Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 January	18 January >

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 soft delete. Deleting based on it failing notability. WP:REFUND applies if the subject does pass the "test" in the future. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brewery District Pavilion[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines at WP:NBUILDING. Mere existence doesn't prove notability nor does the fact that notable subjects once performed there. A Google news search has zero hits and, since it no longer exist, future notability is unlikely. Ifnord (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep a 4,000-capacity amphitheater that hosted the biggest acts in the music business is definitely notable. Evangp (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBUILD. Buildings are not automatically notable just because famous people have visited them, or because lots of people can fit inside. There is a lack of sources discussing this building itself in detail. The existing source, an article in The Lantern, a student publication with limited local circulation, appears to be promotional. ----Pontificalibus 11:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this lacks evidence of notability. PK T(alk) 23:36, 18 January 2020 (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. Failed multiple notability "tests." Deleting. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Codd[edit]

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

Non-notable local politician. Google search shows no notability and basically unknown outside of his own county. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Article seems to have been created as the subject is running for office, which is not notable in itself. Also suspiciously WP:COI. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the fact that the content is so obviously and overtly promotional, the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. On the latter, the subject has never held national or similar office (only very recently being elected to a local council). On the former, the only coverage of the subject is the run-of-the-mill coverage about his candidacy in the pending general election. The only material coverage is the relatively limited coverage that is already linked in the article. (Much of which, frankly, appears to have been copy/pasted into Wikipedia without consideration to WP:COPYVIO or WP:CLOP guidelines. To the extent that, in honesty, this could likely have been speedy deleted under WP:G11 (as unambiguous promotion) or WP:G12 (as clear copyvio of the few local news pieces upon which it is based).) Guliolopez (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update - While I found it very odd that a new editor would give a barnstar/wikilove to an editor (with whom they had absolutely no overlap and who has been inactive on the project for a decade), I hadn't referred to the author's odd editing patterns or COI concerns (raised by the nominator) in my note above. That the author has since expressed a connection to the subject seems relevant to this thread. Certainly it has cemented my own concerns and recommendation. Which remains a firm "delete". Guliolopez (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing against the subject, just to be clear, but serving on a county council is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article — in Ireland, unfortunately, the only politicians who get a guaranteed pass of WP:NPOL just for the fact of holding political office are actual Teachtaí Dála. For politicians at the local level of office, including county councillors, the notability test is not just the ability to verify that he exists, but the ability to write a really substantial article that reliably sources some genuine context for his political importance, e.g. by demonstrating that he has much more nationalized significance than the norm for county councillors. But the county council's own self-published website about itself, a piece of raw technical verification of election results and a tiny smattering of purely local campaign coverage in the local media is not enough sourcing to do that. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No offense to the subject, but this article is wafer-thin and pure promo in tone and feel.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BASIC.----Pontificalibus 12:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non notable county counillor, no sigcov, Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Spleodrach (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - could have been speedied. Deb (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN (and the WP position on county councillors in Ireland, who have very little real power, is well established) and also WP:GNG. I cannot comment without study on the inter-editor or CoI aspects, but I think we have a clear case of promo risk, especially in an election period. Basic searches do not suggest any easy improvement potential in the situation.SeoR (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wexford County Councillor. County councilmembers are not afforded the presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. Bearcat says it best about when a local elected official is able to demonstrate an article is appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, and as follows. We almost always delete local officials as run of the mill and failing our particular standards. It's extremely unlikely that this hard-fought consensus will change before the upcoming 2020 election, for which he's a third party candidate. Sure, it's possible he could win, although my intuition doesn't carry me that far. Finally, he fails the prof test as a teacher at a vocational school. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2020 (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. Fails GNG and footy. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeni Nosov (footballer)[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a single 74th-minute substitute's appearance in a Belarusian Premier League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer (not if you filter out Yevgeni Nosov (writer)) in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [1]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here.Jogurney (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG, more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL for one appearance. Giant Snowman 10:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both the above. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2020 (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. There is no consensus for any particular solution after extended time for discussion, and a reasonable argument for the subject having at some point been a distinct geographical location. BD2412 T 04:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevowhan[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Cited only to "Ordnance Survey get-a-map SW4073635469" but WP:NGEO says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." Apparently you can stay there on vacation but that's not notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A hamlet, a populated place that passes WP:GEOLAND as I stated here. The current state of sourcing in the article is irrelevant.----Pontificalibus 17:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As Rusf10 notes, hamlet is a vague term that can just be a synonym for a homestead or farm, home to just a landowner and workers. "Legal recognition" is also vague but this isn't a town or village as geoland implies – I think a good WP:PRESERVE would be a merge to the civil parish of Morvah that it's in. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteFarms certainly do not auto-pass WP:GEOLAND. Even if it was a hamlet as claimed, this does not change anything as it would fall under "Populated places without legal recognition" which do not get auto-notability either. Also according to Hamlet (place), a hamlet in the UK could be nothing more than a house.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously consists of more than one house in the present day, if anyone would think of looking around, so it's no surprise that sources claim it is a hamlet and/or village.----Pontificalibus 07:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Morvah. It's mentioned as a hamlet back in 1745. As such, I wouldn't classify this as a populated place under GEOLAND#1, but an informal populated place under GEOLAND#2. As such, there is not enough known info to meet GNG or develop and article. It should be mentioned in the article on the recognized populated place in which it is located. MB 02:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of "Populated places without legal recognition" are given as "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods", which clearly is not intended to encompass discrete named settlements with hundreds of years of history of occupation.----Pontificalibus 07:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I equate "hamlet" with "informal region"; legally recognized means some formal legal standing, like having a local administration (government). A village usually has a governing body. But a hamlet is just a small grouping of houses. MB 20:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unusual interpretation of "legally recognized". Normally it means "recognized in law", the test being a notional court case where a judge is asked whether this is a populated place in its own right, or merely a part of some other place. If the GEOLAND guidelines intended that notability required a local administration then they would state that (I would note that with the advent of unitary authorities of England there are even large cities in England that lack their own administration). Hamlets have long been recognised in common law as populated places in their own right, for example here where unlike villages they are not required to repair highways.---Pontificalibus 07:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It was and is an actual and distinctive population population center and as such this falls under GEOLAND. That it's since been technically absorbed into the modern municipality of Movrah doesn't negate that. Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems pretty clear from the sources and a quick search on Google Books that this is a place that is distinct from Morvah. Iffy on a merge, but absolutely not a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The OS classifies it as a settlement but the consensus appears that being an OS settlement isn't enough so if its not deemed notable then redirecting to Morvah seems reasonable as its CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus has not yet been reached between the Merge and Keep votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Morvah. What I'm working with is in WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Key word being legally recognized. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a case for legal recognition, which means it falls under WP:GNG - and I'm afraid I'm not seeing enough to allow the article to stand on its own, but the content seems to be mergable into the root article for Morvah. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND criteria met Wm335td (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2020 (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. Keeping for now. If anyone wants to purpose merge, feel free to do on the article page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Shopping Center[edit]

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

Non-notable strip mall. No useful sources other than local newspaper articles mentioning new or closing businesses. Article reads like a business directory with no useful information. —Notorious4life (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd rather vote to move it to draft for further working. Still needs improvement to fulfill clauses of WP:NBUILD. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to this source, Southgate, Michigan was named after the shopping centre. I'd say that satisfies "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" for WP:NBUILD.----Pontificalibus 12:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my opinion, being the source of a name of something does not create notability for the original source itself. If that were the case, anyone and anything that ever lent its name to any settlement would inherently be notable in itself. —Notorious4life (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this level of coverage has been deemed sufficient for the notability of shopping malls per WP:OUTCOMES. Article can stand to lose some weight, but the coverage is clearly long-lasting and non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've found that most mall pages on Wikipedia remain, even those that are more anemic that this one. (See: Yuba Sutter Mall. KidAd (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though perhaps a little more notability establishment will help in the long-run.TH1980 (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Somewhat non notable shopping centre but does have some coverage, there are a lot of mall pages on Wikipedia though. Dellwood546 (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on Southgate, Michigan. We have no good reason to cover with two articles what could all be lumped into the article on the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2020 (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. Fails to meet our artist inclusion guidelines, but more importantly, GNG. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Novella[edit]

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

completely (never) sourced article, likely paid/autobio and I can't find any sources to support it's inclusion. Praxidicae (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a quick search turned up nothing. I trimmed the large sections of unsourced material. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the list of exhibitions so that other AfD reviewers can assess the subject's notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wonder if they are true or not, since there are no sources?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tag them as lacking sources, although they're covered by the -- inaccurate -- tag atop the article, and some at least seem to be in the subject's CV, for what that's worth. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I removed it because none of the claims are verified, and because they are exceedingly vague (group, solo?). In any case, items like "Museum of Modern Art Rental Gallery, San Francisco, U.S.A." are not going to help much.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found one source, for the fact that she did some paintings for the Maritime Pet Museum. Added.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Voicing ThatMontrealIP. A private BEFORE I conducted shows no evidence of true notability.Celestina007 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just been rewriting the article because I could find sources about her/her art. Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and the Artepoli source you added is a magazine that offers paid critical reviews for 66 euros: "ARTEPOLI offers: The possibility of presenting a criticism, review or article about his work (maximum 800 words) for printing with at least 2 photographs of his paintings (or fragment, in the case of one of them, if it is beneficial for design). The article would occupy double page. If the text is smaller (600 words, for example) there is an opportunity to incorporate a third work or to increase its size."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, thanks! Kingsif (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of this article does not meet WP:NARTIST nor GNG; no sigcov in RS. Netherzone (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero coverage in any reliable sources. The sources are terrible. Ping me if you find anything we can vet. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Deleting this one - looks like it might be WP:TOOSOON. WP:REFUND applies. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavesh Kumar[edit]

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

The previous AfD for this article was closed with unanimous consensus to delete, and I'm not seeing any improvement in notability. With only one role in an unreleased movie announced since the previous AfD, Kumar still fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON still applies. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete and salt despite the interesting claims of being tallest actor in hollywood, He is a real sportsman Junior Discus thrower, and extraordinarily helpful for fellow sports persons, and my favourite: in 2019, being conferred with "Times Education Icons Award" for providing education to poor children since 1922. The subject was born in Nov 2000. Anyways. The subject fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Doesn't give much of the depth in coverage. But I guess passes WP:THREE. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. WP:THREE is an opinion of an individual editor. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. 1 movie 1 yet to be released does not make him notable. Maybe in a few years' time when he has made an impact. PenulisHantu (talk)
Weak Keep: He has starred in one film and has another two films coming out soon in which he will also be starring, it seems. The article may be WP:TOOSOON, but I'm hesitant to vote to "delete", especially since he's already got quite a few references (more than mere in-passing references). Dflaw4 (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2020 (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. Closing this one as a keep. If you wish to merge feel free to do so on the talk page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian corporate tax rate[edit]

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

Copylefted to Taxation in Australia. Therefore WP:OVERLAP applies. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question May be I have missed something, but it seems you have essentially done a merge, but not included about 1/3 of the referenced material, and then asked for the original article to be deleted. Why did you not raise a merge proposal on the talk page first? Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this suffices as a general redirect/delete/merge discussion as these outcomes can result from the following discussion. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I still do not follow you. "these outcomes" cannot follow if you have pre-empted the "outcome"? Aoziwe (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least as a redirect per WP:COPYWITHIN because a merge has taken place. Additionally the topic appears notable.----Pontificalibus 06:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pontificalibus. Bookscale (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is hard to keep tax articles updated on WP (I have done several); in most cases, it is better to consolidate into the larger "head articles" rather than have individual sub-artices (and also avoids WP:FORKING). However, for sufficiantly developed sub-articles, they are fine to keep. I would be interested to hear from the creator, Enthusiast01. Britishfinance (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the Australian corporate tax rate hasn't changed for 19 years, so it should be easier than some others to maintain. Bookscale (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:53, 17 January 2020 (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. Going to keep this one with the rationale that Leutha says there are more sources - can you please add some? If all else fails, please propose a merge on the article talk page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social patriotism[edit]

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

More accurately described by Left-wing nationalism and Socialist patriotism, concurrently this page has had no references since 2006. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: True the page needs references, dating from a period before this was the norm. However, whilst it is a specific form of Left-wing nationalism, it is completely distinct from the Marxist-leninist concept of Socialist patriotism, and thus is in no way accurately described by tither of these terms. It is notable as a specific term used in the debates which arose following the splits in the Socialist International during and following the First World war, and should not be reduced to more general terms such as social chauvinism.Leutha (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better get some refs on it quick - it won't survive as is. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Socialist patriotism. Razer(talk) 08:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:49, 17 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Ah Fatt[edit]

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

It’s not clear to me why the subject of this article is notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice resume but a neighborhood council and the other jobs don't quite claim notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Though a "neighborhood council" chairman in Singapore is equivalent to a mayor due to the size of the country, the person is not a key political player with consequential impact to the country. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Singapore's status as a city-state does not reify its neighbourhood councils into "provincial/state" governments for the purposes of WP:NPOL #1 — it's still a local layer of government, where the notability test is the ability to write a substantive and very well sourced article that contextualizes the person's political importance. But that's not what this is doing: it's basically a prosified résumé, single-sourced to a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a book about somebody else. That's not how you show that a politician is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no actual claim to notability. The fact that Singapore is a city state does not make community council members "first level sub-national legislators".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 20 January 2020 (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. Farewell Indian Pokémon. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon in India[edit]

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

Earlier there were attempts to create a Page Pokemon anime in India ([2]) and now this. Each time no reliable sources are provided to establish the notability. Sid95Q (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficient and notable information to substantiate a stand-alone page. Information on this page could be part of the other Pokemon related topics. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there’s no reason or need to split off Pokémon pages like this. It can be covered at the parent article, or even a “Pokémon by region” type article if need be. But not one for each region. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable spin-off article. Fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 14:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spinout has not established notability in and of itself. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no such distinct franchise for the India market. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
whoever commented delete here, are just jealous of the cuteness of pokemons, as there is nothing at all cute in the game of thrones (except maybe the girl who pretends to be boy, with huge success in fooling everybody). /end humour —usernamekiran (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's nothing specific about India in here that can't be done in existing pages as noted above. Ravensfire (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2020 (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. Closing as no consensus. Between WP:LISTN and then citations, wiki links, etc. Feel free to work on improving the article and if that doesn't work out, or you see a strong deletion rationale, please revisit AfD or consider discussing options at the appropriate projects and talk page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of REITs in Canada[edit]

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

Unmaintained list of real estate investment trusts (REITs) in Canada with little to no context as to how this list of REITs is significant, what they own, when they were established, or really anything. Most of the list is just a copy+paste dump from the Toronto Stock Exchange indices' lists, including even the section headers. As such, per WP:NOTDIR, this unmaintained list seems rather CRUFTy and, though Wikipedia notionally has "no deadlines," the lack of maintenance in keeping the article up-to-date (or even of an encyclopedic quality) is problematic in that (a) it is dispensing inaccurate information which, in turn, (b) reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. I see no benefit to keeping this unmaintained list and, since consensus can change at any time, any deletion should be without prejudice to re-creating it in the future if someone wants to re-create it, preferably in a wikitable format, with added context, actual and better sourcing, and regular maintenance (at least quarterly).
Friendly pings: SMcCandlish and Piotrus Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being pinged to this? It doesn't relate to my editing habits/interests or topical expertise. As for the AfD, I would think we'd keep a list of this sort, but police it for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY entries and inaccurate ones, which might pare this down to a fraction of its size. One of the common (but not required) purposes of stand-alone list articles is providing a place to briefly cover things that are at least marginally encyclopedic (do not fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) but which do not rise to the level of WP:Notabilty (worthy of a separate article). That said, commerce-oriented lists of this sort sometimes do not do well, and either need to be removed, or need to have inclusion criteria that raise the bar, e.g. only notable entries which aren't redlinks (that is, the list would not be serving a place-for-barely-encyclopedic-entries function). I would think we would try the clean-it-up approach first, then the only-notable-entries approach, then deletion as a last resort. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 18:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As written, this fails WP:LISTN, no companies there appear notable, so also WP:GNG issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP 12 are blue links so its a valid list, it aiding in navigation. Any entry without its own article should be deleted unless there is a reference proving it is somehow notable enough to be included. Dream Focus 06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I feel putting blue linked articles into Category:Real estate investment trusts of Canada would be sufficient. Not every category needs to have a list. Uhooep (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:40, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 9. Can be closed now, but, as per the DRV, only by an administrator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Uhooep: Can you please clarify the meaning of your !vote, above? Its first sentence has a grammar error (at least one missing word), and it's uncertain how the second relates to the first. It's not even clear how either relates to "delete", since as Dream Focus points out, the list already has a dozen blue-linked (notable) entries, and everyone but the nominator appears to agree with reducing the list (if kept) to only notable entries. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Similar to the above, can you also clarify what you mean by your argument above that, "no companies there appear notable, so also WP:GNG issues[,]" since WP:GNG does not apply (so much) with respect to navigational aids like lists, and also clarify or expand on how you feel that this article fails WP:LISTN? Doug Mehus T·C 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm struggling to see a delete rationale above, with the nomination apparently arguing for improvement. We have 12 articles about specific REITs in Canada and there are numerous books on the topic (e.g.[3], [4], [5]).----Pontificalibus 08:05, 20 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MacvsWindows[edit]

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

Defunct website which does not appear to have attracted significant coverage when it exist. Previous AFD a long time ago in 2011 (under a different name) was closed as No Consensus largely on the basis of Keep votes that cited in a criteria in WP:WEB which no longer exists. It does not pass the WP:WEBCRIT as they stand today, nor does it pass WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 10:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 10:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the site no longer exists, and not much notability has been established to boot, the article can be trimmed.TH1980 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Site is now non existent and was never really notable which makes it a prime candidate for deletion. Another problem is that it may confuse users about the article being about a comparison of Mac and Windows. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2020 (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. Closing keep for now. If merge is of interest, please discuss on article talk page and relevant projects. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2[edit]

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

Nominated both Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2 and Field Guide: Northern Vehicles 2, near-identical articles with identical problems: a total lack of notability. One very short review in a niche publication, and that's about it. Searching for more sources produces a handful of fan and forum pages[6], and nothing else. Both games supplements lack the required notability to have an article (separate or combined). Fram (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge the reviews into Heavy Gear#Publication history. BOZ (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As an admin, I would hope that you would know that "keep if more sources exist" is quite a useless vote? If the deletion nomination is because of lack of notability, then stating "keep if notable" is not really helpful at all. Yes, as the article creator you probably want it kept, that's a given, but keeping every piece of trivia and adding any minireview in specialized magazines to main articles violates WP:UNDUE and doesn't actually improve Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why keep? What makes you think that these are notable? Fram (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither "keep" comment makes much sense in light of notability guidelines etc.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Heavy Gear#Publication history. A single source just isn't enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 06:40, 18 January 2020 (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. Keeping. Feel free to discuss merge options on the talk page of the article. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Fruits (Southern Africa)[edit]

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

Does not meet source requirements with only one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splinemath (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this one as we wait on more sources to materialize.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOURCESEXIST for why this is not a good idea. We'd be better off getting those sources rather than simply waiting. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. Only one source. I suppose it's a bit difficult to chronicle these traditions all considered, but if we don't have sources we had best not keep this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Nguni people per WP:PAGEDECIDE. First, let's remember that "the absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Second, here are some academic sources: [7] [8] [9] [10]. It's a notable subject. That said, even though the specific practice is notable on its own, WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests that if our readers will benefit from seeing the information in the broader context of a larger article, then we should put the information in the larger article rather than having a separate standalone article. In this case, readers would benefit from seeing why this particular practice is significant within the broader context of Nguni people. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Nguni people; the text is fine, but there's not enough here for a stand-alone article. Preserve the text, but there doesn't need to be a stand-alone article with only this much detail. --Jayron 32 16:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Indignant Flamingo except for merging. The article passes our notability test and has multiple independent reliable sources substantiating that notability. That is the test, and as such, the article deserves a stand alone just like any other article. Can it be improved? Absolutely! Can more RS be added? Absolutely! However, content issues are not ground for deletion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Senegambianamestudy: A merge vote is a keep, not a delete, as the content is kept and the title is redirected to the new article. Nothing prevents improvement and expansion of the "First Fruits" section within the Nguni people article after merging, and if the material grew to require its own article based on size or disproportionate treatment, it could be spun back out. There's no good reason to force our readers to go between multiple articles to figure out context and significance, when one well-crafted article would do. As WP:PAGEDECIDE makes clear, having or not having a standalone article is a matter of serving the readers, not of the importance or notability of the subject. Most of us agree that the content is important. A standalone article is not a trophy that a subject "deserves", but one possible way to present information to readers, and in this case, not the best way. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this discussion? The results are very obviously keep and merge.-Splinemath (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2020 (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. Closing this as delete based on Natg_19's support of the nominator. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jones (baseball)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASE and WP:GNG. The only article on him which might pass WP:GNG is the LA Times article from 1999, which is really just a recap of a former local prep sports star which many papers tend to do. There's really nothing indicating he's a notable baseball player whatsoever. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Run of the mill minor league baseball player. Fails GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2020 (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. Please consider improving the article and if you're struggling to find sources etc, PROD or return to AfD. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolftown Committee[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. This has been tagged as of dubious notability for over a decade and still has no references. Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is certainly in terrible shape. However, if we consider members Tricksta and Late notable, the group meets WP:BAND #6. There are also a couple of paragraphs in Billboard [11] and this Vanguard review [12], as well as a few interviews. The Vanguard review appears significant, but I'm not sure the interviews or the Billboard blurb are, so I'm going to see what others make of the sources out there, as well as how the Late deletion discussion turns out. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the references found by Skeletor3000 together with passing criteria 6 of WP:NMUSIC make it a borderline keep in my view although the article certainly needs some help in rewriting and expanding, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Late (rapper) has found him non-notable and it now redirects to Wolftown Committee. Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Atlantic306, it definitely doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC #6 as individual member s Late and Tricksta have been found non-notable at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, but still believe it is marginally notable with Vanguard and Billboard and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:22, 17 January 2020 (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 Draftify.. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnenblatt[edit]

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

Ahnenblatt is a commercial software. The page has zero independent sources that cover the topic. It is written as a blatant product description.

Source analysis:

1 https://www.ahnenblatt.de/abinfo.htm Company site. Not independent, and broken

2 https://github.com/matthiasbock/python-ahn No prose

3 https://www.ahnenblatt.com/why-is-it-called-ahnenblatt/ Company site. Not independent

In some places it is described as freeware, but it is a for-profit product. [13]

Searching, I can find some very thin reviewing, and no independent coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

17 October 2008, the article was PRODded by User:12.76.131.164 with
"concern = This article was written and edited by the developer of this software. It is nothing but a billboard for his product."
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Fails software notability because the article is about what its manufacturer says about it, and not what third parties say. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found an independent source covering this.^[1] I don't know if it's reliable, but it's something. Glades12 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Henrik Kalling (30 July 2015). "Programtips: Ahnenblatt 2.88" [Program tip: Ahnenblatt 2.88]. Datormagazin (in Swedish). Omsoc Publishing. Retrieved 2 January 2020.

Datormagazin is a RS, but few phrases certainly do not constitute broad enough coverage to establish notability. My search in German and Czech online sources was unsuccessful so far. Too bad, it is really a nice application - fast, with simple UI and powerful features. Pavlor (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added more references — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you cited (excluding Tech Advisor) seem independent and reliable; thus, they do not demonstrate notability. Glades12 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tamura Jones is a world-wide recognized technology expert in the field of genealogy software and he annually publishes an online award called GeneAwards. A mention by name is a kind of major international award.^[1]
Ahnenblatt is the only German software among four others who is asked for to integrate the search technology of MyHeritage (which is one of the big three international online genealogy services in the world)^[2]
Ahnenblatt is the most popular genealogy software in Germany, is available in more than 20 languages and has users all over the world. Here is a link to an errata German pdf file with the result of a user poll in 2018 of Germans biggest computer genealogy society called 'Verein für Computergenealogie' (normally they publish the results only in a printed magazine - this is only an errata file): ^[3]
Ahnenblatt has top ratings on online review portal GenSoftReviews, where over 1.000 genealogy software are listed and only a few get an user choice award. Ahnenblatt got this annually since 2012. ^[4] ^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very popular in Germany: Most uploads in 2019 to biggest Germany-located family database (called GEDBAS) came from Ahnenblatt.^[6]
Very popular in Poland: one of the most popular free genealogy programs in Poland.^[7]
Yet another software review^[8]
Some more information about Ahnenblatt's user choice award on GenSoftReviews^[9]^[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiBase: None of those are reliable sources, and popularity is irrelevant to on-wiki notability. Please read the pages I linked here. Glades12 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see "pages you linked here". There is only one link to download page of (commercial) Datormagazin with only a small text. And this is a more reliable source than a software review of an independant blogger or techexpert? And to have a partnership with one of the biggest world-wide genealogy online services (MyHeritage) is not notable? Yes, I wrote "popular", but this means also a big number of users. Is a big market share not notable?

I meant in my reply to your first post on this page. Glades12 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some (German) links similar to Datormagazine. Perhaps they can convince you ... ^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here are some links to scientific publications found with Google Scholar ^[20]: ^[21]^[22]^[23]

This AfD is being WP:Reference bomb-ed. Some are not worthless (eg http://www.geneapress.com/search?q=Ahnenblatt showing that it is one of multiple similar programs being regularly reviewed, but it is arguable whether review data constitutes secondary source coverage), and others are very likely disallowed "Native advertising", the main sign being download links in the middle of the coverage. I also choke on sources that include hatnotes such as "Ahnenblatt is a free program for genealogy research, with which you can create your personal family tree." This is skirting around the fact that it is for-profit software using the freemium model.

Please, if you think it is notable, meeting WP:GNG, give the WP:THREE best notability-attesting sources, or point to specifics in WP:NSOFTWARE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for reference-bombing. This was not my intention. But I am unsure what you would see as notable or as a reliable source. So far I gave references to awards, blogs, reviews with/without download button, research and education publications. Nothing made you happy so far ...
- Sorry? You are certainly reference bombing. It takes more effort to explain why each weak source doesn’t demonstrate than it takes for you to list it.

For notability, the source needs to be:

* Reliable, like any source. Not a blog.

* Independent. Independent of the software, it’s authors, distributors, associated company.

* Comment directly on the topic, say something qualitative about the topic.

A reliably published independent review of the software that compares it with similar software would be great.

Please list three (3), not more, that you think seriously meet the above.

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~), which auto converts into a linked dated signature.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up ... you always will find a reason why a source is not good enough (e.g. Advertising what you forgot to mention in your last posting). DiBase (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiBase (talk · contribs), don't give up. I have looked at your sources, and some of them are worth serious consideration. Did you read these sources? If yes, surely you had some idea about which included independent commentary. If no, are you admitting to robotically dumping search hits on this discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read all the articles ... from the scientific papers only a few excerpts ...DiBase (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A review I forgot to reference (without any advertising or download button): ^[24]
About license model: Ahnenblatt was initial released 2001 as freeware. In May 2019 (after 18 years being free) the new version 3 was published commercial, while the last free version 2.99 staid still available for download for free. If you find older references, Ahnenblatt is called freeware - and that was true at that time.

^ https://www.google.de/search?safe=active&ei=tjERXtDgEcnQwALb2L2IBg&q=site%3Awww.tamurajones.net+ahnenblatt&oq=site%3Awww.tamurajones.net+ahnenblatt&gs_l=psy-ab.3...17750.19095..20430...0.0..0.70.322.5......0....1j2..gws-wiz.J4zu6zYFVfg&ved=0ahUKEwjQk6_mnevmAhVJKFAKHVtsD2EQ4dUDCAo&uact=5
^ https://blog.myheritage.de/2018/08/ahnenblatt-fuegt-myheritage-matching-technologien-hinzu/
^ http://www.computergenealogie.de/downloads/CG_PDFs/[2018-03]_Linkliste.pdf
^ http://www.geneapress.com/search?q=Ahnenblatt
^ http://www.gensoftreviews.com/awards.php
^ https://www.compgen.de/2020/01/gedbas-jahresrueckblick-2019/
^ https://yourrootsinpoland.com/blog-en/genealogy-portals-and-programs-where-to-build-your-family-tree/
^ https://sanet.st/blogs/casper03/ahnenblatt_a_multilingual__portable.2684950.html
^ http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=2449
^ http://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=3181
^ https://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-Aktuell-Software-Ahnenblatt-1393889.html
^ https://www.chip.de/downloads/Ahnenblatt-letzte-Freeware_16394063.html
^ https://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-Downloads-Hobby-Freizeit-Ahnenblatt-Tipps-Anleitung-5976952.html
^ https://www.heise.de/download/specials/Unsere-Besten-3-3169020
^ https://www.pcwelt.de/downloads/Freizeit-Programm-Ahnenblatt-554287.html
^ https://winfuture.de/downloadvorschalt,3681.html
^ https://www.fotohits.de/software/detail/ahnenblatt/
^ https://www.pc-magazin.de/download/ahnenblatt-555947.html
^ https://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/datenverwaltung/artikel/ahnenblatt-48285/
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ahnenblatt%22
^ František Hlaváček (2013). "Softwarový nástroj pro tvorbu a správu genealogických dat" [Diplomová práce 2013] (PDF) (in Czech). UNIVERZITA PARDUBICE, Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky, Katedra softwarových technologií. Retrieved 5 January 2020. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
^ Tomáš Vogeltanz (2010). "Applications for genealogy support" [Bakalářská práce 2010] (PDF) (in Czech). UTB ve Zlíně, Fakulta aplikované informatiky. Retrieved 5 January 2020. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
^ Amir Reza Asnafi, Selma Farmers (2018). "Introduction to academic genealogy" (PDF) (in Persian). Shahid Beheshti University. Retrieved 5 January 2020. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)
^ "Free Family Tree Software Review: Ahnenblatt". Genealogical Musings. 31 October 2014. Retrieved 6 January 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft, pending addition of sources that meet the standards of AFC reviewers. BD2412 T 03:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. Most of the offered sources won’t do, but I haven’t systematically reviewed all 24, and the proponent doesn’t seem to understand the request to nominate the best. It could be that in choosing the best, he agreed that the best aren’t good enough? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Deleting this one, the sources surely don't help the subject pass GNG. However, WP:REFUND applies if anyone can find the right "type" of sources. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frysk Puzelwurdboek[edit]

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

I can only find one, one-paragraph review of this book (see here). b uidhe 13:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 13:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page creator added two sources. The first source has only two sentences about the subject:
Yn 1992 is it Frysk Puzelwurdboek fan Douwe vander Meulen ferskynd. Dat wurdboek is út soarte ornearre foar puzelders, martrochdat it in soad synonimen jout en ek wurden oarderet neffens rubriken lyk-as fartugen, klean en lichemsdielen is it Puzelwurdboek in tige wolkommeoanfolling op ’e hânwurdboeken fan ’e FA

The other source also only has two sentences:

In 1992 is het Frysk Puzelwurdboek van Douwe van der Meulen versche-nen. Dat woordenboek is uiteraard bedoeld voor puzzelaars, maar door-dat het veel synoniemen geeft en ook woorden ordent volgens rubrie-ken als vaartuigen, kleding en lichaamsdelen, is het Puzelwurdboek een wel-kome aanvulling op de handwoordenboeken van de FA.

These are just passing mentions, not significant coverage in my opinion. b uidhe 07:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, they mean exactly the same thing, the first in Frisian and the second in Dutch. b uidhe 07:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more references have been made, based on the reliable source coverage. Meets WP:GNG. Kees Swart (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the significant coverage combined makes three short paragraphs from two sources. Not enough for GNG imo. b uidhe 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two more references/sources are added.Kees Swart (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless I'm missing something, this looks like passing mention in a reliable source and this is a self-published website (not RS). b uidhe 06:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other sources exist, specifically the Netherlands Wikipedia article has fours sources available to verify the article. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you check you would see that the four sources are the same ones cited in this article. b uidhe 13:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regrettably. Wikipedia is not a library catalogue, and this book does note meet GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:57, 17 January 2020 (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. Keeping based on the rationale presented by Mark_viking. Feel free to improve. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Logic Corporation[edit]

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

Old declined prod. No evidence this company passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. Few mentions in passing/old press releases and their rewrites along the 'business as usual' lines. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I just added a couple of references in scholarly books plus extra material. Peter Flass (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter, from what I see here you've added 2 refs: [14]. And the only time it mentions the company is in the section "NEW DECUS MEMBERS". This is not even a mention in passing, but the worst possible google hit (that one or two employees of that company joined that mailing list or whatever that DECUS was). This is not helpful. Second is a bit better ([15]), as in, it's a full sentence... but it is still a far cry from requirement of in-depth coverage. One sentence is hardy anywhere close.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – kind of stubby, but an important early computing company. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSIMPORTANT is right there on the list of bad AfD arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Peter Flass' good faith attempts at adding scholarly journal references are useful, but scholarly journal references do not establish notability unless they are an at length and in-depth article about this company to write more than a stub- or start-class article, per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. No evidence notability is met here. Doug Mehus T·C 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Concur. The one-sentence mentions that a group at this company developed some novel tech or such is not sufficient to make the company notable, plus the focus of those sentences is about a group, not company, so WP:NOTINHERITED too. That said, does anyone has access to [16]? There is something about the company there, but I can't tell through the snippet view if it's a two sentence PR blurb or an actual in-depth analysis of sorts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Dicklyon ... (I think it was me who declined the prod).Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:KEEPPER for a bad argument... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The company is defunct since 1975. I assume there are offline sources from the 60s and 70s. I found some short news in the Computerworld magazine, so there are at least some RS even for the lazy kids of the internet age. Pavlor (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Pavlor, could you link said Computerworld issue/page? It has not been added to the article and my search fails to find anything substantial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: We have to prove those offline sources exist. So, I look at it, how substantive is this article? Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart, a result of "delete" should be without prejudice to someone, presumably in California or wherever this company was based, going to their local library and looking up on microfilm/microfiche for sources and trying again. Failing that, a draftification or userification potentially could be a reasonable result; however, again, there's nothing in this article intellectually creative that's worthy of preserving attribution history here. Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone goes to that library (I can´t as I´m on the other side of the Ocean), I assume there are sources (the few I saw indicate this is really plausible). As there is no harm in keeping this article, keep is my default stance. Pavlor (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a good argument. The responsibility to go the library lies no the article's creator or those wanting to keep it, per WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict)Company meets our notability requirement WP:BARE. Pre-internet company so sources were hard to come by, however there is Computerworld magazine and some book entries. And notability is not temporary. Wm335td (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain how this meets notability, so far you offered just an assertion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Closing admin is reminded that WP:NOTAVOTE, given that effectively all keep but the first one arguments so far seem to be taken straight from Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thoe company is known for its timesharing systems and its automated theorem provers. In the timesharing domain, Auerbach's guide to timesharing, p. 68-69 has about a page on the company and its timesharing services as well as mentions throught the book. Physics Today, SHOPPING FOR A TIME-SHARING SERVICE, p.42-43 also displays them as one of the major timesharing services. In the theorem proving field, [17] by Mackenzie has a few paragraphs about the SAM series of provers and notes the "SAM's lemma" was "was widely hailed as the first contribution of automated reasoning systems to mathematics." A Short Survey of Automated Reasoning (a few paragraphs) noted that the SAM series was one of the first interactive theorem provers and and had influence on subseequent theorem provers. An SEC newsletter p.2 from the time has some basics on the company financials and services. There was one other source, the book "Mathematical Software" by John R Rice, 1971, that looks like it may have some more coverage, but I don't have access. All the sources I had access to demonstrate notability and impact of the company, and I think add up to modest but sufficient notability to have an article per WP:GNG. Research was a part of this company's impact and independent sources noting that are excellent and on target for notability; in this I disagree with some of the above editors dismissive attitudes towards scholarly publications. The article itself is a well-referenced stub and has no problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 14:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Mark, good stuff there and seems to have sorted Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process stuff that was going on. Re-enforce's my keep !vote above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mark Viking. Toughpigs (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a fair consensus for keeping the article, after extended time for discussion. Advocates of deletion note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, but the extent to which this applies to the notability of a company that manufactures notable products is unclear. Examples suggest that the notability of the manufacturer does not render its product notable, but it does not appear to be as well-established that notability of the product is equally ineffective with regard to notability of its manufacturer. A rename has been proposed after other editors presented their opinions, and should be re-filed as a WP:RM. BD2412 T 03:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypex Electronics[edit]

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

Prod removed with some new references, but I am afraid they are still not in-depth about the company and/or press releases or based on such (WP:ROUTINE business as usual). So I am still concerned this fails WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Google News search for "hypex ucd" brings back many detailed sources that can be used to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ritchie333: You should now better that WP:GOOGLETEST is not sufficient. Which sources are good? "AVHub (press release)"? "AVHub (press release)"? Also, those are reviews of a product (Hypex UcD). A product can be notable while its parent company is not, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the IEEE Spectrum article has quite substantial coverage. The wiki article had some marketing language, but that is now removed, and the wiki article has been here since 2005. Apoc2400 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Apoc2400: You know that WP:NOTINHERITED? The article is about a specific product (Philips UcD Audio Amplifier) which may be notable. That article contains about one and a half sentences about Hypex: "One of those early licensees was an audio startup called Hypex Electronics. Hypex soon began producing a version of the UcD...". This is not in-depth, significant coverage as required by GNG and like. Seriously, how can you argue that one and a half sentences represent "quite substantial coverage" coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is about a specific product (Philips UcD Audio Amplifier) which may be notable" - As you can see, I have expanded the article to include other products mentioned in audio specialist magazines. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now the company products gets reviewed in the places where one would expect, like Guitar World Magazine, Audio Express, their components used in other products like this one at Sterophile Magazine. Wm335td (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Hypex UcD. The article is currently mostly about the company's UcD products and the reliable sources noted above by other editors are also mostly about the company's products, so morphing this article via a rename to focus on the notable content and available sourcing seems a reasonable way to preserve, rather than delete, verifiable information per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references that provide significant coverage with in-depth information on the *company* and containing independent content on the *company* and while a lot has been written about the products (as noted by the Keep !voters above), this does not translate as notability for the company. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no references that provide significant coverage" .... "while a lot has been written about the products" - surely without the former, the latter would be impossible. The review of the Hypex NCore 400 kit (that I just added to the article) would certainly seem to be "significant coverage", and neutral, giving it criticised the lack of inputs other than XLR on the module. The assertion that writing about the products cannot be done in an article about the parent company seems incorrect based on other articles I have improved to rescue from AfD, including Kelly's of Cornwall and Lees of Scotland. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the guidelines, there's nothing specific that says a review of a product/service/etc cannot be used to establish notability of the company but in my opinion, for that to occur, the review must provide information on the company itself that meets the criteria (significant, in-depth, independent content). WP:PRODUCT makes it clear that information on a product may be included in the article about the company but that if the product is notable in its own right it may also have its own separate article. In summary, while we have references that discuss the products of this company, we have still not found any references *about the company* that meet the criteria for establishing notability. As such, the company fails the criteria for notability and articles about their products (that do not provide coverage on the company) do not confer notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, with stress on WP:YELLOWPAGES/WP:NOTINHERITED. A product can be notable while its producer is not, just like a notable book does not make its author notable automatically, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good example? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most architects firms (who worked on famous buildings), record labels (who have famous artists), art galleries (who exhibited a famous art work), some manufacturers of popular consumer goods such as the Rubik's Cube ... there's loads of examples. Hang around AfD long enough and you'll see for yourself. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate articles on Ernő Rubik, Rubik's Cube and Ideal Toy Company (manufacturers of the cube). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a lot of articles about video games (or board games) that are notable but their publishers are not. Of course, sometimes it may mean the article needs to be created, but for most small companies, it's rather hard. For example, Scythe (board game) is a major board game title, but I doubt its publisher is notable, ditto for the designer. Or consider GMT Games. A bunch of titles it publishes are notable, but frankly, that article does not suggest the company is (but I haven't researched it yet). Or Polanie (video game), a cult Polish video game, whose publisher is certainly no notable... Or the publisher of Bleach: Brave Souls that I recently stubbed, through again, I haven't researched the company yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:23, 23 January 2020 (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. Closing based on weak notability case. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Larson[edit]

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

I spent some time searching for sources here and I can't find anything in the way of coverage about this Jules Larson. I had expected to find something but alas, here we are. She has never charted and aside from "heard on xxxxxx" sites, I can't find anything that even verifies her music having appeared on the shows, which while an indicator of possibly being notable, doesn't actually make someone notable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She obviously fails all of the WP:SINGER criteria except for the 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. But as it's the only claim, it leads us to WP:1E. Now - are the movies and TV-shows she wrote songs for notable enough to secure her an article? Less Unless (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't write the theme for any of them, she just had a song appear (supposedly) in an episode of each. So I'm not sure it even makes the mark of 10. Praxidicae (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing even close to showing notability. No reliable sources at all. I am familiar with Switched at Birth, and this was not a musical production. I doubt having a song that appeared in an episode somewhere is a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I found some coverage - Taylor Swift is a fan - but not much. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her transient claim to notability under criterion 10 of MUSICBIO is not enough to trump her blatant lack of SIGCOV per GNG. Anyone with a formidable manager can have a soundbite played on any TV show, not to mention all coverage (except some 2017 article about her marching for trans health) is from almost a decade ago, and there's been nothing since. Therefore I support its deletion. PK650 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2020 (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 deleted (written by banned/blocked) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Reina Shaw[edit]

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

Notability is derived from relationship with Cam Newton and this subject likely should redirect to that page. News results for this subject almost invariably relate to subject's relationship with Cam Newton.

If this article IS retained, it has major problems with sourcing (absent and deprecated) and tone (decidedly non-encyclopedic, more like an attack piece) and likely requires a complete rewrite.

For what it's worth, the article's creator User:Greentiger1122 is indeffed as one of dozens of sockpuppets of also-indeffed User:New Editor 121. Damon Killian (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 17 January 2020 (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. WP:SNOW close. Obviously unencyclopedic WP:LISTCRUFT that should be speedily deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usa cities favorite nfl teams[edit]

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

Pure WP:LISTCRUFT GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Dude, why did you think "Usa cities favorite nfl teams" needed a discussion?!? Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Because it doesn't meet any specific CSD criteria and I figured it would be quicker for it to be WP:SNOW deleted than wait for a PROD to expire or for someone to remove the PROD and trigger an AfD. GPL93 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The only thing that could make this any worse is if it included Minas Tirith's preferences. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 17 January 2020 (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. Keeping as passing GNG based on sources presented. Please improve. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Shetler[edit]

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

This article lacks independent sources, and the first two pages of Google hits provide only more of the same kind of thing it currently has: artist-provided bios, directories and listings. Created by a likely PR account. Guy (help!) 17:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Soft Keep~~ Keep. This is what I've found on him. The mentions, however, are not significant in terms of Wikipedia. But I think it's enough to keep it. Maybe there are more I couldn't find. PS. Changed to keep after studying the subject more precise and adding refs to the article.

| The New York Times
| BBC Music
| The Guardian
| Der Standard
| Book "Art Song: Linking poetry and Music
| New York Magazine

Less Unless (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Less Unless: can you please correct some of the links above that are 404s Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 , thank you. Now it seems to work fine. Less Unless (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the links work in the article including reviews of his performances in The Guardian and The New York Times and other coverage in The New Yorker and German newspapers so he seems to be notable at an international level and deserves to be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; enough coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. But also - and not that this is an argument to keep this article - Shetler accompanied such renowned musicians as Fischer-Dieskau, Schreier, Rothenberger, Milstein, etc. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:52, 18 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twist & Shout Records[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Most coverage I found was either mentioning that a concert or event was happening there, not actual coverage of the business. Other mere mentions don't get it past WP:CORPDEPTH. May be notable some day, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are lots of record stores across the world, and almost none of them have pages. I don't think this one is nearly notable enough. Poydoo (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studatour[edit]

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

Out of the current five sources in the article, three were written by the company's CEO, one appears to be a press release, and one is a 'company profile'. None of this meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm cognizant that reliable sources for African subjects can be difficult to come by, so I looked carefully for anything that could support this article meeting WP:NCORP, but I didn't find anything better. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A listing-type article describing a company's wares. The sources are a mix of promotional postings and a first-person-voice description of a tour trip, so falling under primary sources. The firm is mentioned in a brief profile piece about the founder and his wider career (Inter-News Network, December 2018) but that too falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH as a source. A firm which has provided small-group tours over the past decade, but falls short of demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A non-notable agency that lacks coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voicing rationale put forward by Versace1608 as without coverage in reliable sources this collaborative project is doomed. Celestina007 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2020 (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. Keeping. Please consider improving with French language (Google Translate, baby!) sources. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Filippi[edit]

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

Per WP:SBST Routine reporting, such as these covering her death, do not constitute substantial coverage. If that were true then anyone who died would have an article. However the PROD was challenged on the idea that a single obituary would be enough. We do however now have enough references to use on wikidata to give her the writing credits. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Her name brings a number of hits in Google Books, but they're in French, so I can't comment on their content. Nothing in the Proquest Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination statement misrepresents my reasons for contesting the WP:PROD template, and I don't know where the nominator gets the ideas that an obituary is the same as a news report of a death, and that "anyone who died" gets an obituary in a major national newspaper. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it isn't a typical obituary... I can't even read French and I can see it's not some list of survivors, charity, fate of the remains. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The examples that you give are what you see in a typical death notice, not what you see in a typical obituary. They are very different things, and I don't understand why so many Wikipedia editors don't understand the difference. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite it. Death notices are typically names, ages; times and locations of interment; they are unpaid and are therefore basic as can be to communicate the death to the public. Obituaries have more information {as I listed above}, possibly with more of a write-up on the person's life and accomplishments, often but not always because someone paid. Full, feature obituaries on prominent persons are less likely to be generated from content given by the family. The write up on Filippi appears to be a feature obituary or news item, which is a stronger case for notability than a sponsored obituary or a death notice. Most editors on here don't use either frequently enough to notice a difference. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have obituaries and death notices the wrong way round. Obituaries (at least in serious major national newspapers like Le Figaro) are descriptions of the life of someone who has died written by a journalist or someone independently commissioned by a newspaper's editorial staff. Death notices are what are written and paid for by families, and are clearly marked as classified ads. One of the things that has amazed me since I started editing Wikipedia is that there are people who don't understand this simple difference. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now how can I have it the wrong way around when I say there are 3 different types and I've agreed with you so much? ;) Perhaps things are different in France, but in the US, we have death notices, lengthier paid pieces called obituaries written about ordinary people, and then longer obituaries about well-known people that focus on their accomplishments. Wikipedia's article on obituaries may shed some light. I've paid for (the writing of and access to) enough to know a death notice is good for little but that obituaries have broken down many a research brick wall. And that full or feature obituaries in major publications indicate notability... Good luck with the AfD and conveying notability. I'm out.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Getting back on topic, she was very well known to the general public in France, and her obituary was widely published. She wrote a significant number of hit songs for artists who are themselves notable, such as Jenifer, Calogero, Grégory Lemarchal and Jean-Jacques Daran (who was apparently her husband/companion at some point; no article in English, but a long a detailed one in French). She also seems to have won a number of awards for her songwriting. See for example: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] etc. Obviously all the sources are in French, but that doesn't impinge on her notability. --Xuxl (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Le Figaro and the multiple sources identified above that show the many awards she won, so there is no need for deletion imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep several sources indicate notability per above. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2020 (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. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON WP:REFUND applies of subject makes the big time. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Sammak[edit]

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

Non-notable writer who fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. The subject has songwriting credits with some notable artists, but I was not able to find any significant coverage of him in independent sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability states that and i quote The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.. The subjects contribution the Justin bieber's Song Yummy is verifiable on Billboard, point (A) being met when the lyrics that the subject wrote for the Song mentioned above Rose to number 2 on Billboard's charts, and point (B) is validated by the fact that the song Yummy has a huge following (over 80 millions views on Youtube/has it's own Wikipedia article that links back to the subject that is being deleted. As far as notability goes, according to General notability guideline, the second point covers editorial integrity, i cited Billboard and kkbox which are reputable sources of information in the music world and i quote :Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. I do not believe we need tens or hundreds of sources to make a subject notable , just one or two reliable ones are enough--Nimroftem (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. The whole question of notability is the contribution to one song. This falls under WP:ONEEVENT, there needs to be evidence of sustained coverage, and that's not present. Ifnord (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question of notability is not just the contribution to one song, in fact few songs, also in the article there is a mention of a book written by the subject and reference to it, so i disagree that it falls under WP:ONEEVENT--Nimroftem (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After I had removed tumblr, instagram, and the cowriting of yummy with two other people, there was almost nothing left at all, and certainly nothing that I could see that contributes to notability. There is only one copy in total of one book by the subject held across all major libraries in Australia, and looks like for the purposes of notability a non event, so the cowriting is a single event. Perhaps TOOSOON? Aoziwe (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient independent sources and at this point, does not meet WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the sources are independent enough ( google books, Billboard..) i did not fabricate those. Aoziwe what are you talking about? removing tumblr, instagram? how is that related to this subject?--Nimroftem (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When I did seaches I discounted all the self published and dubious reliabilty or non reliable sites that come up referrring to the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per arguments above and because the subject has (very likely) promoted themselves various times in the past on Wikipedia without any valid secondary sources to back them up.--DovahDuck (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to add that I removed the KKbox references from the article due to information in this link: https://help.kkbox.com/sg/en/function/playing-setting/1936 The company gets it lyrics and credits via member submittions, thus making its usage as a secondary source unreliable. I'm pretty sure that Billboard just copied down the lyrics and credits from a lyrics site (possibly the aforementioned one) due them having gotten credits wrong in the past and due to literally no other reliable secondary sources mentioning Noah as a writer in any of the songs that he has been claimed to write on. They have also contradicted themselves multiple times in the past in articles, so they're reliability is questionable on occasion.--DovahDuck (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Charitably it is too soon under Wikipedia's rules for notability. Yes, he has gotten some real co-writing credits for songs by Bieber and a few others, and that is accurately reflected in the media, but nobody has done any "who is this guy?" investigation on him specifically, in order to provide reliable and significant media coverage to confer notability. I also concur with the previous voters on the status of his book, which is probably a self-promoted vanity publication and it if it wasn't, it still has not received any reliable media coverage either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV. I found nothing in Google newspapers, nothing relevant/reliable on books, and two unreliable sources on news. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2020 (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. Darn, I guess my hope for finding sugar daddy or momma is going to have to be delayed yet again. I kid, I kid... deleting based on the fine rationales presented below. The World's Billionaires already exists. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest people in the world[edit]

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

I don't know that I expect this will be uncontroversial, but I don't really see the point in this list. The Manual of Style discourages us from using these types of time specifications at all, and we're not really in the business of providing "real time" lists that need to be updated by the minute.

The scope of the article is entirely confined to the report of Forbes, and from what I can tell, this content is already better covered in The World's Billionaires about the Forbes source itself. That article does a much better job of structuring pretty much the same information in a stable encyclopedic format, reporting each year rather than trying to have a "real time" ticker maintained of who is what at this very second.

As it stands, this article just straddles the line between excessive listings of unexplained statistics with little to no encyclopedic context, and timely news on who's who. GMG ^talk 16:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to The World's Billionaires. Not even a newspaper carries a day-by-day ranking. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: When there are changes at the top of the rankings there are some articles published like the original ^[1] and this other one republished by newspapers ^[2] Wykx (talk)

References

^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycuccinello/2020/01/17/jeff-bezos-is-no-longer-the-richest-person-in-the-world-again/#1db09f73b622
^ https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/jeff-bezos-is-no-longer-the-richest-man-on-earth-1612786-2019-10-25

Delete. because The World's Billionaires article does it better so this WP:REDUNDANT. Wm335td (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Perhaps better but not completely the same, since my subsequent merger proposal. Wykx (talk)

Comment When one's nomination for deletion of a page title contains the phrase, "As it stands," it should be a clue that one should be posting comments or an RFC on the article's Talk page instead. AfD is not for cleanup. With the obvious exceptions of copyvio or BLP vio or some other clear and present danger, of course. Anarchangel (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anarchangel: "As it stands" refers to the scope of the article. GMG ^talk 11:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The The World's Billionaires starts with "List of richest people" redirects here. For a real-time list, see List of richest people in the world. Maybe we could integrate the content of real time rankings in one section of 'The World's Billionaires' knowing that for example the richest man in the world is now Bernard Arnault but this information is not anywhere else than in the current article. Thus this information is of value when looking information of 'richest people in the world'. Wykx (talk)

I can't think of any statistic we keep track of in realtime. That's not something an encyclopedia does. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the richest people in the world's name a statistic? Wykx (talk)

Okay, ranking then. No day-by-day, week-by-week or even month-by-month rankings. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are multiple overlapping problems in scope all at the same time.

WP:NOTNEWS - This is essentially a running news ticker, that is fundamentally transient has no enduring value to any revision of the page.
WP:REALTIME - The list is both ambiguous to readers, at least to any reader who doesn't know how to check the article history, because it's not really real time, nothing on Wikipedia truly is, and is only current as of the last good revision. As is inherently the problem with real time content, it simply cannot ever reach any version that is both stable and educationally useful.
WP:INDISCRIMINATE - There is almost no encyclopedic prose that can ever be useful here, and what is here is fairly arbitrary. We highlight richest woman, while Forbes themselves highlight people by gender, by country, by newcomers, by age, and by sector. We've chosen to limit the article to 20 for no apparent objective reason. Forbes has only 20 on the first page, but they don't limit it to only 20. It's not clear why we choose to highlight a few companies in particular, when Forbes doesn't seem to do this at all.
WP:ARTICLESABOUTONESOURCE - This is such a rare problem that we don't even have any guidance for it at all, though it probably also falls under INDISCRIMINATE in principle. We simply don't have articles where the scope is limited to a single source unless the article is about that source. We already have an article about the source at The World's Billionaires, and this isn't actually a list of the richest people, it's a list of the richest people according to Forbes, for no apparent objective reason preferring Forbes to any other source where they may disagree. We have similar articles, like 100 Women (BBC), but that is again about the source itself. The analogous article there would be something like List of most important women, where when you get into the fine print, it's actually List of important women according to the BBC.

Merging this with the article on the source may solve some of those problems, but it doesn't solve the remainder. GMG ^talk 13:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trying to maintain this in real time is like having an article that tries to keep track of the current Dow Jones average: Impossible and not very useful. WQUlrich (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', since as Wm335td points out :"The World's Billionaires article does it better so this WP:REDUNDANT". Net worth of these individuals fluctuates with every stock market move and a dynamic real time list is a maintenance issue.--Eostrix (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK, although if you insist, redirect instead. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list of the richest people according to one source, with figures that change literally every day and therefore will always potentially be out of date, isn't a particularly useful article, and isn't what Wikipedia is for. Neiltonks (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Article deleted by User:Deb per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MADELA[edit]

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

This is a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD. However, I don't think that G4 applies here, and the subject still fails WP:NVG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed G4 does not apply here. Please do not reference WP:NVG as it is an essay, not a guideline or policy. The lack of existence of reliable sources covering the topic in-depth, as in the WP:GNG, is sufficient to call for deletion. (See [23] the WP:VGSE.) --Izno (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small indie games need definitive secondary, third-party sourcing to pass the GNG, and this doesn't appear to have any. --Masem (t) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:G4. The original rationale for deletion has not been addressed, and cannot be addressed. This title obviously does not qualify for GNG and never will. Recreating it after an AFD was an abuse of process, and a sad attempt at PROMO editing. (Notice that the original article was also salted with the comment "Repeatedly recreated".) ApLundell (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2020 (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 Glossary of association football terms. Missvain (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International A Match[edit]

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

Delete. This is an obscure, anachronistic term that is not worth an article. At best, it could be included in a glossary. I believe the correct term for an official international match is Tier One – involving any match between the full representative teams of two FIFA member countries. The sources given are primary and one of them is unobtainable while the other does not provide any useful verification. Fails both WP:V and WP:Notability. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article in its current form contributes nothing to the encylopedia and doesn't demonstrate why an article is needed on this topic. --LukeSurl^{t c} 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - alternatives to deletion should be considered here. if Tier One is the proper name, the article should be renamed. If the article doesn't contain useful data, improve the article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Glossary of association football terms as possible search term, creating an entry there for this (or 'Tier 1' or however you want to word it). Giant Snowman 10:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough people are looking at this page to require a redirect. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEAP. Giant Snowman 10:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per GS, both their !vote and comment right above. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - no need for a standalone article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2020 (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 Already speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:G12. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idin Samimi Mofakham[edit]

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

Non notable composer failing short of WP:COMPOSER. A WP:BEFORE does not show evidence of true notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already included quite some references and external links showing the notability of the topic (the internationally renowned arts centre deSingel, magazines like The New Yorker,...). Also internal Wikipedia links show the importance of this person. This person is for example quite central for the mentioned Tehran Contemporary Music Festival. I have the impression that the WP:BEFORE was not carried out sufficiently before nominating the article for deletion, especially with regard to "C. Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" and "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". To state the notability more clearly, I added some extra references and external links, such as the Discogs profile, an academic article and the press article in the international newspaper Tehran Times. I hope that this is sufficient evidence of notability. Beireke1 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2020 (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. Appears to fail GNG. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shweta A Chaudhary[edit]

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

Hi,

I recently came across an article for Shweta A Chaudhary. And I think she doesn't pass the notability criteria of Wikipedia.

And titles like Mrs. India Earth 2017 & Mrs. Eco international are not notable And Most probably paid. Tatupiplu (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As an actress, I can only find one credit and no information about her role. I don't know if she's notable as a model, and would defer to other editors on that point. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Baniya[edit]

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

Non notable journalist falling short of WP:JOURNALIST & WP:GNG. Article is ref-bombed & uses YouTube, Facebook, Linkedln, Medium & Instagram to substantiate notability claims. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - undisclosed, paid-for spam. MER-C 09:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per MER-C, and no evidence of notability. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 05:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter[edit]

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

I am seeing no evidence of notability outside if one review I am not even sure is in an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as creator. AfDed 4 minutes after creation, what an admirable dispatch. I admit that this is probably a bit of a borderline case as regards notability, given that we have two third-party sources, Rocket Stack Rank and File 770, who are probably to some degree WP:SPS. But they are both publications that have received significant awards or award nominations in their field, which I believe allows us to qualify them as reliable sources under the "established expert on the subject matter" exemption. And, if I may invoke WP:IAR for perhaps the first time ever, I believe that it is in the interest of Wikipedia and perhaps the public at large for readers to find a serious article about a piece of literature when they search for this particular phrase, not a disparaging meme. (Also, given how the Internet works, it's likely that more media will pick up this topic in the coming days, but that's of course just crystalballing on my part). Sandstein 14:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and my crystal ball was right: A few minutes ago, this additional piece of mainstream media coverage appeared: Ellis, Emma Grey (17 January 2020). "The Disturbing Case of the Disappearing Sci-Fi Story". Wired. Retrieved 17 January 2020. Sandstein 14:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And now also: Flood, Alison (17 January 2020). "Sci-fi magazine pulls story by trans writer after 'barrage of attacks'". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 January 2020. @Slatersteven: Do you think we can close this AfD? Sandstein 17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are not a news service, there has to be evidence of long term notability, not temporary notoriety. This is only notable becaue of the controversy (and its links to a meme) so at best this should be a merge with the Meme.Slatersteven (talk) 12:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven, there is no article about the meme to which this could be merged, and nor should there be one in my view. The puerile meme is better covered in the context of this article. This is a work of literature, and most notable works of literature are covered by publications when they are published; this one is no exception. Long-term importance is something we talk about when we discuss events (crimes, disasters, etc.), not literature. That there is controversy about this story makes it more notable, not less. Sandstein 17:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet a novel whose sole notability seems to be its relation to the Meme should have an article? It is only notable for one reason, the flash in the pan shock.Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also this article in Transgender Studies Quarterly. This is what a WP:BEFORE search is for. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman, thanks for finding this. It's about the meme of the same title, not the short story that is the topic of this article, but it could still yield relevant background material. Does anybody here have the kind of library access needed for the full text? Sandstein 15:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Try WP:RX. b uidhe 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Wired item, plus the two third-party sources in niche but well-regarded and influential publications, are enough to make a decent notability case. (I had actually read the story before the big dust-up about it, because I happened to check Pharyngula on the day that PZ Myers pointed to it, calling it "good and slightly terrifying" [24].) XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum With the Guardian story linked above, I'd support an early close. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With the Wired coverage, sufficiently notable. And per WP:IAR, I like it, and like the argument that this will be what people find if they come looking for the meme. Bishonen | talk 15:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Is an internet meme that seems quite irrelevant. Pages about memes (unless they are significant) are not supposed to have pages. Dellwood546 (talk) 17:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dellwood546, this article is about a short story, not about the meme. Sandstein 17:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, for that matter, the meme has been written about in places ranging from the academic article linked above to sports news. XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The only reason I'm voting to keep is because of Guardian and Wired. I wish it had more sources though. ⌚️ (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short stories should be subject to similar notability guidelines as books. Since there are now multiple pieces of independent coverage in reliable sources, it should be kept. b uidhe 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is not just a one-event, but did get a review also. So overall coverage meets WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we'd be crazy to delete this. As 'Shonen says, having our article focus on the short story is the responsible thing to do. There are certainly enough reliable sources to meet GNG now, and this is the right article to write from those sources. Kudos to the author. --RexxS (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It is snowing. We can add Reason to the list of RS. More are very likely to come very soon. Passes GNG. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per sourcing identified, and likely to add on. I had never heard of the meme, so a few sentences in a background section would be helpful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, has multiple sources that review/cover this short story. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep given the large amount of coverage. Artw (talk) 07:18, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I made {{R from meme}} just for situations like this. I've applied that tag to I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter (meme). Also, is the meme really transphobic anymore? There's been a significant effort to reclaim it, and I think nowadays it's mostly used ironically by the LGBT community (or at least in my weird circles). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:48, 19 January 2020 (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 and rename to Strauss Zelnick. Consensus this company is not notable but its owner is and there is content in the existing article worth saving. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zelnick Media Capital[edit]

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

A mostly unnotable holding company, fails WP:NCORP. While it does appear in some sources, it is either a brief mention (mostly in relation to its owner, Strauss Zelnick, as the CEO of Take-Two Interactive) or a re-hash of a press releases. There is no significant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. Lordtobi (✉) 07:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 07:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename to Strauss Zelnick - I see WSJ coverage (e.g., here and here) as well as Hollywood Reporter and LA Times coverage. Since Strauss Zelnick currently re-directs to this page and coverage of ZMC is typically indistinguishable from coverage of Strauss Zelnick (who is clearly notable) it is quite arguable that Zelnick himself is the real subject of this article. FOARP (talk) 12:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe a more thorough article on Zelnick himself can be established per FOARP, so recommend the Keep and refocusing, but at worse Redirect to Take-Two Interactive, which is the notable topic he and ZMC are part of now. --Masem (t) 17:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and suppress the redirect per FOARP above. Doug Mehus T·C 03:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rename Zelnick Media Capital is not enough notable to have its own article but its owner Strauss Zelnick has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. So rename and this article to focus about Strauss Zelnick not about his holding company as suggested above. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 13:37, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and rewrite - Per the above, the owner seems more notable to me than the company. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rexroad Formation[edit]

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

This links to List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Kansas and there is not enough information to constitute a standalone page. Information can be easily merged into List of fossiliferous stratigraphic units in Kansas PenulisHantu (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article length is not a deletion criterion. Abyssal (talk) 12:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a valid stratigraphic article stub with potential for expansion. Vsmith (talk) 12:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep found a good number of listings and descriptions in Google Books, more than enough to pass WP:GNG. Sources need to be added to the article, but that is an editing issue and not a deletion issue. As to the length of the article, do not confuse stub status with non-notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Short but notable, with named fossiliferous material identified from it, plus cited and sourced.--Kev min § 19:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 291 hits in Google Scholar for the exact phrase "Rexroad Formation", 75 hits for publications that include "Rexroad" in their title, and two that have this exact phrase in their title [25] [26] this seems like an easy pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 19 January 2020 (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 , in the sense of "do not delete", while not necessarily endorsing the current state of the article. The subject clearly was primarily notable for one event, but there is significant arguments made that the level of reliable-source coverage over the following years suggest sufficient enduring notability for a standalone article, potentially satisfying several of the exceptions to WP:BLP1E. However, there are also very valid concerns that the way the second half of the article primarily covers "related attacks" is rather inappropriate, covering too much information not directly related to Ahmed Rajib Haider. These two opinions are potentially compatible - the subject can be sufficiently notable, but significant parts of it perhaps should be merged to Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. Ultimately, though, there is a distinct consensus to keep this content in some form, though a full merge and redirect is not necessarily excluded if a trimmed article is trivially short. A merge discussion on the talk page about what content shouldn't really be here is the way forward, from the point of view of AfD this article is clearly not being deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 16:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Rajib Haider[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)

This person is notable but is not that kind of notable that a separate article should be created for him, the article should be merged with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. There was a similar person like this person and he was named Washiqur Rahman Babu, his article was created first but later that was merged with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh which was done after a deletion discussion; Faisal Abedin Deepan is another person whose article has been merged with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh (after a deletion discussion). MashNovTan (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.199 (talk) 09:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.202.165 (talk) 09:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be merged like Faisal Abedin Deepan's article and Washiqur Rahman's article, some discussions are needed from experienced Wikipedians. 103.67.159.178 (talk) 10:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman (2nd nomination) and [[27]], similar person like this person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.202.38 (talk) 10:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh as the person is noted only for being attacked. 103.67.159.113 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment The nomination and discussion so far bear a striking resemblance to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avijit Roy. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article has been subject to damnatio memoriae type vandalism for a while. They have enough media coverage and will certainly get more in the future, going down in history as the Bengali Hamza.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think eligible for merge. almost added lot of reliable source. no reason for deletion. Source enough Pass WP:GNG.-Nocturnal306^talk 22:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable. Plentiful sources.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This nomination is part of a series of nomination by a group of socks targeting articles on critics of Islam in Bangladesh. This is not a good faith nomination. The subject easily passes GNG.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be a bad-faith effort to censor Wikipedia, complete with edit wars. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Keep. This article is well-referenced (I don't need to repeat the refs, which include several WP:RS/P with him as the specific subject). Britishfinance (talk) 11:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete of Redirect I don't get it. A blogger was killed. Notable for being killed? Millions of people get killed. If people insist on keeping something about this merge or redirect it here: Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commment. Not only is he given SIGCOV by almost every major RS out there, but the Committee to Protect Journalists give him an obituary and chronicle him as a freelance journalist. This could be a much bigger article, and the issues surrounding his life and death are profound for this region. Britishfinance (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a WP:1E. If he had not been killed there would be next to nothing written about him. He was a controversial blogger (which many bloggers try to be - for attention). We really stretch to call him a journalist when he is more of an editorialist. Some references are not even about him, they are about other bloggers. Nearly every article about him is about his death. You can argue his death: getting hacked to death is notable. But I see no reason not to merge or redirect to my target above. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the person is not someone notable rather than a victim of a terrorist attack, this should not be as a separate article, rather should be here under a list of Terrorist Attack Victims in Bangladesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeotheoneReal (talk • contribs) 09:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The implications of his death, per the considerable RS on the individual even the years after this death, means that it does not meet #3 of WP:BLP1E for failing the requirement of having an article. In addition, WP:BIO1E states that The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified – the global media coverage of the individual has been extensive, and was for some period after his death. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia can't have articles for all non-established bloggers who tried to earn recognition by blog writings; This blogger was attacked and killed and after that Wikipedia article was created in his name; The whole world has so many bloggers, and if anyone becomes a crime victim Wikipedia can't have articles just for being attacked; In future if some other non-noted bloggers get attacked and die and for that if they get attention by newspapers and/or TV channels for a few days Wikipedia can't have articles for them; Time makes the bloggers forgotten if their articles are present in Wikipedia or not, The world notices so many crime victims like the number 'rape victim women' are increasing in India and Bangladesh; Does Wikipedia should have all of the rape victim women's article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.38.90 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When someone gets covered by The New York Times, CNN, and most of the world's major press, and they keep coming back to the story for years afterward, that becomes notable (per WP:GNG). I understand that as an atheist-blogger, he was particularly controversial (and simply hated) to large sections of his country (hence his death), however, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED – as long as the highest quality independent reliable sources cover him, then so does Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Britishfinance (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Whether this article will be kept or not will be decided tomorrow by an administrator as seven days since the article's deletion nomination are going to be completed tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.111.198.109 (talk) 03:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be kept but it should be merged with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh with an edited version; an administrator will consider this and I am hoping that some wise Wikipedians will also vote on behalf/against this article or comment. Everyone should also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman (2nd nomination), the deletion discussion of another Bangladeshi blogger whose article was merged with Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh. 119.30.39.232 (talk) 04:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks a lot like a WP:BIO1E, with about half the article being about his death and the rest being about "related attacks". That would typically lead to deletion or redirection to an article about the event. Since most comments favor keeping, I'm relisting to provide an opportunity for any additional arguments addressing this concern.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:BIO1E says that The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. We already have a general article on Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh, however, the high-quality RS is significant on this individual (and keeps getting referenced post his 2013 death here and here and here), and therefore a BLP is acceptable. There are many minor Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh that get minor RS coverage, are forgotten, but get listed in WP, however, this individual received considerably more RS coverage. Britishfinance (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The news of blogger's death spread world-wide as Islamic terrorists attacked some bloggers between 2013 to 2016; after 2016 the Bangladesh Police either arrested or killed so many terrorist, Bangladesh Police also foiled so many terrorist-attacks, so since 2016 no blogger or other secularist has been killed. New York Times or CNN or BBC can't a make a blogger or secularist famous, this person had no ability to get worldwide recognition, just for an attack he can't be 'a strong renowned person', NYT and other newspaper also publishes so many rape victim's news, so other crime victim person's news are being published in international famous newspapers; as this blogger is only known mainly for his attack and not for his writing his article should be considered for redirecting or the article should be renamed as 'Murder of Ahmed Rajib Haider' like Murder of Nusrat Jahan Rafi - this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.58.202.41 (talk) 15:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The person's blog writings should have been archived/should be available if he is really notable; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washiqur Rahman (2nd nomination) must be seen by an administrator as Washiqur Rahman had similarity with this person (Ahmed); Bangladesh noticed several blogger-killings by Islamist Terrorists from 2013 to 2016 - this is true; newspapers like NYT didn't give any kind of popular recognition to any murdered bloggers, newspapers had just published news. Bangladesh government punished the terrorists but no dead blogger had got official recognition/notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.28 (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in Attacks by Islamic extremists in Bangladesh per nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.67.159.46 (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Horizon: Escape[edit]

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

Lacks all notability. Boardgamegeek is a database listing, which leaves us with just one review. Nothing better could be found in the 57 Google hits[28], and after more than 20 years no books seem to have even mentioned it either. Fram (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The review in Dragon appears to be the only legit secondary source. All other sources are either simple database listings (such at the BGG entry currently being used in the article), or sales listings. The single source is not sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. As neither the game's creator or publisher appear to be notable themselves, there is no suitable target for redirecting or merging. Rorshacma (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Okullu[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and NFOOTBALL. Jogurney (talk) 05:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Monroe[edit]

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

Disambiguation page between four entries, three of which appear to be relatively minor fictional characters without articles of their own. One character is not even listed on the page that his link goes to. Only the fourth entry, Michael Monroe, is notable, and a disambiguation page is not needed for only one entry. Delete. JIP | Talk 11:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not need such a page for 3 fictional characters and 1 real person, with only the last actually having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have a need and room for such a disambiguation page to aid the readers. WP:D " It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek." Wm335td (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then redirect to List of Northern Exposure characters#Recurring characters. The EastEnders character isn't even on the linked list, we don't usually include characters from obscure, one-shot movies, and Michael Monroe is a non-Mike stage name. That leaves the Northern Exposure character, who has a story arc in the TV show, so a redirect seems acceptable, possibly with a redirect hatnote to Michael Monroe. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Disambiguation pages are essentially indexes that show readers where on Wikipedia that can get information on 'Mike Monroe'. That could be a brief mention or a lengthy article, but either way, we show the reader how to navigate there. If a link meets MOS:DABMENTION (i.e. a Mike Monroe is mentioned in an article), then that link should be there. The first entry was no longer valid as the EastEnders character was deleted from the list. The rest all meet the criteria laid out at MOS:D. Whether there's a primary topic is another question, although the musician would be the most notable, he's also rarely known as 'Mike'. I also added another entry. Boleyn (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "minor" status of entries which have a mention in an article is not a policy reason to delete. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wm335td, Boleyn and Shhhnotsoloud. Anyone typing the name Mike Monroe or even mistyping the name of the Australian TV presenter Mike Munro should be immediately able to see the current dab page layout of names and not be faced with a redlink or even with a redirect to List of Northern Exposure characters. Such a setup would only hinder Wikipedia's accessibility and help no one. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hug^syrup 17:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Harmless. Could be helpful to someone who hears the name and wants to shake it out of their brain. BD2412 T 02:23, 21 January 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nude weather reports[edit]

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

Some topics are good ideas for encyclopedia articles. This doesn't seem like one of them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 17:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks notability. SunCrow (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have been able to adequately reference the two existing examples, and after I walk a dog I'll be adding this one-time instance—sample quotation: "Elle a interrogé une habitante [de Poil], lui demandant si elle vivait 'à Poil toute l'année'. I'll feel more confident after I find some article talking about the phenomenon in general, but it is apparently A Thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Broaden and rename Nude news broadcasting. It appears to be a tiny genre, with broadcasters going on the air in the buff on Naked News and elsewhere. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In my view the article lacks sufficient notability. A few non-notable examples were provided in the article, included a French lady streaking in a field, filmed from a distance. I'm trying to avoid using the contentious word "unencyclopedic", but the article lacks lasting notability and importance in my opinion. I don't think it's even important enough to include in the "Popular Culture" section of the article Depictions of nudity. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I like Clarityfiend's idea of broadening and renaming, if someone wants to do the work (or "research" lol) Missvain (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To discuss whether this has more chances of being kept if it is broadened in scope as proposed (preferably before closing the AfD, to show that a reasonable article is possible).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability for stand alone article. Trivial. Kierzek (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - a bit of a bizarre choice for an article if you ask me. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Broaden as per Clarityfiend.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Frivolous, trivial subject.TH1980 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Okumu[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornelius Mwangi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heritier Luvualu[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Kagunzi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2020 (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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information Harvesting[edit]

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

This appears to be original research about a product which is not notable. PROD was endorsed by Bearian and removed by DGG. SITH (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 16:15, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment removed prod because I doubt it's OR but it needed a more comprehensive check for references in the field than I could do. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally created this article but I'm not going to advocate strongly now for its being kept. This is an old article about an even older product. It seemed somewhat notable when I originally created this article, but as the product has receded further into the past, it seems less so now. I haven't edited this article in 13 years; if others who have edited it more recently wish to add to the discussion I may participate in this discussion. But I'm not going to be the primary advocate for keeping it. Dash77 (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Based on DGG's expertise as a researcher, I'm willing to hear what was said about it. Once notable, a thing is always notable. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree and this is exactly why I'm not going to be a strong advocate to keep the article. Once something is notable I agree that it is always notable. However I created this article early in my 'career' as a Wikipedian, when I wasn't as familiar with Wikipedia's notability guidelines as I am now, so my having created the article is not strong evidence for it ever having been notable. I haven't touched the article since. I understand that multiple references from multiple sources are needed to establish notability. I was aware of the one reference that DGG provided but am not aware of any others as yet, so I'm not sure on whether this product is now or was ever notable. I'll also be interested in any further thoughts that DGG has. Dash77 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also add that I recall that Ralphe Wiggins, the creator of this product, had an article in the May 1992 issue of AI Expert entitled 'Docking a truck: A genetic fuzzy approach'. That was how I originally learned of Wiggins' work. However I don't recall whether the AI Expert article mentioned Information Harvesting or not, and I can't find a PDF of the article online. Even AI Expert itself, which was an important AI publication in its era, doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article. Dash77 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added the old AI Expert reference to the article but I'm not sure if that is enough to establish notability. I would hope for a bit more in terms of references but can't find much out there. Dash77 (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 17 January 2020 (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 Draft:Braden Mitchell. I went ahead and moved the article to Draft:Braden Mitchell. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Braden Mitchell[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. Only sources cited are press releases that do not establish notability. An external search did not find meaningful WP:SIGCOV. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:09, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cavanaughs expanded the article with some useful information and reliable sources. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 23:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those "reliable sources" are press releases, which aren't considered WP:RS. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 05:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a draft, I think what's on there (the sources I found) can be kept, but I agree that there really isn't enough info about him on the page. Nothing else could be found because there's nothing else out there online about him when Googling. Mitchell has only ever attempted one race which was a DNQ. The racing series he competes in is so small that there's no news about him. If Mitchell attempts a Nascar race again (like Eldora in 2020) or whenever we find out more info about him, then I'd say add the page back. Moving it as a draft would be a good compromise here. We don't lose any of the existing info, which is still something but not enough for an article. Cavanaughs (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]
Draftify per Cavanaughs reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just added a reference to a reliable source to make the AfD more likely say "keep". NASCARfan0548 ↗ 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source is directory-style sourcing that does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:10, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tayshia Adams[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are either recaps of the TV show she was on or tabloid articles about her relationship. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article is clearly a notable figure as she has appeared on multiple national television shows and was 1 of the final 2 contestants, which makes her notability more prominent. Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG --Deansfa (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need more discussion about actual sources, not just "meets GNG" or "fails GNG" or "was on TV".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, not sure why you relisted after a consensus to keep was decided. A simple Google search will yield more than enough results from a multitude of reliable and prominent sources to back the validity of this article. This person is clearly notable. Thanks! Hidden Hills Editor (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting is very questionnable actually. There was an exactly similar AfD with the same number of votes but wasn't relisted. Is it that she's black unlike Hannah Godwin? What's your problem? Why do we continually perpetuate the same patterns over and over? --Deansfa (talk) 17:16, 20 January 2020 (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. Please consider improving before nominating again. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Bedny[edit]

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

I don't think this person meets NACADEMIC or NAUTHOR. I was only able to find one review of his books. b uidhe 06:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 06:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 06:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that is the criterion. Scholar indicates that 6 of his works have each been cited over 100 times, perhaps someone can find an h-index for him. His work on Activity theory certainly looks significant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nocturnal306^talk 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to google scholar Gregory Bedny's work has been cited > 1600 times. Some other relevant information suggesting that this page should not be deleted: Gregory Bedny is a member/Academician of the Russian Academy of Aerospace and Engineering. He holds an honorary Doctor of the University of South Ukraine, he was an editor of the Human Activity series of CRC Press, Member of the Board of the Applied Human Factors Ergonomics conference, Member of the Board of the Theoretical Issues of Ergonomics Journal and in addition to articles, author of 18 scholarly books. It is also worth noting that because G. Bedny is a Soviet scholar and immigrant this needs to be taken into account when interpreting scholarly impact. Gregory Bedny's impact extends not only in US and Wester Europe but also in Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries. It is important that Wikipedia remain as inclusive of international diversity as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbedny (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Potentially notable but single reference is insufficient for establishing notability. Three papers with more than 100 cites are pretty decent. scope_creep^Talk 11:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do we have any RS telling anything about this person (when and where he was born, what he did, etc.)? So far, there is one review about his book. If not, I am afraid this is going to be deleted. We must source content to something. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On sources, the foreword to this book that he coedited is some kind of eulogy; there's also a short biography there. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see a plenty of sourced info about him in preface to the book. That resolves my concern. However, it does not say that he was the founder of Activity theory. What was his the most significant achievement, exactly, beyond publishing several books? I have no strong opinion to keep or delete. My very best wishes (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think his citation record is probably sufficient that he meets WP:NPROF C1, although I'm concerned about the largely-without-references article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 17 January 2020 (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. Missvain (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Ochieng[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:15, 17 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mwangi Wainaina[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:15, 17 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nahashon Thiong'o[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:35, 24 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis Ojiambo[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:16, 17 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calvins Masawa[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Levis Opiyo[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails NFOOTBALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:35, 21 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salim Abdalla[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:17, 17 January 2020 (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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augustine Ochieng[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most references are trivial transfer updates. BlameRuiner (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG (lack of significant coverage - needs to be more than routine/trivial pieces about injuries and transfers etc.) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has not played in a fully-professional league or for the national team). Giant Snowman 20:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article fails NFOOTALL and GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2020 (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 12:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Petsonk[edit]

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

Non-notable lawyer and political candidate. PamD 08:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PamD 08:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPOL, not enough significant coverage outside of his campaign to establish WP:GNG Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL & WP:POLITICIAN. Petsonki is a candidate. If he wins, he will be notable. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in upcoming political party primaries — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But nothing else here demonstrates that he has any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacy, and the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to claim that he could be deemed a special case of greater notability than other candidates. Bearcat (talk) 02:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there's some evidence that he's known as an expert in education, economic development and bankruptcy/black lung law. Whether those sources are considered significant coverage is debatable, but they need to be considered before deletion. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable for such, and other coverage is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2020 (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 Crosswind kite power#Timeline of uses and progress of crosswind kite power. Sandstein 12:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X-Wind technology[edit]

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

Not notable. There seems to be a few minor mentions in some books but besides that, nothing. Mostly unrelated, but I did come across a user who seems to be the inventor of this here. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crosswind_kite_power#Timeline_of_uses_and_progress_of_crosswind_kite_power, where it is mentioned in context. I was unable to find sufficient in-depth independent sources for this project sufficent for WP:GNG notability threshold. The parent company, NTS GmbH, also does not look notable. But the three sentences in the crosswind kite power article about this project seem due weight and the basic facts mentioned seem verifiable. For verifiable material, a redirect like this is prefereable to deletion, per our policy WP:ATD. Hence, redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 17 January 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posthume Records[edit]

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

This is an article for a record label with no notable artists. The lack of noteworthy artists suggests the label is not "one of the more important indie labels" of the sort suggested by WP:MUSIC, and the footnotes don't substantiate the label's importance in a meaningful way, as far as I can tell, which seems to indicate it would not hurdle WP:GNG either. The label has no article in French, nor does the founding musician (Hibou (band) is a different ensemble entirely). Chubbles (talk) 05:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Complete lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2020 (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) 05:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soyombo Revival Society[edit]

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

While this page is attributed to an anonymous editor on ruwiki, I believe that it is the same person who made this page on enwiki. An editor with the same name as the one who made this page in enwiki made another page regarding this organization here, using an edited picture from Republican Xinjiang. While Bekteev was met by Sven Hedin under the service of Ma Zhongying, this was after the decline of much of the ROVS, and Xinjiang is very close to Mongolia. Furthermore, citation 7 seems to be a permanently dead link, and a search for it yields no relevant results. Citation 8 is behind a paywall, but it cuts off right after explaining the Kumul Rebellion. From a quick re-read of a section of Source 9, it seems that it does not mention the OVS at all. Roniius (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Roniius (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Let me clarify here: you're saying this isn't notable because the sources are poor (i.e. it fails WP:GNG)? That it didn't actually exist? What does its creation by the same user as on RuWiki have to do with it? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per CaptainEek, I am confused as to what the argument for deletion is here. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @CaptainEek: @Sirfurboy: I have reason to believe that this organization did not exist. The sources do not mention this organization at all, and the creation by the same user on ruwiki may have a connection to the user being the one who made this up - As this user may be the only person to create articles on different language Wikipedias (and a Wikia article with an edited image that I could not find elsewhere, thus making it suspicious that it may be made up by the user), it makes it more likely to have been the fabrication of one person (I find it unlikely for different users on different language Wikipedias to work together to create articles about an obscure fake organization). Roniius (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. So yes, on the face of it, it looks like it could well be a WP:HOAX. I will do some more digging and come back with my thoughts soon. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does indeed look like a WP:HOAX. I don't speak Russian which makes things harder, but it is suspicious in itself that most of the refs are Russian only, with no translation of key material, and that they are of poor quality. Searching for the name of the society in the better quality Russian pages finds no hits, and Google translate of these seems to confirm no mention. One ref is to a file hosting site. The user generated sites are already described by the nominator. The English refs do not check out. Searching vol 32 of Foreign Affairs here:[29] I get no hits for Soyombo, OVS, OBS or anything similar. Hits for "revival" do not check out. The ref is used in a related context on another wikipedia page, but this version strips it of page numbers, which is the kind of thing a hoaxer would do to make it harder to verify the ref. Basically is seems to say this imaginary society was part of that real rebellion, but does not provide enough information to disporve the claim. Nevertheless as it is not even mentioned in the only two English refs given on the page, it fails GNG and is very likely a hoax. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well at any rate it fails WP:GNG. An explicit google search shows just 14 results, none more than just including the phrase of the society. A wide variety of different search terms and looking around showed me...surprisingly nothing. Of the existing sources, the Ruspole one is blog content hosting a primary source that doesn't even mention the SRS. The third ref just took me to a phishing website and my anti-virus had a cow, sooo don't think thats legit. The rest are books in Russian, which I don't have access to. But I'm surprised that not a single google books result came up. I even tried in Russian, using the Russian transliteration of "Общество возрождения Соембо". While it brought up the Wikipedia pages in both English and Russian, it brought up basically nothing else, and no results in Google books. While I won't go so far as to say its a hoax (although it sure could be), it certainly fails the GNG anyway. Someone who speaks Russian might be useful here to determine if this is a hoax or not. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tries search in Russian, and I do not get any hits beyond Wikipedia derivatives--Ymblanter (talk) 12:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V as best I can determine. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I find Yugoslav agitation in Mongolia in the 1920s incredible, but white Russian would not be. However this article appears to have some sources, apparently RS, meaning that I cannot accept that it is wholly a hoax. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:V, even if it is not a hoax. Bearian (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2020 (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) 05:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosmos Holding[edit]

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

Article of dubious notability, draft-ified recently, and then moved back into mainspace with no improvements. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Written by a ring of now-blocked sockpuppets -- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ArthurCurry70/Archive]]. DGG ( talk ) 08:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill investment trust, only known for being funded by a football player. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2020 (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. Sandstein 12:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer Norman[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable individual. This might be the product of a Santa Monica College course, but I am not 100% sure. An editor with the subject's name appears to have been involved in the editing too. In any case, there is no coverage at all. Only source I could find was this one, where he was mentioned once in passing. PK650 (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting any inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually it looks like there are a fair number of reasonable feature articles about Ebenezer Norman that are cited in this article--for example, this, this, this, and a number of others. Philepitta (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they're a start in the right direction, but they're far from SIGCOV. Firstly they're about his school, not himself. Secondly, they're very local outlets, and I'm unsure if they would be considered reliable, or at least I would question their reliability unless someone experienced in the matter can attest to their weight and validity. Thirdly, one of the sources you elicited is a Denver Catholic publication, which obviously raises independence issues as well, given his initiative is at least in part a Catholic one (financially speaking, for one). Best, PK650 (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article already seem sufficient in that they deal with him directly. Many deal with his organization or projects in more detail, but even in these he's discussed sufficiently (even if he isn't the primary subject) to indicate to me that he passes WP:GNG. --Jayron 32 16:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the "sufficient" sources listed in the article, and excluding citations to Facebook, Youtube, Catholic and University non-independent press (he works with Catholic organizations and got press from the University he attended, for example), as well as what appear to be blog posts, we are left with the following:

[30] A local community radio article that briefly discusses "Young Women Survivors of War in Liberia", and mentions Norman twice.
[31] A press release titled "Nobel Peace Prize Winner Receives Award In Arvada", mentioning him being at the event.
3 local Colorado KUSA articles I could access (another returned a 404): [32], [33] & [34] - these are the most solid, albeit local sources yet.
[35] An interview on the same local radio.
[36], [37] & [38] Lastly these 3 that again are about speeches by other people.

Now, if you think this satisfies SIGCOV, then I think we have very different ideas of what satisfies the GNG. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 01:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no adequate consensus to either keep or delete the article, thereby I'm relisting it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 12:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:59, 17 January 2020 (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 12:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Karel[edit]

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

tried finding some coverage and foud that clearly fails wp:gng Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shubhi89 (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete halls of fame have reached absurd levels. Membership in one is no longer worth what it used to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Parks was a Municipal department head who's only possible claim to notability was being inducted into a Hall of Fame that doesn't confer notability in the slightest. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:

"Karel Is Inducted Into Missouri Recreation and Parks Hall of Fame" from the St. Genevieve Herald
"Director who brought new activity to historic Tower Grove Park is retiring" from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
"Tower Grove Park Director Prepares To Leave After Nearly 30 Years" from St. Louis Public Radio
"Tower Grove Park Director John Karel Says Farewell" from St. Louis Magazine
"An Urban and Urbane Park for St. Louis" from Mizzou
"Into the Wild: Missouri State Parks offers nine opportunities to venture into true wilderness" from the Columbia Daily Tribune
"John Karel Steps Down as Director of Tower Grove Park" from CBS St. Louis

I will also drop these on the talk page of the article. Missvain (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for additional analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. The articles listed above discuss Tower Grove Park in detail, not John Karel. [39] has a bit more detail about him but it's a press release.----Pontificalibus 13:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources presented above are all local to the subject, which fails WP:AUD. Absent a delete close, I wouldn't object to a very selective merge to Tower Grove Park. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Professor of Chemical Engineering[edit]

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

One source and i don't see why something such as this needs a wikipedia article, the article fails to provide any information on this subject or convey its importance or relevance. Theprussian (talk) 14:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have also just noted that the only source this article is based on is inaccessible due to a paid subscription being neccesary. This is not good enough to confirm the existence of this entity.Theprussian (talk) 14:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is utterly irrelevant. You not being able to look at it certainly does not equate to it not being a valid source. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have as yet no opinion on keeping or deleting this article, but must point out that there is no requirement for sources to be available online or without charge. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to List of professorships at the University of Cambridge - I don't have experience in determining notability of these topics. I'll note that there are many other articles of this ilk linked from List of professorships at the University of Cambridge (yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF). At the very least this should be redirected (to List of professorships at the University of Cambridge), not deleted per WP:ATD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of professorships at the University of Cambridge. There are thousands of colleges, many with hundreds of named professorships. Virtually none have coverage outside internal university fundraising documents and lists of faculty and this does not appear to be an exception. The source here isn't even about the professorship, it's a biography of the first holder, wtf...

Here's the quote from the bio: "Fox's great opportunity came in 1945 when Cambridge University accepted the offer from Shell of about £450,000 for a chemical engineering department. His appointment in 1946 as Shell professor caused a stir in the small world of chemical engineers, as it was then. The appointment was in many ways remarkable: Fox had published no research papers, nor did he ever; he was not at that time an established member of the chemical engineering profession." Reywas92^Talk 04:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems to be somewhat famous as a standard example of cozy ties between academe and industry. See, e.g. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]. Those are all passing mentions rather than non-trivial coverage, but from many times and places. There is more in-depth coverage in [49] and [50]. I think that's enough to hint that this particular chair stands out from the thousands of others enough for an article. (Incidentally, "Shell Chair" seems to work significantly better as a search term than "Shell Professor" or "Shell Professorship".) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, seems like a better place for this is Department_of_Chemical_Engineering_and_Biotechnology,_University_of_Cambridge#History then, which already lists the chairs anyway. These are more about the department or the concept of corporate sponsorship than the position itself, and I don't think a lecture presented by a Shell professor himself counts as independent coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When considering whether a source is independent, you have to consider what it is being used to source. I think a lecture presented by someone who held the title some forty years later, when used as a source for the initial founding of the title, is sufficiently independent of those founding events. Also, it is false that the department web page lists the holders of this chair. It lists the department chairs, which haven't been the same thing as the Shell chairs for over 20 years. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I significantly expanded the article based on these sources. The version as nominated and as viewed by the previous commenters was significantly sparser and only had an in-passing source, now removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per David Eppstein. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of professorships at the University of Cambridge. As said above there are countless endowed Chairs many of which have been held by a string of noteworthy academics. In this instance, the Chair doesn't appear to have yielded any Nobels thus far, though i'm not doubting the calibre of its holders, I just feel this opens the door to many somewhat superfluous similar articles. Uhooep (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Named chairs have to have Nobel prize winners to become notable? Are they giving Nobel prizes in engineering nowadays? Can you point to where in Wikipedia's notability policies or guidelines this opinion is based? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep given the history of the Chair. Uhooep (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Established chairs at Oxbridge are generally regarded as notable. And 1945 is an early foundation date for a chair of chemical engineering. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: sufficient sourcing for a stand-alone article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2020 (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 Aviation in Australia. Stuff can be merged from history. Sandstein 12:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of the busiest international air routes in Australia[edit]

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

This article is a content fork. There are no other articles by country that are relating to this topic. Interstellarity (talk) 23:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Adds no value not already available in each airport main article. It might have some value if it did not split by each airport. Also it seems that it is not being kept up to date, whereas the individual airport articles do appear to be being kept up todate. Aoziwe (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Aviation in Australia as an alternative to deletion. The list is encyclopedic (WP:NOTPAPER) and should be kept somewhere, but the standalone list article is a mess given it's reliant on single sources. The main article on aviation in Australia only contains a history section and nothing else, and would be ideal to have some lists on domestic and international civil air routes currently. The list article can be pruned there to something manageable so I'm not suggesting all of it be recreated in the Aviation in Australia article. Bookscale (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 17 January 2020 (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) 05:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Valley, Washington[edit]

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willy Dick Crossing, Washington this mass-produced place is not actually a community but a physical feature, through which one may hike in Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. I am unable to find sources establishing notability or mentions on newspapers.com. (There is another Cougar Valley in British Columbia and a Cougar Valley Elementary in Kitsap County but nothing about this one.) Reywas92^Talk 04:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG. Surachit (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a campsite for hikers, and was mentioned as being such in a 1967 newspaper I found. If it was settled permanently at some earlier date, I would have expected to have found some mention, but I did not. ----Pontificalibus 15:02, 22 January 2020 (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) 05:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

José Regattieri[edit]

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

Directed and produced 3 non notable movies. Most of the sources seem unreliable and outdated. Research into subject is difficult to come across. Dellwood546 (talk) 03:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Of the 2 movies produced, nothing significant mentioned on the page. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We almost always delete biographies about producers, who are run of the mill investors and business persons, unless they are truly well-known, which is not the case here. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2020 (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) 05:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George C. Wallace White Way[edit]

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

Not a real place. Joan Didion made a reference to it, but apparently jokingly. See the discussion on the talk page. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can’t find any evidence this is a real name for the road between these two towns. Shelbystripes (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax, albeit a possibly unintentional one. ——SN 54129 08:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have just notified the article creator, hi Zigzig20s, who might like to contribute to this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no verification that this is the actual name of the stretch of road. Hog Farm (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not exist in the real world, and its mention in the work given is not notable enough for an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:43, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and comments in article's talk page. --Admr Boltz 00:34, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - four-lane named roads are not automatically notable. A fictional place could be notable (e.g., Grand Fenwick, see also List of fictional towns and villages), but the vast majority of such places are not notable. If it's difficult to verify, then why is it here? Bearian (talk) 21:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This article constitutes an attack page through fake information on the residents of Alabama. It is open defamation and meant to insult, incure prejudice, and lead to shootings of innocent people just like the SPLC hate maps. It is time we stopped allowing liberals to lie about other people and get away with it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2020 (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) 05:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized[edit]

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

Two books, the first Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized is not notable but clearly exists, the second Advanced Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized is utterly non notable or even really verifiable.

Even dividing the search term in two parts only gives 93 results (for the two books combined)[51], and only one author, Titus Chalk, mentions these books in any later books. One review at the time of publishing, and a near total lack of lasting impact. It looks as if the titles of the books are in reality both "Totally Unauthorized Magic: The Gathering" and they have the subtitles "Player's Guide" and "Advanced Player's Guide". Fram (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction These are two separate and distinct books.

Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized is a basic guide for new players on how to play the game.
Advanced Magic: The Gathering Totally Unauthorized interviews a number of professional players about building a killer tournament deck, card by card. Very different books.Guinness323 (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Not really that distinct, they are clearly marketed as being two parts of the same series, with the exact same layout and lettering of the cover. And they share the same problems, which is what matters most here. If it would turn out that one is notable and the other isn't, then one gets deleted and the other not. So far, neither is shown to be notable though. Fram (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both - Neither book have any information in reliable sources beyond a single review in Arcane magazine which is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2020 (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. Does not meet WP:NMMA or WP:GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kingad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

He has no top tier fights so WP:NMMA is not met. I don't believe that the GNG is met since the coverage is typical sports coverage or is not from a reliable independent source. Sandals1 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject fail WP:MMABIO without having any fights in top tier promotion or any major achievement in top tier fights and fails WP:GNG fights are routine sport coverage. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ONE Championship is notable according to WP:MMABIO. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ONE is not a top tier MMA organization so WP:NMMA is not met. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: PenulisHantu, ONE championship is NOT a top tier MMA promotion as per WP:MMA or WP:MMABIO. I suggest you to go back and reread the pages. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no top tier fights the coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per PenulisHantu. Kingad has earned several wins, notably in ONE FC. He has been in the headlines this month. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:NMMA. _SUPER ^ASTIG 23:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Thousands of fighter wins many fights just like many soccer players win matches, but in Wikipedia majority of them would not pass the notability guidelines. In AfD it is not enough win fights but pass notability guidelines and unfortunately he doest not. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 00:16, 20 January 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nindru Kolvaan[edit]

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

Unreleased, poorly sourced film that fails to establish notability. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I am totally fine with having articles on upcoming films, or even stalled/shelved (cancelled) films as long as they pass general notability criteria. But the film in discussion not only fails notability guidelines for films, but it fails general notability guideline as well. If the film passes any one of these in the future, the article can be created. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn John from Idegon (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) (non-admin closure) John from Idegon (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Thomas Jr.[edit]

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

Subject does not meet any SNG and fails WP:ANYBIO. He has the coverage one would expect for his job, a job that in itself, does not indicate notability. John from Idegon (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John from Idegon are you familiar with WP:SOLDIER? The 2nd criteria says: "In general, an individual is presumed to be notable if they ... [H]eld a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents..."
Some people say SOLDIER is not a special purpose notability guideline. Nevertheless, for the last fifteen years, or more, it has been treated as a de facto special purpose notability guideline. Many people who call upon its authority do not realize it is not actually a special purpose notability guideline. Geo Swan (talk) 02:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll withdraw this. Missed that he was a admiral. Hopefully y'all from MILHIST will help clean it up. It shouldn't be so easy to miss the key point of notability. John from Idegon (talk) 03:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 17 January 2020 (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. Arguments for keeping the page revolve around the uniqueness of its existence in Tehran, but this is a) not a factor in determining notability on en-wiki and b) thrown into doubt by Pontificalibus source and the fact that we have a list of synagogues in Tehran. No policy-based arguments have been offered for keeping the article, but several commentators have pointed to the lack of sources, which is a policy-based reason for deletion. No prejudice to recreation if more sources can be provided. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagh Saba Synagogue[edit]

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

One single source, lacks any notability as far as I can tell. Being a synogogue in Tehran is not exactly notable by itself. Theprussian (talk) 14:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. On the contrary, although perhaps being a synagogue in the continental USA would not be notable in and of itself; however, being a synagogue in Tehran most certainly is notable.

I certainly feel that myself and others from this community would greatly like to know of this wonderful institution's existence. We need to keep this here at Wikipedia. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being a functioning synagogue in Tehran in the Islamic Republic of Iran is exactly what is notable. The sourcing is adequate but can be improved. Alansohn (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for reasons discussed by above editors Postcard Cathy (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The fact that there is only one source in the article is a sign that more sources should be sought, but does not mean by itself that there are no more sources, which would cast doubt on notability. I agree with previous editors that this synagogue would probably be notable because of its location alone. Apart from other reasons it may be notable. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The keep votes above assume an inherent notability for being a synagogue in Iran. However this source states there are more than forty synagogues in Tehran, so this reasoning appears flawed. Sources to satisfy WP:NBUILD and/or WP:ORG are needed.----Pontificalibus 13:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, this article is now clearly in breach of WP:Notability, this in my view is grounds for deletion.Theprussian (talk) 13:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. For the reasons discussed above by all editors, combined. 2604:2000:E010:1100:C813:882A:A64C:761D (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails general notability guidelines. I did my due diligence and failed to find reliable secondary sources in Hebrew and English, and didn't see much in Arabic (but that could use another review by an Arabic speaker) and did not see anything but passing mentions. I did learn (from a non-NPOV blog post in The Times of Israel) it was built in 1951, but, that's about it. Everything else is a self-published source or a passing mention on an event taking place there. Missvain (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is somewhat balanced in a numbers sense, and the Keep !voters are *partially* (but specifically not entirely) making an IAR-esk reasoning, which has been disputed. Between them, further discussion seems warranted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--More than enough third-party sources to prove notability on the Persian language wikipedia article about the same synagogue: [52]. It is ironic that the English-speaking world is looking at to reducing the number of blue links on List_of_synagogues_in_Iran, while the equivalent page in the Persian wikipedia is willing to keep them.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Pls note each sister (different languages) Wikimedia site has it own guidelines and operates independent from each other. For English Wikipedia notability is based on the content is supported by significant coverage by independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not passing mentioned. Sources can be in any languages. The editors who voted keep have not yet present how the subject pass notability guidelines here and no sources independent reliable sources currently are found to support the content claimed at least in EN. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this is in Tehran, I would think a search for Farsi sourcing would be needed. On the other hand religious buildigns are not default notable, we need to find actual sourcign to justify having the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2020 (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 Football Association of Maldives. Sandstein 12:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bassam Adeel Jaleel[edit]

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

Promotional article on a non-notable football executive. BlameRuiner (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Football Association of Maldives as possible search term, but no evidence of independent notability. Giant Snowman 18:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see room for improvement, there are sources on the internet and I see WP:GNG could be met. Also doesn't he qualify for an article via WP:POLITICIAN for his position? Govvy (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2020 (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. BD2412 T 05:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Academy of Paediatrics[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. WP:ORG says: "An organization is not notable merely because notable persons are associated with it. An organization is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This page needs to be deleted. Topjur02 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is weak, but the organisation is notable. However most of the sources are behind paywalls. Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable organization with potential to pass general notability guidelines. The article just needs attention and perhaps folks at the Wikipedia Library can help with access to the databases. Missvain (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: an international org -- with a 60-year history and representing national pediatrics orgs -- is not a flash in the pan. I've found some sources that support notability notability: Guide to Paediatric Clinical Research and Neonatology: A Practical Approach to Neonatal Diseases. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first of K.e.coffman's two book sources provides non-trivial independent coverage, as does Wyder, Corinne, "EAP – European academy of pediatrics" (PDF), Paediatrica, 25 (4): 25. I think that's enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2020 (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. This was a fairly complicated discussion, including various guidelines, some reasoned IAR, and a number of changing !votes, as well as the subject's request for deletion and their involvement in editing.

There is now a clear consensus that notability is established and an IAR argument that the COI(s) were so significant as to necessitate deletion were disagreed with. The discussion about the subject wanting the article deleted, along with the discussion that the author was disrupting the editing of the article/wishing its deletion for an alternate article, are less applicable unless a No consensus decision was being considered or there was firmly clear consensus for an IAR on it.

There is the possibility that the additional sources may allow some additional editing. Several alluded to (but not digitally available) sources may be accessible by use of any and all of Refdesk, Wikipedia Library and Resource request. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Tate[edit]

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

Article subject has requested deletion of their article, VRTS ticket # 2019122410002207. This is a procedural action; I hold no opinion as to the notability of the article subject. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've contributed some minor details to this article, mostly because the main contributor limited by COI rules can't directly improve the page. Various awards and other sources establish notability. IMHO the filmmaker is wrong about the purpose of this article, it is not supposed to mirror everything in his self-published bio. Of course this bio (=personal website) is linked in the infobox. Even a stub would be better than nothing and help users (including Googlebot) to figure out basic facts (Canada, awards, vimeo account, etc.) The article is already far better than a stub and further improvements incl. a filmography are planned or discussed on the talk page. This all or nothing AFD makes no sense for me. –84.46.52.190 (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in no way so notable that we should keep the article against the subject's wish.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ongoing relevant discussion at teahouse. This appears to be an overreaction to unsourced info being removed. But perhaps a related notability discussion is in order. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the Christmas teahouse discussion with the artist is already archived and presumably matches the OTRS request. –84.46.53.207 (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I accepted this article from AFC, he is borderline notable so thought it might survive an AFD, but if the subject would rather it was deleted, I have no issue with that. Theroadislong (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information: Coffee, is it possible for you to tell us what reason, if any, the subject of the article gives for wanting deletion? Without knowing that we can't assess whether the request is a valid one or not. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:04, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @JBW: Unfortunately, per the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement, I cannot divulge anything more from the communications system. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Coffee: I rather thought that would be the answer, but I asked on the off chance that it wouldn't. Thanks for answering, anyway. It is difficult, though, to assess a deletion request if one doesn't know the reason for the request. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @JBW: I wikilinked the archived Christmas teahouse discussion above, and as there actually was a matching OTRS request later Kent tate presumably is Kent Tate. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note the following facts. An earlier article on the same subject was deleted as promotional. Two ~~single-purpose~~ COI accounts have now created two identical drafts for an article on the same subject, much more complimentary about him than the existing article. I would not wish to see the article deleted at the subject's request in order that he can have an article more to his liking posted on his behalf. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I now realise that one of the accounts LorriBrown, is not, in fact, a single purpose account, as I said above. Far more of the account's editing has been related to Kent Tate than to any other single subject, but there have also been many edits on other topics. I apologise for the mistake. The other account, however, Cheri Brown, is a genuine single-purpose account. Among a total of 726 edits (most of them now deleted) I have not found a single one unrelated to Kent Tate. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JBW, could you link them please? Thanks. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked to find the pages in order to answer Usedtobecool's request, I have found that there have actually been more of them than I realised. There have been at least two articles Kent Tate that have been deleted, both created by Cheri Brown, though one had been moved to Draft:Kent Tate before deletion, which is why I didn't see it at first. Then there is, of course, the current version of the article, created by LorriBrown. Then there are at least four user space drafts for the article which have not been deleted, though two of them have been blanked: User:Cheri Brown/Draft of Kent Tate, User:Cheri Brown/sandbox, User:LorriBrown/Draft page, and User:LorriBrown/sandbox/Kent Tate. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 12:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "far more" summary measured in edits does not match "spent time" in articles created about Canadian artists (incl. various WIR) and film festivals, triggered by a teahouse question on one of my bold days I submitted a Draft:Susan Hudson as "WP:NPROF" in spring 2019. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm afraid that the artist or those connected to them may have felt exasperation at the admittedly strict requirements for content inclusion I have effected in a few of my edit request reviews I have performed (shown on the talk page). It was not my intent to alienate them, and I apologize if I have — but the requests have been light on providing what I saw as reliable, independent, secondary sources for some of the claims they've wanted to include, which seem primarily to have been the listing of their artistic output referenced by museum catalog-type publications. Regards, Spintendo 17:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to a very helpful link posted at User talk:LorriBrown by Theroadislong, I have now seen two discussions where the reasosn for wanting deletion are given by Kent tate (who claims to really be Kent Tate, and I see no reason to doubt that) and LorriBrown (who has declared a conflict of interest as a relative of Kent Tate). The discussions are Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1039#How to request for an COI article to be deleted and Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1040#how do I request a deletion of a wikipedia page about me?. Obviously anyone is free to read those discussions for themselves, but it is clear that essentially the reason for requesting deletion is that the editors in question were not able to get the article they wanted. LorriBrown is perfectly clear about that: she is quite explicit about her frustration at not getting the edits she wants because of "resistance" (as she calls it) form other editors. Kent tate is bit more equivocal. He claims not to be notable, but he also says "its clear that that author is unable to do anything with the article which keeps getting re-edited (reduced) by third parties" and "Every edit or addition she has tried to make only results in the article being reduced to the point where it doesn't really say anything", making it clear that the same frustration at not getting the kind of article about himself he wants is a substantial reason for wanting deletion, perhaps in fact the reason. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On the basis of what I have said in my message immediately above this one, I think we can reasonably take the deletion request as being for the two reasons mentioned there.

Notability. While there are many better-sourced articles, the citations in the article do include some which give sufficient coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline.
The subject of the articles and an associated COI editor don't like not being able to get the kind of article they think he deserves. We have probably thousands of articles about people which don't present those people in the way they would like. That is fundamental to the nature of Wikipedia as presenting an independent, third party, view. We don't delete for that reason, nor should we. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 17:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not a matter of liking or “not” liking the article its the matter of the COI and the lack of notability for a third party to add (or even allow) any additional information about the subject whether properly sourced or not. The “strict standards” applied to this article because of the COI are grounds for deletion and the subject should not have a wikipedia article until a third party without a COI creates an article on this subject. Kent tate (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "The “strict standards” applied to this article because of the COI are grounds for deletion " is not a valid reason for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kent tate, That doesn't make much sense at all. You say there shouldn't be an article "until a third party without a COI creates an article on this subject". However, you have elsewhere objected precisely to the fact that the current version of the article is the creation of editors without a COI, and expressed annoyance that the article "keeps getting re-edited (reduced) by third parties". You can't have it both ways. And what would you say if we delete the article because of the conflict of interest, and then a third party without a conflict of interest creates a new article which is substantially the same as the deleted one? If you are sincere in wanting the article deleted "until a third party without a COI creates an article on this subject" you should be perfectly happy with that, but in that case what on earth is your objection to keeping the current article? I could say more about the position you express on this matter, but really it is largely irrelevant, because, as "Theroadislong" has said above, conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion (though it is often a reason for third party editors to clean up an article). JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 21:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, food for thought @JBW:Kent tate (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. If the articles subject wants an article without a conflicted editor, then surely he can just tell her to stop editing and let all the neutral editors get on with improving it? We don't have to delete this one first. Theroadislong (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(changed !vote, see below) ~~Neutral~~, also known as "meh". For the Kent Tate article, he fails WP:ARTIST on all counts. Most coverage is of the calibre of this example coverage in Yorkton This Week. He's eligible for an article as there is a lot of this low-level coverage, and there are some articles in old Canadian art magazines like Parallelogramme and Vanguard. On the upside he was mentioned in Performance in Canada by Clive Robertson, although that is the only serious book mention I saw, and that book mentions practically every performance-type artist in Canada. However if this was to be deleted we would only be losing a very marginally notable artist. There are thousands of Canadian artists with similar profiles (showed at one or two decent galleries, had a half dozen published reviews) who do not have articles. The COI does not help either, in the sense that it shows a promotional intent for the article. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @ThatMontrealIP:. Yes, I agree with you about this "marginally notable" article. It should be deleted because the subject "fails WP:ARTIST on all counts" as you mentioned with a COI that "does not help either".Kent tate (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we are talking about the GNG guideline now. Might still be notable enough for an article. Also, the article subject's thoughts on their own notability are irrelevant here. We figure that out by independent means, so no need to comment on your own notability. ThanksThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to help with putting together the edit requests in question although it was mostly on the technical side. I don't remember expressing any strong opinions about anything.
By my reading, what the COI editor wanted to include were a more complete timeline of the subject's career, some direct quotes from among the reviews and a table of filmography. Each of the requests was declined for supporting sources being not independent enough or not independent at all. The discussion about the suitability of non-independent sources is ongoing at the article's talk page. The second question would be, which of the sources in the article unequivocally qualify as independent sigcov to support keeping the article despite the subject's wishes, and which of them don't. The COI editor wants to expand the article. The declination of requests says that the supporting refs are not independent. If any of the refs are not good enough for expanding the article, it follows that these sources do not meet the requirements of GNG, as GNG is built on the assumption that a certain number of independent sigcov is usually required to build a decent article on the subject, irrespective of editor motivation. So, either we delete the article because the subject isn't clearly Wikipedia notable or we identify a few SIGCOVs that the COI editor can be told can be used for building a decent article on the subject. If we are evaulating the subject's notability on GNG basis only which it seems we are now, they should be sources that support expanding the article, at least to some extent, as currently the article is barely start class. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to delete, after seeing the massive amount of editor time User: LorriBrown has wasted over at the talk page. This is such a marginal case of notability that the COI editing pushes it over the edge. Not the usual deletion rationale, just a fact. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC) Struck.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes to fact and time, but for comparison I spent 90% of my enwiki time since December 2018 on GA quests for two BLPs with two auxiliary AFCs. Pending reviews + GOCE + GA1 were also time consuming not only for me, that has nothing to do with the deletion policy. –84.46.53.255 (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC) (added for comparison after the following reply, sorry: 84.46.53.255 (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC))[reply]

IP, I was going to leave a message on your talk page, but since your 84.46.*.* IP has changed five times on this page alone, I wasn't sure you would see it. The above comment was not about you. It was about how much editor time User LorriBrown wastes on the minutiae on Ken Tate.23:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm going to relist this as the actual !voters are relatively balanced and there is a huge amount of discussion, including recently. If it suddenly becomes clearly one-sided in the next couple of days, I'm happy to be contacted for an early close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am sorry but I really don’t see a lot of policy discussion here other that you can’t delete the article just because you don’t like it. Isn’t that a policy of Wikipedia that an article and the editors should be neutral? How is it possible for an article to be represented neutral when so many of you have arrived at the consensus that this artist is marginally notable and that I have a COI and therefore not capable of being neutral. One person that initially voted neutral was anything but neutral and I perceived the comment as being intentionally disruptive for reason that I really can’t understand. This has not been a policy discussion it has been a defamation of the subject and I believe an unfair assessment of the subject out of hand. The subject of this article has 30 films distributed in three non-profit internationally recognized artist film centres in Canada which have also archived these films into their permanent collections. This artist has six DVD’s that he authored and are in library collections across Canada from St. Johns Newfoundland to Victoria, British Columbia. Over the last three years, his films have been officially selected and screened in over 50 juried international experimental film festivals around the world. These are just the facts; however, it has repeatedly been stated in this discussion that the subject is marginally notable, if notable at all. Based on what I ask. Based on this article? Exactly the reason why this article should be deleted! Which after reading this discussion I feel even more strongly that this article needs to be deleted. The article does not represent this artist and I feel I have been treated with bias from the beginning as a COI editor. The latest comment on the KT article talk page was humiliating and quite shocking to see. This process has just ramped up my anxiety and the anxiety of the subject and I am convinced that I will never be allowed to improve or to edit this article. I was also shocked to see the conversation about suspicions of me potentially having SPI and SPA. It just never ends in this platform. I am likely to never edit another article on any subject since it only appears that all of my good faith efforts have only amounted to giving me a reputation of wasting people’s time and if that is all I’ve achieved then my efforts here have been a waste of my time. LorriBrown (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

collapse discussion with COI !voters

@LorriBrown: From your talk page: "I am disclosing that I have a COI with the subject of the article Kent Tate, the Canadian Visual Artist/Filmmaker, as a family member." You should know that the presence of a family member trying to push a POV or position is not really helpful here. We strive for neutrality, and being a member of the article subject's family is not helpful to editing the article, or to the notability debate, because family members of the article subject are not neutral for obvious reasons. You also seem to be presenting arguments for keep, while voting delete because you do not like the state of the article and cannot get it to a version you like via request edit. Meanwhile, Kent Tate above is advocating for delete. We do not need either opinion really, because they are non-neural. There must be five million other articles here that you are not related to; editing those would cause no problems I imagine. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No you are incorrect. I support the subject's request to have this article deleted.LorriBrown (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is not relevant in this AfD as you are a family member of the article subject, which is not a neutral party. That's the crux of things: it is always best to stay away from articles you have a COI with. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How have your comments here and elsewhere been neutral or helpful to this AfD discussion? In my opinion they have been nether neutral or helpful. Kent tate (talk) 03:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We really do not need the family of the article subject here. Other than the initial deletion request, your opinions will not be taken into account in deciding the AfD. Sorry you do not understand that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the subject of that article I assumed I had rights, I'm sorry to hear that I don't Kent tate (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are an independent thing. You have the right to request deletion and to request that things be changed in the article, but that's it. You can !vote here but it has little effect as you have a massive COI. Don't take it personally, as this is how we stay free of influence. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a human being, not a line of code, so I'm incapable of not taking this personally. The massive COI is one of the key reasons I requested the AFD in the first place. Thank youKent tate (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Back in March 2019, as a non-COI, I reduced length by half, cutting what in my opinion was not relevant or inappropriate. At that time, no concerted effort to add back the content or have the article deleted. Recently, length reduced by a third by other non-COI editors. In my opinion, once through AfC, an article is an article. It can be improved by subtraction and addition. The article that exists today is concise and descriptive. It includes an External link to the subject's website and his Vimeo channel, where he is free to create any content he so wishes. Wikipedia is consistent in that subjects and article creators (COI or not) do not "own" articles. David notMD (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: external links to the subject’s “non-neutral ” personal websites is not an argument to keep this article. Any cursory Google search of the subject’s name will will easily find those pages. The COI disclaimer and the huge numbers of deletions (with no additions) from the non-COI editors as well as the link to this AfD discussion will only serve to damage my reputation. If the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to provide information in a neutral way then this article fails on all counts. Kent tate (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC) Striking duplicate vote. ST47 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. There are a number of offline-only sources, which perhaps is preventing others from fully evaluating the sourcing, however these two online sources clearly establish notability under GNG: we have Isolated Gestures Wins Award, while it is a short article, it does talk about the subject's life and work, it isn't just routine coverage. We also have Tate’s ‘Movies for a Pulsing Earth’ offer compelling introspection at Gallery, which is an in-depth article on the subject from a smaller community newspaper. That already passes GNG, and we still have another online article and several print-only newspaper references. ST47 (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sorry, I meant to post this as a comment, my apologies: External links to the subject’s “non-neutral ” personal websites is not really an argument to keep this article. Any cursory Google search of the subject’s name will will easily find those pages. The COI disclaimer and the huge number of deletions with no additions from the non-COI editors as well as the link to this AfD discussion overshadows the article to the point where the reader will likely question the credibility of any content that has remained. I understand that this is not a policy argument but that is a serious concern of mine as the subject of this article. Kent tate (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've voted neutral, delete and now keep. I was initially on the fence as available sourcing is poor. Then delete as I was fed up with the constant intervention of the article subject and his family, which has had the effect of muddying the neutrality of discussion. However I can now see, after hearing good clear arguments and looking a little more at the article and at the promise of sources, that the sourcing, and hints of sources on paper, is more than likely just enough to cover GNG. There are no collections but there were a bunch of articles in the 80s that I am pretty sure are in old copies of Paralleogramme and the like in various libraries. I will try and find more sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added eight sources, several of which are primary fact checks but a couple of which are actual SIGCOV. "Exhibition features filmmaker’s view of the prairie’s beauty and contrast" was found in something called the Prairie Post, and a 1980s review was found in a clipping (thanks, LorriBrown!) from the Vancouver Province. All told, I see two reviews in Vanguard circa 1980s, the item in the Province from the same era, something in Parallelogramme from the 80s, the more recent item mentioned above, as well as the existing sources. I had to scrape very deep into various online databases to find some of these, but it seems to meet GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from the IPs, I learned new stuff about BROCHURE, REDACT, BITE, {{vimeo user}}, etc. on this BLP. –84.46.53.192 (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I will open an WP:RM discussion for this article. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Brierley[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There isn't the slightest indication of notability, or why he would be considered notable. Some small coverage in niche publications is not enough. Boleyn (talk) 11:36, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article show that he was notable, there may be an indication that the memorial may have been of note but it has zero references. MilborneOne (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the reliable source coverage. Meets WP:GNG. The cipher on the headstone was presented as a mystery in books and newspaper articles right into the latter part of the 20th century. The subject gets coverage and yet was born over two centuries ago. We keep subjects like this. Wm335td (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the memorial could be considered notable, but certainly not the man, and the article is on him. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nocturnal306^talk 22:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move and reword to Thomas Brierly Grave Cipher ^{[Username Needed]} 12:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At most Weak keep (perhaps renamed)-- The individual in question is completely NN. The only question is whether his grave stone with its masonic cipher is notable; amd about that I do not know. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2020 (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) 05:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shakinouts[edit]

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

The band fails all the specific guidelines of WP:BAND as well as WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing stated here passes WP:NMUSIC, and the article is not referenced well enough to get them over WP:GNG in lieu — literally the only footnotes present here at all are two record charts, being cited to support that the album didn't chart on either of them. There are also two media hits being contextlessly listed as external links instead of being used as footnotes, but they both represent purely local coverage in purely local-interest contexts, and fail to say anything about the band that would strengthen their notability claim at all — and one of them is a dead link, to boot. As always, the existence of one or two pieces in a band's own hometown local media is not in and of itself a GNG-based exemption from having to pass any of NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria: GNG is not just "count the media hits and keep anything that gets to two", but also takes into account factors like the depth of the sources, the geographic range of the sources and the context of what they're getting coverage for. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2020 (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] Henrik Kalling (30 July 2015). "Programtips: Ahnenblatt 2.88" [Program tip: Ahnenblatt 2.88]. Datormagazin (in Swedish). Omsoc Publishing. Retrieved 2 January 2020.

[2] ttps://www.google.de/search?safe=active&ei=tjERXtDgEcnQwALb2L2IBg&q=site%3Awww.tamurajones.net+ahnenblatt&oq=site%3Awww.tamurajones.net+ahnenblatt&gs_l=psy-ab.3...17750.19095..20430...0.0..0.70.322.5......0....1j2..gws-wiz.J4zu6zYFVfg&ved=0ahUKEwjQk6_mnevmAhVJKFAKHVtsD2EQ4dUDCAo&uact=5

[3] ttps://blog.myheritage.de/2018/08/ahnenblatt-fuegt-myheritage-matching-technologien-hinzu/

[4] ttp://www.computergenealogie.de/downloads/CG_PDFs/[2018-03]_Linkliste.pdf

[5] ttp://www.geneapress.com/search?q=Ahnenblatt

[6] ttp://www.gensoftreviews.com/awards.php

[7] ttps://www.compgen.de/2020/01/gedbas-jahresrueckblick-2019/

[8] ttps://yourrootsinpoland.com/blog-en/genealogy-portals-and-programs-where-to-build-your-family-tree/

[9] ttps://sanet.st/blogs/casper03/ahnenblatt_a_multilingual__portable.2684950.html

[10] ttp://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=2449

[11] ttp://www.beholdgenealogy.com/blog/?p=3181

[12] ttps://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-Aktuell-Software-Ahnenblatt-1393889.html

[13] ttps://www.chip.de/downloads/Ahnenblatt-letzte-Freeware_16394063.html

[14] ttps://www.computerbild.de/artikel/cb-Downloads-Hobby-Freizeit-Ahnenblatt-Tipps-Anleitung-5976952.html

[15] ttps://www.heise.de/download/specials/Unsere-Besten-3-3169020

[16] ttps://www.pcwelt.de/downloads/Freizeit-Programm-Ahnenblatt-554287.html

[17] ttps://winfuture.de/downloadvorschalt,3681.html

[18] ttps://www.fotohits.de/software/detail/ahnenblatt/

[19] ttps://www.pc-magazin.de/download/ahnenblatt-555947.html

[20] ttps://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/datenverwaltung/artikel/ahnenblatt-48285/

[21] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ahnenblatt%22

[22] František Hlaváček (2013). "Softwarový nástroj pro tvorbu a správu genealogických dat" [Diplomová práce 2013] (PDF) (in Czech). UNIVERZITA PARDUBICE, Fakulta elektrotechniky a informatiky, Katedra softwarových technologií. Retrieved 5 January 2020. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)

[23] Tomáš Vogeltanz (2010). "Applications for genealogy support" [Bakalářská práce 2010] (PDF) (in Czech). UTB ve Zlíně, Fakulta aplikované informatiky. Retrieved 5 January 2020. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)

[24] Amir Reza Asnafi, Selma Farmers (2018). "Introduction to academic genealogy" (PDF) (in Persian). Shahid Beheshti University. Retrieved 5 January 2020. {{cite magazine}}: Cite magazine requires |magazine= (help)

[25] "Free Family Tree Software Review: Ahnenblatt". Genealogical Musings. 31 October 2014. Retrieved 6 January 2020.

[26] ttps://www.forbes.com/sites/hayleycuccinello/2020/01/17/jeff-bezos-is-no-longer-the-richest-person-in-the-world-again/#1db09f73b622

[27] ttps://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/jeff-bezos-is-no-longer-the-richest-man-on-earth-1612786-2019-10-25

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[1]

[2]