. labor unions), or that blue-green could even be a description of a single party's ideology. Most of the entries in the list aren't actually described as "blue-green" in the media, some are described using other colors, and several entries are "blue-green" but have nothing to do with Green politics per se. I suppose an article could be constructed about conservative-green alliances or coalitions, or about conservative-Green parties, but I don't think that "blue-green" is where either of those should stand in an international context, and I don't believe that the current content - or lack of content - of this listicle is where either should start. ansh.666 18:33, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Green conservatism which is much the same topic. Andrew D. (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, a coalition of a green party and a conservative party is not green conservatism. These examples tend to be more for convenience of forming a majority coalition rather than an ideological relationship. This is largely OR to lump these diverse international variations together in a single list without any sources presented discussing the topic of "blue-green" as a set. Reywas92^Talk 00:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's poorly written and lacking sourcing, but the topic itself is notable and easily sourced. My university library contains 452 published sources that discuss the topic, including 60 peer reviewed journal articles. Ask me if you need examples, but there are so many it's unlikely WP:BEFORE was followed by the nominator.4meter4 (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Err, yes, we are definitely going to need examples. ansh.666 21:38, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to nicely format them. Look at User:4meter4/sandbox for a copy paste of all 60 peer review journal articles from my library search.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This list indicates that the term is used, but to describe different coalitions. A green-labor coalition and green capitalism are not the same thing, and any article that tries to unite them is misplaced. There might be a place for an article on green-labor, and we already have an article on green conservatism, but combining them leaves nothing coherent, other than that green form coalitions, for which using the 'blue' color designator just confuses things due to the inconsistent color usage internationally (in other words, you could just as well describe the two as red-green alliances, depending on what country you were talking about). Agricolae (talk) 15:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: The vast majority of the results in your sandbox (as well as my searches before nominating this article) refer to the BlueGreen Alliance, a U.S. organization which, in their own words, "unites America’s largest labor unions and its most influential environmental organizations". It has nothing to do with green conservatism or political coalitions. Please read the results you find next time. ansh.666 18:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR. I don't see anything here that suggests this is a unified phenomenon, rather than just an obvious consequence of color-labeling of political parties. If you assign colors to parties, at some point, particularly in multi-party political environments where coalitions are common, the 'blue' party and the 'green' party are bound to end up together at some point, but the individual instances do not represent some broader pattern as appears to be portrayed here. This is highlighted by the fact that what political ideology is represented by 'blue' is polar opposite in different political traditions, so it doesn't even reflect the same kind of union. I don't doubt that one can document 'green' parties forming coalitions with 'blue' parties, but using the superficiality of color-labeling traditions to portray US labor-environmental coalitions as a flavour of the same phenomenon as 'green conservatism' obscures rather than illuminates, and I doubt there are any references that do this. Maybe a disambiguation page with links to the different coalitions that have been referred to as a 'blue-green alliance', but not an article that tries to unify them all. Agricolae (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguate into Green conservatism, Green capitalism, and other such movements; delete entries for individual groups except those that actually have this as the title (such as the BlueGreen Alliance, should it pass WP:N). This is obviously a viable search term and shouldn't be left red-linked, but having a full blown article here is content forking of not particularly connected topics (seeing as "blue" has no established worldwide political meaning). Daß Wölf 20:00, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as almost totally unsourced WP:OR. I'm not finding any significant usage of the term in WP:INDEPENDENT sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 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 redirect to Hello! Project w/o prejudice to some selective merging from the page history. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Project Kids[edit]

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

Discussed on Talk:Hello! Project#Merger proposal: group was created as a project/pre-debut group where individuals appeared as back-up dancers or in television/film roles (but not credited as a group). No music releases as a group aside from being featured artists in one collaboration single and eventually debuted in Berryz Kobo and Cute (Japanese idol group). Information would be more appropriate on individual articles or as pre-debut information in Berryz Kobo and Cute especially since they did not release anything or were notable under the Hello! Project Kids name. lullabying (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Lullabying: what policy based rationale are you using to justify deletion? I can't read Japanese, but if they pass WP:SIGCOV, it's likely they pass WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. In your other nomination at another article you admitted that there were enough articles in Japanese to pass WP:SIGCOV. If that is the case here as well, I suggest you withdraw your nomination. If a group has a charting single, chances are they are going to have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. However, if they were not the main subject of the cited sources you can argue that they don't meet WP:SIGCOV and that would justify deletion. You really needed to give policy reasoning, especially since most commenters can read Japanese and we are relying on your evaluation of the sources in good faith. 4meter4 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: No charting singles were released under their name, hence failing WP:NMUSIC. This was a project group, but any charting singles/significant works were released under individual names or as other groups. lullabying (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lullabying: That's a good rationale for an argument against meeting WP:NMUSIC, but it doesn't necessarily mean they fail WP:GNG if they meet WP:SIGCOV. Was the project itself the subject of three or more independent sources (i.e. non-trivial coverage)?4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - @4meter4: All sources listed on the page are primary with the exception of Zakzak. lullabying (talk) 20:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and selective merge to Hello! Project. Given that I don't speak Japanese and User:Lullabying does, I am assuming in good faith that there are not enough sources to pass WP:SIGCOV per Lullabying's comments. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC. A selective merge of some basic information could be moved to the parent article at Hello! Project. 4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:28, 5 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Kaspbrak[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. Fails WP:GNG. While there is coverage of the character, it is all in-universe. Zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:51, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with It. Apparently WP:NCHAR is unfortunately dormant and doesn't contain a lot of info so it's hard to judge under what parameters a fictional character should have its own article, but seeing as he's only appeared in a single work (plus the movie versions), I don't see the need.110.165.185.203 (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A fictional character should be judged by WP:GNG with sources that discuss the author's use of the character objectively. On your second point, he hasn't appeared in just a single work - according to this source the character appeared in The Bird and the Album and Dreamcatcher, and according to this source appeared in Misery.--Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems like improper weight is being placed on the sources currently in the article. They do not establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of sourcing in an article is not a reason to delete. Notability is based on the existence of sources.----Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources e.g. "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women", "The Dark Descent: Essays Defining Stephen King's Horrorscape", "Landscape of fear: Stephen King's American Gothic".----Pontificalibus 06:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Move to Draft. Updated to keep below~~
Another 7 days from creation and the article is nominated for deletion without offers/suggestions on how to improve the article. ~~Perhaps in the draftspace some of what Pontificalibus found can be incorporated, along with other potential sources that might take more than a week to get from a library and contribute.~~ I see no reason why a deletion is the answer on something so new until it's clear no one is attempting to improve it. -2pou (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Americana has published a good journal article that can be attributed to the It characters: [5]. 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 [6] [7]. -2pou (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although 2pou has found one good independent source, the other articles are not able to be used toward verifiability because they are behind a paywall and even 2pou can not vouch that they are substantial. Therefore, still fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If an editor with access is able to confirm they are substantial refs about the character Eddie Kaspbrak (i.e. an original analysis and not a plot summary), I will gladly change my vote.4meter4 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is not in question here - we are examining notability. Per WP:NEXIST it doesn't matter that the sources are not freely available online, we just have to demonstrate the existence of such sources. I have already given three sources above, but here is another one which you should be able to access sufficiently to see that the coverage is significant.----Pontificalibus 06:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm seeing very little but plot regurgitation in the article you just gave as supposed "significant coverage". I don't think it is. This is exactly why saying sources exist is not enough. At least one person (not all editors, since it is behind a pay wall) needs to actually look at it to determmine that it has some real analysis beyond plot regurgitation. That can be assumed in good faith. But if an offline source is not actually being seen by anyone, than it really can't be counted in good faith. "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women" for example doesn't even cover the work from which this character is from. Deletion is still the best option, as this collective group has only actually been able to read one good source.4meter4 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to disregard that one source, fine, but as I said above, "Imagining the Worst: Stephen King and the Representation of Women" does cover the subject in detail, for example pages 131-132 go into detail about Eddie's relationship with his mother, and how the It monster symbolizes to Eddie his mother's relationship with him. This is clearly detailed analysis sufficient to pass WP:GNG. Likewise "The Dark Descent: Essays Defining Stephen King's Horrorscape" contains two pages of analysis, 150-151, which discuss how the author uses the character of Eddie to associate some of the major themes of the novel; sexuality and the link between obesity & death. It seems that the sources given by 2pou above contain similar if not more extensive coverage of the subject. There are really no grounds to delete this on the basis of notability or lack of sources. ----Pontificalibus 06:21, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed something when looking at that particular source, 4meter4. It is listed in the works covered (third from last) in the summary. I'm guessing an easy miss since it's only 2 characters, but a search will show a few instances of "Eddie" or "Eddie Kaspbrak" clearly attributed to the It character. (Can't get a ton of context, but the 3 viewable page snippets appear to be somewhat significant.) -2pou (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm satisfied that The Dark Descent has significant coverage as well based on the context I could read, making multiple GNG sources being evaluated as acceptable on this discussion. Plus I believe Pontificalibus's summary of Imagining the Worst coverage. -2pou (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to It (novel). All coverage of the character are in the context of his only appearance and does not have notability outside the book or requiring a separate article, the WP:PLOT material being redundant. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:SIGCOVand the article has WP:RSs. Pontificalibus also found sources, clearly WP:NEXIST. Wm335td (talk) 17:07, 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. Only one of the "keep" opinions actually discusses the sources. Sandstein 07:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Men-O-Lan[edit]

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

Promotional and non-notable summer camp. All sources found are primary, self published, or a directory. The article is also written by a user with no edits outside of this camp/images; This is an indication of a web-host violation. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In searching, I found some non-trivial coverage. See here in Google Books: Brenda Phelan (2011). East and West Rockhill Townships. Arcadia Publishing. pp. 57 and 64. The camp was also the main subject of an article in the magazine Mennonite Life, "Camp Men-O-Lan". Mennonite Life. 10–11. Bethel College: 123–124. 1955..4meter4 (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions are different from sourcing notability. The East and West Rockhill Townships are directory listings of various attractions. The camp exists, but is not notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The mention in the google books link only shows 4 pictures + a paltry amount of text. From what I can glance of the Mennonite Life reference [8], the camp does not seem to be the main subject of the article (and saying it is seems like a misrepresentation). 110.165.185.203 (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found sources as well. It should be better referenced and copyedited. --evrik ^(talk) 17:48, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are entirely primary, Macaroni kid does not link to any notable text and is a SPS, and CCCA is just a directory. None of the sources are notable and per the WP:GNG, this does not warrant an article. AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you found sources, share them.2001:240:2409:D0C1:C101:A261:F9E:3773 (talk) 09:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the sources added by evrik?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP article should be improved and WP:PRESERVE Wm335td (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTCLEANUP presupposes the notability of the subject, which is not the case here. You can't fix notability. It's either there, or it isn't. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree with Wm335td --evrik ^(talk) 03:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sufficient coverage to ring the the WP:N bell. It has been asserted above that sources exist. But none listed in this discussion or that I could find in my own search come close to meeting GNG. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing sourcing sufficient to meet WP:ORG. Possibly Redirect to General Conference Mennonite Church, if a mention of it is added there. Speaking of which, if someone wants a cleanup project, the latter look to have a ton of detail based mainly on publications which appear connected to the church... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:30, 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 15:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roots & Wings International[edit]

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

A small non profit organisation that raises small sums and works locally in Guatemala. The refs provided dont demonstrate notability. A search throws up another organisation with a similar name which is religious in nature and operates in Mexico, but they’re not the same. Mccapra (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to comply with notability guidelines; there are no independent sources listed, and outside of the sources provided, I can't find anything about the subject. Luke ^Talk 05:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable as of now. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 05:26, 8 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 withdrawn per WP:HEY. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vittoriosa Stars F.C.[edit]

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

Maybe I'm missing something, but I cannot find any history on this club, or really anything other than fan-created and/or stats pages. Heck, I can't even find verification that caused my PROD to be declined (that they used to be top-flight). Happy to withdraw if reasonable sources show up. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like they competed in the Maltese top division, at least once, way back in 1912–13, per EU-Football, but under the name "Vittoriosa Melita". I believe it's consensus to keep clubs that have played in the top level and/or national cup competition, per WP:FOOTYN#Club notability. Vittoriosa have also appeared in the FA Trophy, Malta's main cup, regularly; e.g. in 2018 here and here, with a future tie coming on 27 October here. They've been around since 1906 ([9], [10]), so certainly a case for there being pre-internet/offline sources out there. R96Skinner (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played in the top flight as recently as 2013–14 Maltese Premier League after being promoted after 2012–13 Maltese First Division. All this information was in earlier versions of this article, which appears to have been excessively pruned over the years. Article needs improving not deleting, as WP:FOOTYN is clearly met (even without the top flight appearances!). Nfitz (talk) 16:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easy keep, will try to source the article a little bit better. SportingFlyer T·C 11:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gave it a good whack. Not the easiest thing in the world to source, especially given I have no knowledge of Maltese, but it's at least a decent stub now. SportingFlyer T·C 12:00, 6 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 15:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Wilson (British politician)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Well, let's test this one out. I don't believe this guy meets WP:POLITICIAN, on the basis of resigning from UKIP prior to the 2015 UK General Election. Apart from the fact he fell-out with UKIP there's very little of substance available about him in non-blog journalistic sources. He's now taking part in a new UK reality TV series, but generally known there as "Tim" whoused to be a monk and likes cats. The recent news about him largely repeats the fact he fell out with UKIP. He's not a notable academic and the animation award he received was minor. Sure, if he wins The Circle, maybe this will change things. He's otherwise likely to fall back into complete obscurity. I can't find anything in-depth to prove he meets WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Is he VERY notable? No. But somehow he's managed to stay in the news for years: 1 2 3 4. Easy pass for WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Brief mentions, all of them, apart from his profile for the reality TV show, which re-hashes the brief mentions. And we don't habitually write articles on everyone who takes part in reality TV. Sionk (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Brief mentions", Uh-huh. Every one of those articles was multiple paragraphs long and primarily about him, and was published in a WP:RS. No. 1 is a BBC article entitled "UKIP candidate quits party over Scottish MEP's 'Abu Hamza' remark" and is 3,193 characters long, all about Tim Wilson. No. 2 is a Lancashire Telegraph/AP story that is 2,866 characters long and again, almost entirely about Tim Wilson. No. 3 is a piece by Euromaidan Press, which qualifies as a WP:NEWSORG, 3,730 characters long and primarily about him. Finally no. 4 is a piece in the Independent 3,051 characters long and is again, entirely about him. That's four instances of significant coverage in four different reliable sources relating to three incidents over the course of four years. Very easy pass for WP:BASIC here. FOARP (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We clearly have widely different definitions. I'd disagree that the UKIP articles are primarily about Wilson, or even say that much about him. They're as much about UKIP, the Scottish MEP and Farage. We learn very little about Wilson. For any other person this would be a ONEEVENT scenario. The Euromaident article has aicture of him, but very little (a paragraph) is about him. I'm surprised the article has survived so long. But I can see the winds of change are against me here. Sionk (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly isn't a WP:1E situation because there are multiple notable instances reported (quitting UKIP, the report on the RT interview incident, appearing on reality TV). Even if it was, WP:1E IS NOT a stand-alone WP:DELREASON, since the standard solution for WP:BLP1E is to merge/redirect to the appropriate article discussing the event, not delete. All four of the above reports are instances of WP:SIGCOV as they "address the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" and are not trivial mentions. If I were you, with this AFD already deep in WP:SNOW territory, I would withdraw the nom, but that's up to you. FOARP (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has recieved decent coverage for a number of reasons, which makes him notable. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This page will be needed as Tim is a major figure in The Circle (British series 2), he has received a lot of attention on social media and users will probably want to know about him. Especially if he is a finalist or even wins the series. I don't believe he is mainly a politician though. JamesVilla44 (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He’s winning The Circle anyways Davidfromfinance (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel like this man is about to become a serious figure given his popularity in The Circle - but he's no longer just a Politician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurugby54 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 7 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 15:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karn Evil 9[edit]

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

Song article based on blogs, non-independent sources, and a couple of listicles (plus the usual original research and speculation). Could reasonably be a redirect to the album, but an editor attempted that and was reverted. RL0919 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just the first page of a Google Books search shows multiple books which devote more than a paragraph to this song: The Routledge History of Social Protest in Popular Music, Rocking the Classics: English Progressive Rock and the Counterculture, Mountains Come Out of the Sky: The Illustrated History of Prog Rock, Listening to the Future: The Time of Progressive Rock, 1968-1978. Plus it has significant coverage from websites like allmusic (which has a separate article for each part, e.g., [11], [12], [13], [14]), a few other online sources include this and this. Which is not surprising for a touchstone of prog rock. The current article may need better sourcing, but that sourcing exists. Rlendog (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course if we choose not to keep the article we should redirect to the album, especially given that most album reviews devote a significant portion of the content to this song, and since it is a likely search term. Rlendog (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See WP:NEXIST. The previous voter easily found many reliable sources for this well-known song. The article needs better references, not deletion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rlendog. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per Rlendog. De Guerre (talk) 06:32, 9 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. I am ignoring the Keep comments as they are almost certainly all sock puppets. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Giardelli[edit]

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

Youth driver only competing in lower classes. On the Dutch Wikipedia a sockpuppet investigation is initiated towards the main accounts writing here. Looks like promotion. The Banner talk 10:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT, hasn't even made it to cars yet. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 13:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I think the article should remain because in any case we talk about a professional driver who took part in the Karting world championship and won his national championship and also has already tested cars like f4 and formula renault.Racingdark (Talk) 18:47, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Just testing? The Banner talk 17:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

not not of the normal tests but the official tests of the championship plus they made them with the team press one of the most important teams in the field of the single-seaters where they raced drivers for example Charles Leclerc, in addition to this with the karts in course the world championship in the maximum KZ1 category, winning a race and competing both with the CRG official team and with the official Tony Kart team, who are the reference teams for world karting, so I think we can recognize that the driver in question is a professonist to all effects.Racingdark (Talk) 19:33 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you prove that with independent, reliable sources? The Banner talk 17:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily prove it with sources with the utmost transparency and reliability, some of these are already in the reference section of the page, they have all been published by very renowned and important motorsport sources. Racingdark (Talk) 20:10 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria of WP:NMOTORSPORT. PohranicniStraze (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep how can you say that it does not meet the criteria? I think it's an insult to a sport like karting, how can a driver who took part in the KZ1category at the world championships and win a race and win the Italian championship, and participate in the official tests with the formula 4 with a team like Prema Powerteam does not fit the Wikipedia criteria? Cavalier3456 (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your information.
I have instigated a sockpuppet investigation as I do not think all participants in this article are genuine. You can see the investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Toprace2345. The Banner talk 21:33, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Cavalier and Racingdark have been blocked, one being a sockpuppet, the other being a possible behavioral meatpuppet. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article for me must remain because in reality it falls under WP: NMOTORSPORT because it has participated in various professional championship with professional teams [15]such as the Karting World Championship in the highest category KZ1 and with the official team Tony Kart [16]and the official team CRG (kart manufacturer) [17]also win a round [18]and win the Italian Open Masters [19]championship the highest level of Italian karting so that we can consider it a professional driver for all the effects and it is not true that he never used a car he did official tests with Formula 4 in official tests whit Formula 4 with the team Prema Powerteam one of the most important teams in the field of single-seaters and he participated to official tests with formula renault apart from the fact that karting can be considered a professional sport [20], so when one reaches them Higher than a sport should be considered encyclopedic.

Jvst1 (talk) 10:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Another especially created account using the same layout errors as Cavalier3456 and Racingdark. The Banner talk 08:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable person failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources focused on the subject rather than a race. Directory entries, brief mentions, race reports. The closest is leccotoday, but it's very brief and says almost nothing about the person. Does not look like any of the WP:NMOTORSPORT exception apply. Also salt due to socks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have anything to do, I'm just an enthusiastic user of karting and motorsports in general, who yesterday entered Wikipedia by chance before I had never registered and by chance I saw this discussion and decided to have my say by doing a research on the pilot in question in addition to this I discovered that the driver in question took part in an professional entire car championship, that is, the Italian Formula 4 championship rejects 2018.[21] Jvst1 (talk) 11:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What an interesting source. This a wiki (not a reliable source) about a racing class in 2018 but last edited in 2017. Sorry, not usable. The Banner talk 09:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Jvst1 is yet another Giardelli's sockpuppet. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I ask that the article remain because it is a professional driver who has competed in the top karting category KZ1 in the world championship by winning a race [[22]] ,and has race with professional teams like Tony Kart and therefore falls under WP: NMOTORSPORT and I also did a search and found many articles about the person in question. F1fansinstagram (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Making more socks won't affect AfD outcome. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't believe that WP:NMOTORSPORT is met and the sources appear to be routine sports reporting. The article 's creator is an SPA--perhaps autobiographical but definitely COI. The sock and meat puppets haven't added anything to make me think this subject is WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am frightened to publish this change, since you are accusing all the profiles and I am not centering anything, but I would like to save the article because it is a professional driver in all effect since he respects WP:NMOTORSPORT because he participated to the go kart world championship and also winning [23] therefore falls within the points seen which is a competition of global interest for Karting and has made several official single-seater tests if you need more articles I enclose someone, [24][25][26][27][28]

Livia1256 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Wikipedia articles are foremost based on WP:GNG -- multiple, reliable, independent, in-depth sources. What we need are sources that talk about the subject in-depth. All these articles fail this -- they talk about an event, a race, or only briefly mention the person and give no details. NMOTORSPORT is not the primary criteria. It explains this: "meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". It's very much possible for a person to win some major race, but have no significant source coverage. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, another fresh registered sockpuppet with the same layout mistakes as all the others. The Banner talk 08:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to personally save the article because, in my opinion, it is also included in WP: GNG because the articles are all complete and talk about the person and are reliable sources and I have seen this too is on stopandgo [29] and this on motorsport. com[30] 2 of the most important pages on motorsport and I also have this important magazine that on page 40-41 [31] tells the driver in question personally.

Felix0908 (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And another freshly made sockpuppet. The Banner talk 10:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I like how the "new guy" always quotes whatever was the last issue mentioned. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCLEANUP article should be improved with existing sources. Meets WP:GNG Wm335td (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What sources are that? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How reliable is an article when the OP needs six sockpuppets/meatpuppets to protect the article? The Banner talk 18:27, 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 keep. Tone 15:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pozareport.si[edit]

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

Non-notable opinion website run by an amateur "investigative journalist". The article itself just includes a pozareport.si reports of affairs, mostly primary sources from pozareport.si itself, obvious promotional article, which looked like this before I cleaned it up, but the author of the article, which is obviously associated with the website, is constantly restoring it. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this subject is a media outlet with national and international notability. Articles about it appear in national and international media.^[1] ^[2] It published articles, which triggered resignations of four government ministers. If a media publishes an article, which triggers a resignation a few days later, it is notable. If it does in four times, it is more than notable. Moreover, based on the article in this media, the editor is being sued in court by the father of First Lady of the United States Melania Trump and the court process is ongoing. This media is very critical of the government and persons politically leaning towards government attempt to kill this Wikipedia page. User:Snowflake91 seems to be one of them. Snowflake91 claims that the editor is an "amateur journalist". The main editor was an editor-in-chief of daily Direkt,^[3] owned by daily Dnevnik,^[4] and before that a chief editor of Bulvar section in Slovenske novice,^[5] at that time the newspaper with the largest circulation in the country.^[6]He published a book Melania Trump: The Inside Story, depicting life of the First Lady of the United States when she still lived in Slovenia.^[7] Over the past 48 hours, User:Snowflake91 attempted to delete more than half of the page several times, calling it crap, stupid, useless, unneeded, promotion, nonsense, yellow journalism, "no value of any kind", etc. I asked User:Snowflake91 to take his frustrations to the talk page and he keeps deleting sections of the page. Please someone warn him. nomos2019 (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That all makes Bojan Požar a notable person, but not his blog, which is a well-known in Slovenia for writting sensationalistic dubious news for clicks. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nemtsova, Anna (2018-08-25). "Melania's Dad, a New American Citizen With a Record in Yugoslavia's Secret Police Files". Retrieved 2019-09-29.
^ https://www.thedailybeast.com/melania-trumps-lawyer-back-home-says-you-better-not-say-she-was-an-escort. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "STA: Tabloid Direkt Parts with Editor Pozar". english.sta.si. Retrieved 2019-10-05.
^ "Bojan Požar dokončno zapustil Direkt". Finance.si (in Slovenian). Retrieved 2019-10-05.
^ "Bojan Požar dokončno zapustil Direkt". Finance.si (in Slovenian). Retrieved 2019-10-05.
^ "Novi podatki v okviru projekta Revidirane prodane naklade tiskanih medijev (RPN)" [New Data Within the Revised Sold Circulation of Printed Media (RPN) Project] (in Slovenian). Slovenian Advertising Chamber. 24 February 2012.
^ "Melania Trump - The Inside Story". www.amazon.com. Retrieved 2019-10-05.

Keep - Two users have been in a continuous dispute over the past few days. It seems that Snowflake91 made intense editing today. Thank you for this edit. The page looks good now. It also shows notability. I googled the subject and both the subject (the website) and the editor are notable enough. Snowflake91, you are correct, the editor is notable enough to have own site on Wikipedia. Until there is no site about him, a paragraph about him can be merged into the Pozareport.si site. Topjur02 (talk) 16:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable news site. Passes WP:GNG. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep I agree that there's some rather weak and coatrack-y claims to notability here - for one, attempted inherited notability from the founder (it don't work that way); for another, for most of the claimed whistleblower/investigative pieces, there's no actual proof that the reporting influenced the eventual outcome, and just reporting on something that's a big deal does not make the reporter notable (otherwise every sensationalist blog would pass muster). However, the court cases got some indisputable press. If it could be shown that the site's reporting has actually been independently acknowledged as driving the public/political outcome, then this would do - otherwise it seems very borderline. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there is a lot of notability in local language but not much in English. Nationally it is a very notable media outlet but not internationally. Clearly passes WP:GNG. AfD may be closed. Easterneurope2019 (talk) 14:37, 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 redirect to Viva Entertainment#Viva-Psicom Publishing. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viva PSICOM[edit]

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

Well, it's Filipino, so there might be non-English sources, but I've got nothing. The article is essientially unsourced, with only a press release, and even then the press release doesn't really support any of the content in the body. Only thing I can find as far as sources goes is two cringy advertorial pieces in the Philippine Star. Could possibly redirect to Viva Entertainment, but that's a big lump if sourceless cruft itself, and it doesn't appear that we currently have a reliable source connecting the two. GMG ^talk 09:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is something about making all publishing companies notably simply to have a quick reference for discussion of reliability of sources (who is the publisher?). But this is just my idea, and that aside, this company fails WP:NORG. A publisher, just like any other company, needs to show they are somehow important. Just publishing some stuff doesn't cut it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viva Entertainment#Viva-Psicom Publishing as valid search term and WP:ATD-R. czar 16:26, 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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tohura Khatun[edit]

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

She fails WP:NFOOTY as she hasn't played in a tier one international match for Bangladesh. HawkAussie (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:44, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every source is WP:ROUTINE and majority is WP:LOCAL, I don't see WP:GNG present at all for this girl individually. Govvy (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below sources found to show notability. Giant Snowman 09:01, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nomination is not correct, as meets WP:NFOOTY, having played for Bangladesh women's national football team in 2019 SAFF Women's Championship according to this, this, and this. Seems to have a lot of media coverage, particularly in Bengali. Article is well referenced. @GiantSnowman:. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz passes WP:NFOOTY has played in the 2019 SAFF Women's Championship for the Bangladesh women's national football team as per this ,this and this have not gone into Bengali Language sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As noted above: International footballer for Bangladesh, so NFOOTY is passed. Young (16) and ongoing career, which has been enough for a keep (e.g. AfD/Tong Le - more out there) even if GNG isn't satisfied - which it arguably is: [32], [33], [34], [35]. More likely out there for those familiar with the Bengali language - which looks, to an ignorant fellow like me, fairly sustained considering the subject's age. R96Skinner (talk) 07:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep. Bangladeshi national women's footballer isn't notable? she multiple international match played. she is player of Bangladesh Women national team. search on google lot of media coverage available, seems to have a lot of media coverage and pass WP:NFOOTY. --Nahal^(T) 10:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely pass WP:NFOOTBALL, since she is a member of National team.-PATH SLOPU 13:34, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep. There's no particular issue with this article. Passes all relevant standards. gidonb (talk) 17:27, 5 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 15:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joswell Valdez[edit]

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

Apparently promotional article. No evidence of notability. WP:BEFORE shows nothing at all except a very few press release reprints. David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 07:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent sources available; the sources provided give only passing mentions. Luke ^Talk 06:16, 7 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. " I presume there is coverage" isn't enough. Sandstein 07:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jembatan Merah Plaza[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Creator Vga1992 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for socking and considering talk page history, was likely an undisclosed paid editor. Previously prodded by User:LibStar, prod removed by User:Eastmain who expanded it (thanks for the effort), notability tag added by User:Epeefleche, and now I think it's time for the trial by fire here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 03:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. William2001^(talk) 03:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Understandably, there is very little on this in English. I did find some comments in Trip Advisor, and many photographs that show this is a multi-level building with many shops that would meet GNG if it were in a major English-speaking country. So I presume there is equivalent coverage in Indonesian sources. MB 03:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. We do need to find them, assuming they exist would led to keeping all sort of spam and otherwise problematic content. Trust me, there are good sources that the moon is made from cheese, I just don't have the time to link them for you... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A google books search got a lot of hits. Many of the books are in foreign languages, so I am not sure whether they count towards meeting WP:SIGCOV. It would be helpful to ping some wikipedians who are bilingual in English and Indonesian if anyone knows any.4meter4 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing the significant coverage here. If someone familiar in the local language is able to point to something specific, I'll gladly reconsider. Neutrality^talk 18:38, 9 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. Sandstein 07:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Tokyo child abuse case[edit]

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

This is a single case, which however terrible, is not of any lasting encyclopedic interest. the claimed notability from the incentive for planned legislation is not supported by the source, which says "The pledge came in response to a series of child abuse cases " (the headline , which is more sensational, is not part of the article, but an editorial comment.--the news account is the text.) DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This case is a terrible event, but it is not within Wikipedia's policy. The case is unfortunately WP:MILL with the legislative being cumulative of multiple cases. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:47, 8 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. Sandstein 07:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Team City of Dearborn[edit]

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

no evidence of any notability at all DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep because I like it~~ Delete per nom. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 21:33, 11 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 merge to OpenDocument. Sandstein 07:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenDocument Foundation[edit]

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

Defunct organisation, and not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with OpenDocument: This organization seems to have been an important part of ODF's past. I've found a few tidbits:
- Foley, Mary Jo (29 October 2007). "ODF infighting could help Microsoft's OOXML". ZDNet. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 23 December 2007.
- LaMonica, Martin (29 October 2007). "Former OpenDocument advocates bolt for W3C standard". CNET. CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 18 April 2012.

I must comment, however, that simple copying and pasting is not the way to go with this merger. The prose of this article is unprofessional and unsuitable for Wikipedia. flowing dreams (talk page) 07:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:11, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with OpenDocument as this defunct organization seems to have generated little press for standalone notability and is a WP:Permastub. I would agree with User:flowing dreams that a simple copy & paste merger would not work. I think some of the prose can just be cut out. I'm not sure the best way to handle the merger, but it could be done via seamlessly integrating one or more references to the organization into the OpenDocument prose or by cutting and rewriting the OpenDocument Foundation prose into a separate section called Defunct foundation (year-->year) or OpenDocument Foundation (year-->year), perhaps? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I was thinking embedding those details in the Standardization section would do fine. Maybe rename the section to History too. It won't be a cut and paste job, I've already done this once for the Diaspora article. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, that makes sense and sounds reasonable. Thanks! Doug Mehus (talk) 13:25, 10 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 15:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Antony[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. The refs are trivial and/or directory or press releases. All the stated parts are very minor and most of the linked pages make no mention of her. A bit part actor with no claims to notability Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NACTOR is not met ☆ Bri (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO well known award or honor. She does not need to the additional notability of notable actress and painter. WP:RS WP:NEXIST Wm335td (talk) 19:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [36] [37] times of india clearly stating that she is an actress and the films she acted are notable enough to pass WP:NACTOR. Theeditorbong (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Passes WP:NACTOR, sources from Times of India reveals notability.--PATH SLOPU 13:37, 5 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. czar 02:32, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Singapore[edit]

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

Article is a stub and has been that way for a long time. References haven't been updated for 7 years and there is a lot of original research (in the lead and in "notable people"). Also, there are no articles for larger expatriate or transient worker communities in Singapore, like the Germans, French, especially the Bangladeshis. There is not much of a case to be made for its notability right now. Tiger7253 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject passes the notability threshold, with journalistic and scholarly sources available. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cordless Larry's excellent comment on this. Additionally, it's not clear why this was renominated after the references shown in the previous AFD. FOARP (talk) 11:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments.--PATH SLOPU 13:38, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least four of the references are reliable. There are plenty of sources available. Poor sourcing is not a reason to delete, but to tag and improve. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 7 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lacta Giurgiu[edit]

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

Not notable.The revenue is equivalent to to 5 million dollars a year, insufficient in a medium sized country., and the refeences do not seem to meet WP:NCORP/ DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well, I'll list just a couple of references that may help establish its notability;

This study from 2016 states that "[W]e will analyze the most important aspects of the evolution of the dairy industry in Romania in the relevant period between 2003-2015, while having in view the Common Agricultural Policy (2014 - 2020). The main producers of dairy products that act on the market are: Albalact (Lactalis), LaDorna, Delaco, Brailact, Covalact, Lactate Natura Târgovişte, Napolact (Friesland), Muller, Carmolact Prod, Lactag, Lacta Giurgiu.";
Why Voiculescu and Chelu are fighting over Lacta Giurgiu - "Businessmen Dan Voiculescu and Catalin Chelu have begun powerful buying sprees on the Bucharest Stock Exchange (BVB) for the shares of Lacta Giurgiu (INEM), one of the few independent dairy producers on a market expected to exceed €2 billion in the coming three years.";
This site states that the company's revenue was 7.5 million dollars, not 5 million;

—capmo (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment above shows only that it is one of the 10 leading ones; were it the leading one in market share, it would in my opinion show notability , tho that is not a formal guideline.

The second implies it's minor--that the overall market is €2 billion, and there are only a few independents left, does not indicate that it or any of the independents ae of major significance

Whether the updated figure is $5 million or $ 7.5 million, it's trivial--especially as the preceding comment showed the overall market is on the order of a billion. That's less than 1% market share. DGG ( talk ) 01:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references (including the ones posted above) meet the criteria for establishing notability. Unless there are some analyst reports that covered this listed company behind paywalls, from what I can find there are no references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing, what about the sources in ro:Lacta Giurgiu? (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:35, 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 merge to List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2010#January. czar 02:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MV Pramoni[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Only seems to have received the inevitable flicker of coverage when hijacked. Madness ^Darkness 20:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some secondary non-news sources. If this is not kept as a separate article about the ship it should be merged with an article about modern-day piracy off the coast of Somalia, maybe List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2010. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of ships attacked by Somali pirates in 2010. There is a small area under the listing of the ship in the January section where the information can go. This isn't notable to have its own stand alone article and would fit in well with the other article. Thanks, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:37, 6 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 merge to Pearson plc. Note that once content is merged, the page history must be kept in some form to preserve attribution rights. czar 02:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pearson in Practice[edit]

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

Not very notable, and rather promotional. Rathfelder (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree this is promotional and a large chunk of it is aWP:TNT case. Pearson plc is a notable company, but I don't think this grouping of companies once owned (apparently fairly briefly) by Pearson passes the bar of WP:NORG. SpinningSpark 23:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible merge to Pearson plc. As the group was sold and then largely closed down according to a Google news search, there is nothing left to promote. TSventon (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Pearson plc.4meter4 (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pearson plc, though may not be a simple copy and paste merge. Some prose likely will need to be cut out and this should be added as a former business(es) section/sub-section. We should also indicate it was a division, not a subsidiary. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above and then Delete this link. This topic was never notable and fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, Agree with that. Consider that essentially my vote above. The ensuing redirect would not be particularly helpful. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:42, 10 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. czar 02:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Myflyright[edit]

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

Another promo article that is nearly indistinguishable from ordinary spam. Google searches for RS turn up almost nothing. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 00:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G11; not seeing anything that isn't written like an ad. ToThAc (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a yellow pages or a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:58, 11 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.

[1] Nemtsova, Anna (2018-08-25). "Melania's Dad, a New American Citizen With a Record in Yugoslavia's Secret Police Files". Retrieved 2019-09-29.

[2] ttps://www.thedailybeast.com/melania-trumps-lawyer-back-home-says-you-better-not-say-she-was-an-escort. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[3] "STA: Tabloid Direkt Parts with Editor Pozar". english.sta.si. Retrieved 2019-10-05.

[4] "Bojan Požar dokončno zapustil Direkt". Finance.si (in Slovenian). Retrieved 2019-10-05.

[5] "Bojan Požar dokončno zapustil Direkt". Finance.si (in Slovenian). Retrieved 2019-10-05.

[6] "Novi podatki v okviru projekta Revidirane prodane naklade tiskanih medijev (RPN)" [New Data Within the Revised Sold Circulation of Printed Media (RPN) Project] (in Slovenian). Slovenian Advertising Chamber. 24 February 2012.

[7] "Melania Trump - The Inside Story". www.amazon.com. Retrieved 2019-10-05.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]