Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 January	29 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 delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Caplan[edit]

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

It appears this article was created March 2019 from only college scandal news, rather than encyclopedic notability about him. Further research does not come up with particularly notable - appears he is only known for the college scandal. Seems like this is undue weight about a crime in this article, and his involvement is sufficiently covered in the main 2019 college admissions bribery scandal page. Gentry862 (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete known only in connection with a crime which is not big enough to merit articles on all those charged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reason why he should have an article, Not notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, the article is about as WP:UNDUE as one can get. -kyykaarme (talk) 22:38, 3 February 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. It looks like there is no actual evidence of notability here, as all the sources presented so far have been contested on the grounds of not satisfying WP:SIGCOV, with only weak rebuttals or none at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Simmons[edit]

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

No ind. coverage from reliable sources. May not meet WP:GNG. Wanderer0 (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftification (in absence of proven reliable, independent source coverage that is both in-depth and at-length in at least two other sources beyond the BET article identified by Rosguill) Whether this subject qualifies as meeting our supplementary notability guidelines (SNGs), that's not a substitute for passing WP:GNG. My review of the non-duplicate Google web search and Google news search shows no independent, reliable source coverage is both in-depth and at length. Most the press mentions are passing mentions, in reference to Mr. Simmons' television appearances, being quoted in the mass media, or articles he has written. Nothing on which we could write more than a perpetual, stub-class article. As such, regardless of any potential SNG pass, fails WP:GNG. This reminds me of the Erica C. Barnett AfD about a non-notable digital news reporter and Internet blogger that closed as delete. Doug Mehus T·C 23:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I was able to find this profile on BET, so we do have one example of significant coverage in an independent source. That doesn't get us all the way to GNG, but I did find pages upon pages of search results featuring trivial or non-secondary coverage of the subject, even after filtering out articles written by Simmons (by excluding search results from publications that Simmons has written for) which means that it's not impossible that there is more significant coverage buried out there that I didn't find. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Good find about the BET profile, though I'm not certain I'd qualify that as "in-depth," so I'd prefer to find at least three other in-depth sources before I'd consider changing my !vote. I wouldn't be opposed to a draftification, without leaving a redirect, of this article either. Doug Mehus T·C 23:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, honestly my "weak" qualifier is more due to the mountain of search results than due to the BET profile; if I was confident that I'd read through every article mentioning Simmons on the internet I would have voted delete without qualifications. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've added to my own !vote and rationale that draftification is a solid outcome here in absence of proven significant coverage. Doug Mehus T·C 23:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is a press release from The Hill which names Simmons. But focused on Hill.TV launch. Rdzogschen (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rdzogschen, Yeah, and it's a press release, which wouldn't meet our definition of a reliable, and independent source. Like you said, I'd call it non-qualifying coverage. Nevertheless, we can't really keep this article without proving we have at least three in-depth and reliable, independent sources, which is why I think draftification is the answer. Wikipedia has no deadlines, so long as improvements are being made, and this would move it out of indexed Main: namespace where the subject benefits from search engine optimization. Doug Mehus T·C 23:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not disagreeing as 42 fan, but officially THREE is an essay in the user namespace. –84.46.53.165 (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Finding a journalist’s bio on a site doesn’t mean much, however if the was an article that was interviewing the subject about his career on a third part news site would be notability attribute. I fail to see anything that shows notability. Journalists are always getting passing mentions after all it’s their field but it doesn’t mean every journalist in the world is notable or does it? Jaxbrother (talk) 05:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The content about the subject need more expansion and slightly missing out on notability criteria. Abishe (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even though Simmons is less notable than Krystal Ball, it looks like we could easily double the number of sources that this article uses. Some of the ones that focus on him entirely are: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Connor Behan (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link 1 is an interview without any independent coverage of Simmons as a subject. Links 2 and 3 are also interviews, although they open with a paragraph about Simmons' career, so they contribute a little bit toward notability if the publications are reputable (3 boasts a fully professional masthead; 2 does not). Link 4 does not appear to be independent, as the context would suggest that this was a blurb written to accompany Simmons' speaking at an event hosted by the publisher. All told, I think that between link 3 and the BET profile I found earlier, we're coming close to GNG, but I'd like to see another example of independent and significant coverage before changing my vote. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, Agreed. I think with such little coverage, the strongest case could be made for draftification here. What do you think? Doug Mehus T·C 21:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, I'm not overtly opposed to draftification, but I'm not sure I see it as any different than deletion. Essentially all of the sources which have been found that contribute to notability have been raised in this discussion; they are not currently cited in the existing article. And without an editor in this discussion that has expressed a clear sense of ownership for the article, the draft would probably end up languishing in draft space forever. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, I'm just thinking this would be a way to preserve the article's editing history in Draft: space if we don't end up finding another, independent, and thorough source about this political strategist/pundit. We may well find that additional source; this is a very borderline case of whether we "keep" or "delete." Doug Mehus T·C 22:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about the Washington Post blurb. A lot of stuff out there seems to have similar independence issues but I was able to find these links: [5], [6], [7]. Connor Behan (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment::Link 1; Simmons is just doing his job as a journalist it doesn’t make him notable. Nowadays everything gets online and is easy to find, before when news was in print you couldn’t find someone like you can now. It’s too easy to Find a journalist’s work and passing mention. I still believe if this article passes then every professional journalist in the English speaking world can get a Wikipedia article done for them. Australianblackbelt (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per my comment above. Australianblackbelt (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not many sources and his work history is mundane. Bring him back if he writes a book. Dorama285 00:02, 03 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David North (screenwriter)[edit]

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

No sources since 2017, and my online search doesn’t bring up any notable coverage, just lots of passing mentions and IMDB sources Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I struggled to find anything to establish both GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. Missvain (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:CREATIVE, in particular point #3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." NCIS is certainly a noteworthy and long-running TV series, and he's been one of the main writers since the show began in 2003. -2003:CA:870E:7037:1476:7554:8197:AEDE (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even approaching a reliable source. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. Being a "main writer" on a project is not the same as being the creator. We clearly cannot keep the article at all without actual reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. no reliable sources to meet notability. Alex-h (talk) 15:12, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lewis (composer)[edit]

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

No sources since 2016, and I cannot find any sources that are independent and therefore indicate notability. Not to be confused with the classical pianist of the same name. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found zero after four different searches. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He might be notable for his TV work, but we'd have to see some sources to gauge that. As it stands he appears to fail the GNG. PK650 (talk) 22:43, 2 February 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. Consensus was that the page was notable, but requires cleanup. (non-admin closure) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 08:28, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (charity)[edit]

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

Appears to be a non-notable organisation with content added by editors with COI issues. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the article as it stands, the subject is notable as a major academy chain that is part of a controversial shift in the governance and provision of education in England - it has a higher profile than some of the other academy chains with their own articles linked from the section 'Operators' in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-academy_trust--Hmee2 (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely notable as MAT in the UK educ system, and for philanthropy, but undoubtedly needs cleanup. --Mervyn (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Definitely notable as MAT- please read the multi-academy trust article to understand the significance of MATs. If you have time please help to address the shortcomings. We have two tags here but no explanation on the talk page about what they mean. A single user entered a list of date that is by law public published information in 2016, and this has all been checked over and reformatted since. The claim that this is an advertisement is ridiculous, the difficulty here is finding articles that are not negative. If you have further ideas on how to improve the structure, have a look at other articles in Category:Multi-academy trusts and put your suggestions on the talk page. ClemRutter (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:, It has notability for its academy chain Alex-h (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmee2, Alex-h, ClemRutter, Mervyn - thanks for the comments. Whilst I agree that MATs are notable, I cannot find any evidence that Ark is notable. Are there any secondary independent sources that can be added to the article? At the moment, the article only has primary sources which are not acceptable under WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:18, 31 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. BD2412 T 03:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reel[edit]

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

Non-notable author, with the only sources being a blogspot post (unreliable) and another archived page announcing a festival reading of one of his short stories. Amir Jones, who created the article, has only ever contributed to this article, an article for the author's primary work, Happy Face, and a related disambiguation page. — TAnthony^Talk 22:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Missvain (talk) 00:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' - writer whose career seems to have gone nowhere. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete', No reliable sources, does not meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources found. Article feels like a quickie PR attempt that failed. Does not pass WP:BIO and does not meet WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability, either through WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Face[edit]

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

Non-notable book with only a blogspot post as a "reference". Amir Jones, who created the article, has only ever contributed to this article, an article for its non-notable author, and a related disambiguation page. — TAnthony^Talk 22:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ~~Point to Happy face~~ Move Happy face here. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - one source is not significant coverage; no allegation of notability. Bearian (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:NBOOK as there are no reliable sources discussing it. After deletion, either the original redirect to Happy face should be restored, or, as suggested by Hyperbolick, that disambiuation page should be moved here. Rorshacma (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear WP:NBOOK fail. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:06, 4 February 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. After disregarding Adamyouthold's disruptive walls of text, it's 1:3, all of which make reasonable arguments. Good enough for rough consensus to delete. Sandstein 21:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allflaws[edit]

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

perhaps i am missing something but it doesn't appear this band has ever or is currently notable. searching google and various music review sites gives me nothing, newspaper archives, books and magazines are the same. I don't see any major labels or charting. Fails NMUSIC. Praxidicae (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praxidicae,

Please understand that Allflaws is an underground music act that have been releasing records since 2004 on Derelict State Records. I have just maintained this page and tried to keep to the rules and help build up my skill set on Wikipedia. Allflaws from my research definitely warranted a page and passed the criteria for notoriety and credentials. So I think it would be a shame if it was deleted. I would hope it could be modified instead and that would be a compromise. This page has been running for over ten years and I think the problem is that any articles have been put in External Links and not References. I have posted articles in the External Links section where you can see press that Allflaws has had for well over a decade. These articles should actually be in the References section as I said. They need to be moved there as that's where they should be located. That might be why you can't see any validation of notoriety. Please look at these articles in the External Links section for validation that this is a notable artist worthy of a page. I think these articles and the social media presence on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter will all reinforce this.

I am trying to find a way to get some of the links into references so you can see that this artist is credible. Please help with this? Please could you kindly remove the deletion tag and I will try moving all the articles from the External Links section into References section.

Thank you and sorry for any confusion with my article.

Here are some links to publications who have published Allflaws. Most of them are in the External Links section but need to be in References. Please have a look at them.

https://bbmlive.com/allflaws-music-video-gets-banned-from-youtube/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.londonstreetartdesign.co.uk/new-rebel-spirit-video-from-allflaws/

http://www.aaamusic.co.uk/2012/03/16/allflaws-releasing-new-single/

http://www.supajam.com/news/story/Allflaws-Bristolian-darkness/

http://abortmag.com/2010/03/bristol-trip-hoppers-allflaws-release-new-video/

https://rdl.de/beitrag/forward-all-directions-24-september-mitternacht-allflaws-feature

https://www.reflectionsofdarkness.com/releases-news-165/12057-allflaws-release-qr-complexq-video/

https://exclaim.ca/music/article/allflaws-escaping_sanity/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclaim!

https://www.famemagazine.co.uk/fame-recommends-allflaws/

http://regenmag.com/news/allflaws-release-new-ep/

http://thenervousbreakdown.com/gcurran/2010/11/21-questions-with-gabriel-curran/

http://flaneur.me.uk/06/new-album-from-allflaws-versus-the-soul/

http://www.prog-sphere.com/news/allflaws-release-new-album-versus-the-soul/

https://phonic.fm/2013/allflaws-announce-release-date-of-new-album-versus-the-soul/

https://afterdark.co/blog/reviews/allflaws-releasing-new-album/

https://www.nocturnal.asia/news/allflaws-set-to-release-acid-face-video/

http://www.brutalresonance.com/news/industrial-hip-hop-project-allflaws-releases-new-album-mysterium/

https://www.hitzound.com/allflaws-cast-away/

http://alternation.eu/allflaws_-_black_box_here_after,id,2015,aktualnosci.html

http://www.mayhemderanged.com/e_fuse1007.pdf/

http://read.uberflip.com/i/88421-issue-44-2012/35?m4= - page 37

https://guestlist.net/newspapers - see issue 44 page 37

https://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Allflaws/74138/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnikmusic

Here are some links for external Links section

https://www.allflaws.com https://www.facebook.com/Allflaws https://twitter.com/ALLFLAWS http://derelictstaterecords.co.uk/artists.html

Hope this helps

Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything to show show this meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. While there is some coverage, as shown above, hardly any of these are either in-depth or reliable. Sorry, but this does not pass the notability criteria. — sparklism ^hey! 13:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have put plenty of credible and reliable coverage above. Plus there was also old coverage which has since gone out of date which I can find again. It just seems that this artist and this article will be unfairly thrown in the trash. For over ten years I have looked after this page and it now seems to be getting undermined, discredited and targeted. I've seen pages with far less coverage stay active. I just hope there is some justice here and someone takes time to look at the evidence. I can only hope. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamyouthold (talk • contribs) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have now put around 19 publication links above who have press coverage on Allflaws. Hope this can help.

Adamyouthold, the article is not being "undermined, discredited and targeted", it is simply being assessed to see if it meets the guidelines for inclusion set out at WP:MUSICBIO. If you believe that these criteria are met, then please provide some evidence. At present, there are no reliable sources in the article that indicate the notability of this artist. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 07:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sparkism, I really am finding it hard to see how these articles are not credible and reliable and do not indicate notability. There are publications from Holland, Germany, USA, UK, Canada, Asia and are doing features and interviews with Allflaws. I have now put another link above amounting to 20 publications. Once again please look through these. Thanks

Adamyouthold, discussions are easier to read on pages like this one if you sign your posts. Thanks.
The links you give show that the artist exists, but that alone is not enough to meet the Wikipedia standard for notability. Of the 20 links you have posted, which one(s) of these would meet the Wikipedia definition of reliable sources set out at WP:RS and therefore help to meet the guidelines for inclusion through significant coverage? If you read the links I have posted this might help you show us how this artist meets the requirements for an article on Wikipedia. — sparklism ^hey! 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The bulk of the links posted above are album release blurbs, and many amount to what's likely a lightly padded press release at best. However, this writeup [8] and this article [9] both seem to constitute independent and significant coverage of the band. I've seen shorter pieces than either pass for WP:SIGCOV, and I can't find reason to think either source is unreliable. BBM is one of Sydney's free weeklies, and Fuse has substantial history. Skeletor3000 (talk) 16:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that FUSE in theory would lend itself to being notable, I don't see that being the case here since it's a 3 sentence blurb. Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking at the same piece? I agree that it's short, but it's a couple of paragraphs long, not 3 sentences. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, its a total of 4 sentences. It is condensed into a small space, if it were typed out it would look basically like my response now. Praxidicae (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just copy-pasted it into the editing area and you're simply incorrect. I also count 8 sentences, many of which are quite long and list off comparisons to other bands, etc. This conversation is feeling pretty pedantic at this point, so I'm going to step back and wait for others to weigh in. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletor3000

Perhaps you're not looking at the right text. It's no more than a single paragraph when written in full form. It is not in depth coverage but there is absolutely no sense in quibbling over the length of it because anyone can see it is not substantial in the slightest. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the length is in debate to the point that you assume I've read the wrong review actually makes me think you aren't recognizing that the second paragraph of the writeup is still talking about Allflaws. It's the portion that provides comparisons to other acts, etc. that I believe make it of reasonable depth. Please check the source again. Skeletor3000 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is the same Fuse magazine. Fuse_(magazine) is a Canadian publication about 'interchange between art, media, and politics'. While the Fuse mag in this source appears to a British publication focused music, especially live music. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:56, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletor3000 Thank you for clarifying that. I do appreciate you looking at the information and giving your opinion. I have also found this interview with US publication (The Nervous Breakdown) http://thenervousbreakdown.com/gcurran/2010/11/21-questions-with-gabriel-curran/ They Also have a Wikipedia page here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nervous_Breakdown_(magazine) Adamyouthold (talk) 17:38, 44 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interview, not coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae It just seems that you are being pedantic and looking for holes in this article. I think it has a enough coverage to justify being notable. I have seen pages with less coverage and they have no problems. Adamyouthold (talk) 20:07, 44 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn to comment on content and not editors. I'm not being pedantic, I'm basing this on policy and consensus, Adamyouthold. Praxidicae (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Praxidicae, I am just baffled to why this page has been placed under scrutiny when it seems to meet the criteria. Adamyouthold (talk) 20:30, 44 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at this. I have also put it into the links above. It is a well known established magazine in London called the GuestList who have interviewed and featured many well known artists from around the world. https://guestlist.net/newspapers. In issue 44 page 37 Allflaws have album of the month http://read.uberflip.com/i/88421-issue-44-2012/35?m4= Adamyouthold (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also put this in the links above https://www.sputnikmusic.com/bands/Allflaws/74138/ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnikmusic Adamyouthold (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this feature on German Radio https://rdl.de/beitrag/forward-all-directions-24-september-mitternacht-allflaws-feature - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Dreyeckland Adamyouthold (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is helpful. Here is some coverage in a Canadian publication Exclaim. https://exclaim.ca/music/article/allflaws-escaping_sanity/ - Here is their wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclaim Adamyouthold (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of comments by the page creator. Hoping for participation on the grounds of if this article should be deleted for failing GNG per the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One of the two sources used to back up the potential notability of this article is a piece by a non-reliable source called Fuse (not to be confused with Fuse (magazine)). So, I'm not seeing a current argument that would substantiate us retaining this article. Relisting to provide time for further comment, as per the prior relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After looking through everything above I don't see how this band, well more of a pseudonym really (if it is a band rather than a bunch of session musicians, who are the other members?), passes WP:GNG let alone WP:NMUSIC. All of the sources are nothing more than press releases or wikt:churnalism saying he released a new album or video and [10] [11] these "reviews" don't read as in-depth critical prose. The BBM website is rather strange, if you go out of the article and onto the rest of the website I'm left with the impression that it is a glorified version of Classified advertising. If banning the video was notorious why is it only on this website? Finally no Allmusic listing page. Mattg82 (talk) 21:58, 29 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 21:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Kauai helicopter crash[edit]

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

Tragic but small plane/helicopter accidents are very common. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it received worldwide coverage. CNN - etc. No way to know if it is WP:LASTING or notable - or has somehow impacted the industry. I sympathize with the nominator's WP:NOT argument and I believe it applies here. Perhaps in a WP:ATD it can be redirected or merged somewhere - I am just not sure where.Wm335td (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Hawaiian air tourism industry is facing increased scrutiny in general after a number of fatal accidents as noted in 2020; perhaps there could be a larger air tourism article or even a section within Tourism in Hawaii with a table of accidents. Cheers, Mliu92 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As the article from Mliu92 (above) notes, air tourism is under scrutiny in Hawaii after a number of accidents--not just this one. I can't find anything indicating this crash is singularly notable in that regard. I have a feeling something will happen in Hawaii regarding reforms to air tourism, but that may be captured in a single article that describes the accidents that have happened and driven changes, not requiring a separate article for each... Shelbystripes (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Run of the mill helicopter accident, with no lasting notability, tragic but not worthy of a stand-alone article. Add an entry in the aircraft's accidents and incidents section. fails WP:NOT WP:LASTING WP:GNG (on the basis that the coverage was short-lived)--Petebutt (talk) 09:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply fails notability for a stand alone article. - Samf4u (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete − WP:RUNOFTHEMILL general aviation accident, tragically with a relatively high fatalities count but otherwise not particularly notable in its own right. --Deeday-UK (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - final reports are not out yet. Bearian (talk) 16:47, 31 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. Sandstein 21:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenista[edit]

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

I agree with the original prod however, this was paid for spam created several years ago, apparently under the radar and has resulted in citogenesis. There is no true in depth coverage of Gardenista or Remodelista (hence the bundle.) It's all PR puffery, passing mentions or unreliable nonsense. Also see this related AFD Praxidicae (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right about paid contributions, however both Remodelista and Gardenista are known names here in the US. Let me see if I can clean up the articles with some real citations and lose the junk. -- EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 04:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated Remodelista with proper citations, new structure, removed paid spam articles etc. Requesting that deletion notice is removed. Planning to do the same for Gardenista EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting due to concerns expressed by Praxidicae that I should allow more discussion and that I have commented, encouraging keep, of articles related to this subject. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I've already revised Remodelista. Will do the same cleanup for Gardenista over the weekend. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gardenista rewrite done. EricAhlqvistScott (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Technical issues
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a notable company from the references and coverage. Most importantly, editing is a preferred alternative to deletion, so kudos to EricAhlqvistScott! JUN1U5 (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both I find that these are two notable internet publications. They both have multiple RSs. My WP:BEFORE revealed non0trivial secondary sources. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this is listed under AfDs for organisations/companies (and it would deffo fail WP:NCORP as the sources fail ORGIND and/or CORPDEPTH), the article seems to me to fit more in with WP:WEB which has a much looser adherence and interpretation of the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:50, 1 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Was Totally Destroying It[edit]

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

WP:GNG. Sourced mostly from blog. This is not something that suggests it is GENRALLY notable. It was previously nominated and deleted with unanimous consensus and it should not have been re-created. Graywalls (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC. The previous AfD included lots of WP:AADD, and the article was rightly re-created. I have added several independent sources to the article since it was nominated; there are more beyond what I've included. Chubbles (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not as enthusiastic as the previous voter, but what the article really needed at the time of nomination was more sources (see WP:NEXIST). They got some coverage in the indie rock press, concerning their success in their local scene, and the AllMusic entry helps, so they have evidence of meeting WP:NBAND #4 and 7, at least. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are multiple reliable sources references added to the article such as Alternative Press, PopMatters, AllMusic and a number of newspaper articles so WP:GNG is passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Crossing, California[edit]

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

Sources indicate this is exactly what the name suggests: a road crossing of the Mojave River [12][13][14][15][16]. I was unable to find evidence this is the name of a community or that it is notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article does not meet WP:GEOLAND, the WP:BEFORE by the nominator is sufficient evidence Wm335td (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per WP:OUTCOMES. We have been over this before: fords and bridges are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 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 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Lebanon Ice Center[edit]

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

Ice arena that fails WP:GEOFEAT. Standard expected mentions exist, but no significant coverage appears to be out there. Notability template in place since 2009. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 16:01, 29 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battles in the Chronicles of Narnia[edit]

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

This is just a plot only, overly in-depth summarization of fictional events already covered in the main articles. TTN (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 02:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPLOT and something has got to be wrong when almost all references are directly from the C.S. Lewis novels themselves. In addition, along the same lines First Battle of Beruna and Second Battle of Beruna should be nominated as well. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no useful content here. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources to justify this as a stand alone topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. (Lions and tigers and bears were involved? Oh, my!) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meh. Lightburst (talk) 22:07, 31 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. Looks like the consensus is that the topic does not in fact satisfy NACTOR Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditi Agarwal[edit]

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

This actress has only acted in one successful film. None of the references support her film career. Additionally, this article is being vandalized. Maybe this article can be a redirect to Gangotri. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 00:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, she does meet WP:NACTOR criteria one, as she has starred in two notable films. However, one of these films, (Vidyardhi) is a poorly referenced stub that currently fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The actress has had starring/main roles in a few films, though the notability of some of those films is questionable. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Her sudden death was covered nationally:

"Telugu actress Aarthi Agarwal dies at 31, a month after liposuction surgery" from Indian Express
"Aarti Agarwal Family Reacts About Her Sudden Demise" from Filmibeat
"Aarthi Agarwal dies after ‘failed liposuction’ surgery: 5 Things to know about dead Tollywood Actress" India.com
"Actor Aarthi Agarwal dies in US after botched liposuction surgery" from Hindustan Times

Missvain (talk) 21:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is a different person from the one we are discussing here, this is that person's sister, and as far as I can tell they are still alive Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Missvain (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it were about this person, BLP1E (or BDP1E) applies. Praxidicae (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: User:Missvain's references are for a different person (Aditi is very much alive still), so they do not count towards Aditi Agarwal's notability. As such, this needs another relist to determine if this passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG (given the apparent low notability of the films she has been in).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NACTOR asks for "significant roles in multiple notable films" and the above evidence and sources in the article do not demonstrate that. The other basis for notability is her arrest 12 1/2 years ago, which presents both WP:BLP1E and WP:NCRIME concerns. I suppose a career revival after over a decade is possible, but not likely. If such does occur, it can be recreated with little here to preserve against such an event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Voicing the rationale provided by Eggishorn. Not a notable actor as per GNG.Celestina007 (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel like we've been through this before. She's not notable as an actress because of her one starring role, and one fight creates a BLP problem and doesn't make her notable. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject should have significant roles in multiple notable films as per WP:NACTOR. GargAvinash (talk) 05:41, 4 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Narnian creatures[edit]

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

This is a list of trivial in-universe creatures. I know the series itself has a good deal of symbolism, but I don't think that applies to an assortment of real animals and real world mythological beings. The series has a character list, so this has zero utility as a spin out list. It is just content for a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The content of the article is currently extremely poorly sourced (only one source is actually potentially valid, and its only being used to support a single entry), and there seems to be quite a bit of pure plot summary and WP:OR. It also appears to fail WP:LISTN - while there are a handful of sources that talk briefly about some of the creatures that appear in Narnia, those sources appear to be limited to a handful of only the most narratively important, rather than any kind of discussion of every type of creature that was mentioned in one of the books. As a final note, despite the appearance of copious amounts of blue links, it also does not serve a useful purpose as a navigational tool, as they all are just links to the articles on real-world animals and mythological beings. Rorshacma (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having a listing of all of the animals Lewis included in the series does not seem to pass WP:LISTN. Also a WP:GNG fail, while the symbolism behind the animals is likely notable, a listing of the critters themselves definitely is not. Hog Farm (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am against this deletion. While we do have actual animals and mythical creatures on that list, where would we list the ones that are exclusive to the book series. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. From what I'm aware, the Narnia series uses largely creatures that already existed in fantasy. Therefore, there is no need to list them out._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list is an indiscriminate collection of in-universe content. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have an article on Puddleglum. This article needs way better sources to justify its existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 30 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 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Cue[edit]

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

please look into this page Why Cue for deletion as I do believe it doesn’t meet wiki notability requirements and does present references in reliable sources 67.81.121.57 (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completing a request on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is too soon for an article on this artist. He has lengthy interviews in a couple of viable music magazines (currently footnotes 2 and 3 in the article), but they consist of mostly softball questions designed to let him introduce himself. Otherwise his coverage consists of brief introductions to videos and the like. For now he has too few accomplishments and not enough reliable media coverage about them. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:04, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Virgil Stammeyer[edit]

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

A biography on an individual that only appears to have local notability. Both of the sources currently being used come from the same local newspaper, and one of them is just his obituary. Searching for additional sources turned up nothing of substance - his name was mentioned in a few documents concerning the court case he was involved in, but that's it. It would also appear that his notability came only from the June 1990 event that the bulk of the article is used to describe, which means that this would also fall under WP:BIO1E. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. WP:BLP1E also applies....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A few reliable sources cover the subject in a single event for an otherwise low-profile person. This is a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Does not pass WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:53, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ramzan Utsiyev[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a Russian Cup (football) match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer (if you filter out articles on his famous older brother, Rizvan Utsiyev) in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [17]). 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) 18:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; it is well established that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is comprehensively failed. Giant Snowman 20:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we clearly need to tighten our football notability guidelines. They are supposed to approximate people who will pass GNG, and at present they clearly are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dancehall Brukout Vol. 1[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NALBUM. All coverage appears to be PR related to the album's release or database listings without any independent analysis of the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can find no evidence of this record being covered in any significant and reliable sources, and the same can also be said for almost everyone on it. The sources already in the article are basic promotional announcements or worse. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mozenda[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. The article is sourced by corporate profiles and press releases. I was unable to locate any descriptive details about this company in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources in article, no coverage in any major news sources, fails WP:GNG and clear violation of WP:NOTPROMO. Thurm64 ^talk _{my edits} 22:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references are lists or in passing. Fails WP:NCORP. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 1 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delhi Poetry Slam[edit]

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

No significant coverage of the entity found in reliable sources. One source mere mentions it for a single time. Dial911 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dial911 (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You're right; virtually all mentions of the Delhi Poetry Slam on search engines are either promotional or self-published. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is an essay/spam, not an article. Even if it were notable, which I doubt, a totally new article would have to be created. I found a few passing references in Google books, but zero in newspapers. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 31 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Zabedashvili[edit]

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

Article about footballer who made a single 45-minute 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 in online English-, Belarusian- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements). 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) 16:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; delete. If what you're saying about the policy is correct, then I see no reason to keep this page up. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question though: does a similar policy exist on Russian Wikipedia? For there exists a Russian language version of this article, that is not currently nominated for deletion. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 16:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if the Russian-language Wikipedia has a different policy, but if they follow our presumption that playing in a fully-pro football league makes one notable, it's not surprising there is an article there. The issue is this person's footballing career has ended at age 24, and the presumption of notability ought to be backed up with significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; it is well established that scraping by on NFOOTBALL is insufficient when GNG is comprehensively failed. Giant Snowman 20:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one appearance in one game does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:10, 30 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Bondil[edit]

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

This person is likely notable, but this article has been nothing but a WP:SOAPBOX piece for years, heavily edited by a likely undisclosed paid editor (blocked on French Wikipedia for just such matters). WP:TNT is probably the only course now. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clean up the article. No need to delete it. It shouldn't take someone that long if they're invested in the subject. Heck, she was just awarded the Legion of Honour and she is a Knight of the Order of Montreal [18]. Just because the article is in poor shape, doesn't mean it should be nominated in AfD. It can easily be cleaned up and made into a shorter, consistent article. Sources that establish notability include:

"Nathalie Bondil on redefining museums’ roles, positive impact of cultural diversity on creativity" from Global News
"Montreal Museum of Fine Arts offers ‘a contemporary gaze’ at ancient objects in a new wing" from Art Newspaper
"Nathalie Bondil reçoit la plus haute distinction française" from CBC
"#GreatMTLer: Nathalie Bondil is an icon of Montreal’s art scene" from Global News
"Nathalie Bondil dirige un musée en phase avec sa ville" from Le Journal de Montréal
"Nathalie Bondil's artful adventure" from the Montreal Gazette
"‘I don’t play to lose’ – how Nathalie Bondil threw open the doors of the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts" from The Globe and Mail
"Doctors to prescribe museum visits to help patients 'escape from their own pain'" from CBC

And to establish WP:BASIC:

Her curated exhibitions have garnered international and national coverage[19][20][21][22][23] and many more

"Montreal museum partners with doctors to 'prescribe' art" from BBC

There are many more. Missvain (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missvain: Have you read the nomination text, though? I am aware that the article topic is notable enough for Wikipedia, but I confer with the nominator's ideas, and consider it better to "blow it up and start over again" as suggested. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I do not support deleting articles in the effort to rewrite them. Missvain (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you aware that you are disagreeing with an official Wikipedia policy? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's not disagreeing with an official Wikipedia policy, actually. WP:TNT, also known as Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over is just an essay. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup has an alternate view. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think wiki-notability is adequately established. While I have argued for the TNT approach in other deletion discussions, this article was easy enough to improve by quite a lot, just by cutting superfluous text. I don't believe that all-out deletion is necessary this time. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite.I think that User:MBAM-wiki and User:WikiMBAMNB and any employees/interns/associates of the Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal (MBAM) should be restricted from editing this article. Bondil should be told that this is an article ABOUT her, based on what independent, reliable sources say about her. It is not her CV. If she wants her own website, should should get one herself. We're an encyclopedia, not a webshost. The article should then be blanked and rewritten from scratch. The English version has almost no sources, and one of them is from www.prnewswire.com, but the French version does have more, so we could look at using (some of) those. "La nouvelle directrice dévoile ses passions" by Mario Cloutier La Presse for example, and some primary sources for awards would be acceptable as well. Coverage is obviously mostly by La Presse, but there is coverage in other newspapers: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-and-architecture/article-architect-of-the-mmfas-popular-revolution/ for example. Vexations (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a fan of blow it up and start over. More like, take the initiative and trim back the superfluous stuff. She definitely meets notability guideline. We can stubify and rewrite. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP. Clean up the article because she meets our notability guideline. Lightburst (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, it's obvious that I made a mistake in nominating this, and I'm big enough to admit it. Nomination withdrawn and closing as speedy keep. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:51, 29 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. Sandstein 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Daily News[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability of the subject, with no true WP:RS (I'm not sure if Guampedia counts or not, and am inclined to say no), and does not seem to satisfy WP:GNG MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep., with a reminder that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. The present state of any article is not evidence of lack of notability (see Wikipedia's first article on Michael Jackson.) The Guam Daily News was the territory's first civilian paper, with 70 years of history. A cursory web search reveals multiple reliable sources (and suggest more can be found), enough to create a balanced encyclopedia article, even if short.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7] Note that the subject need not be the main focus of each source, only that the subject is covered in sufficient depth. Changes in ownership, editors, are covered in trade magazines like Editor & Publisher, and there are probably media reference books that compile and verify basic facts about this publication. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Civilan Daily Paper Succeeds Navy Paper on Guam". Evening Star. Associated Press. 17 June 1950. p. B-7.
^ "Guam Recovers, Moving Ahead in New Status". The Chronicle Star the Moss Point Advertiser. 15 August 1952. p. 7.
^ Information on Guam Transmitted by the United States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Pursuant to Article 73(e) of the Charter. U.S. Navy Department. June 1952. pp. 50–.
^ Dalisay, Francis (2009). "Social Control in an American Pacific Island". Journal of Communication Inquiry. 33 (3): 239–257. doi:10.1177/0196859909333694.
^ Jacqueline Korona Teare (1980). The Pacific Daily News: The Small Town Newspaper Covering a Vast Frontier. Michigan State University. School of Journalism.
^ Lawrence J. Cunningham; Janice J. Beaty (2001). A History of Guam. Bess Press. pp. 293–. ISBN 978-1-57306-068-4.
^ Richstad, Jim; Nnaemeka, Tony (1979). News From Nowhere: Sources of International News in the Pacific Islands. Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism. Houston, Texas.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The paper of record for Guam owned by a company like Gannett meets WP:N by far, and this is definitely a WP:BEFORE failure. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs work, but I think it passes WP:NMEDIA. Animalparty found some good sources, and I found a few more through a Newspapers.com search that I used to expand the article a bit. The newspaper is notable as Guam's first locally published paper and its only extant daily. With sources available to write a verifiable article, it's a clear keep IMO. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:22, 1 February 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 21:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wereboar[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional monster with no significant coverage in non-primary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual. WP:GAMEGUIDE -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable minor monster._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All sources are primary or trivial, so its a failure of the WP:GNG. Wereboars are not unique to D&D, but none of their other appearances in other, non-related fiction are notable, either. Rorshacma (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). BD2412 T 04:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AFD is not a vote. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Either merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons), or delete outright. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:03, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient WP:RS to establish WP:N Chetsford (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only trivial appearance info without substance, merging would just add undue detail. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:33, 30 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 Krang. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technodrome[edit]

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

No evidence this fictional object/location passes GNG/NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT + list of appearances in media. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to Krang Heavy fancruft and FANDOM material. Mentioned in the Krang article, so it could probably redirect there._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 20:14, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I don't think it needs a redirect. You would probably need to already be a turtles fan to be searching for that in that context. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - The Technodrome is a majort part of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It used to be only in the Original Cartoon, the Archie Comics and the Fleetway Comics. After 2009, it has appeared in a lot of other TMNT media.J 1982 (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That argument looks like WP:ILIKEIT. What is the evidence for notability? Are there reliable sources discussing the Technodrome anywhere? -- Sirfurboy (talk) 15:36, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In-universe notability is irrelevant for Wikipedia. It would work on https://turtlepedia.fandom.com/wiki/Technodrome . But we are no Turtlepedia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at sources yet, but at worst this should be selective merge to Krang over deletion. Is there any doubt this is a reasonable search term? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - The topic fails to establish notability. If it is possible, it can always be split out later. TTN (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Krang. While there are tons of results when searching for the term, there are really not any that discuss it in any way that goes beyond plot summary or listing its appearances in media. The best I could find was this academic paper that uses the Technodrome in the 1987 series as a talking point regarding energy sustainability and attitudes towards it during the time. Which is interesting, but can not support the article alone. As mentioned by Argento Surfer, though, there's no real doubt that its a reasonable search term, so a Redirect, at the very least, should be used. Any potential merging needed can be performed from the article history. Rorshacma (talk) 17:59, 28 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. Notability does not seem to be an issue. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Johnson and Kayla Brady[edit]

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

Another fictional character couple, this one fails to produce even a single reference. Fails NFICTION/GNG etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST: A search on Google Books for Patch and Kayla shows the following RS with real-world info and academic analysis of this specific relationship:

No End to Her: Soap Opera and the Female Subject
Soap Fans: Pursuing Pleasure and Making Meaning in Everyday Life
Soap Opera Mythology & Racial-ethnic Social Change
Soap Opera Supercouples: The Great Romances of Daytime Drama
Days of Our Lives: The True Story of One Family's Dream and the Untold History of Days of Our Lives
It's Time for My Story: Soap Opera Sources, Structure, and Response. -- Toughpigs (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are two additional sources about the couple to contribute to the discussion:

Five Pivotal Steve & Kayla Moments Include Romance and Roadblocks
The best, the worst, and the most absurd of 1988 Aoba47 (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Toughpigs. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imtiaz Ali Rastgar[edit]

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

Nothing in coverage, written to promote the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person in business.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as none of the sourcing is significant coverage by reliable sources. Also per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:TNT, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:GNG. Absolutely run of the mill businessman and engineer. All but one award is non-competitive, and several seem to be vanity awards. This is written as a resume, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 31 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. Sandstein 21:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhmmad Ali Shaikh[edit]

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

No significant coverage found. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Störm (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The question here is whether Sindh Madressatul Islam University counts as enough of a "major academic institution" for its vice-chancellor (the head of the entire university in the system used in Pakistan and other former-British-rule states) to be notable under WP:PROF#C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein Thanks for comment. No, I don't think so as it was granted university status in 2012. So, not a major university. Störm (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it has university status where such is formally granted than yes it is major enough for its head to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sindh Madressatul Islam University is recognized by and affiliated with Higher Education Commission (Pakistan) – established in 1885. It has the founding father of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Hassan Ali Effendi and many other prominent Pakistani dignitaries among its alumni as an institution. It has over 100 year history behind its name. It was upgraded to university status from a college in 2012 but it is a highly-respected institution in Pakistan for historical reasons as well. For Muhammad Ali Shaikh to be a vice-chancellor there certainly makes him notable, in my view. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is vice chancellor of a university and the article is following Wikipedia notablity guideline as per WP:ACADEMIC. GargAvinash (talk) 05:56, 4 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Dorothy[edit]

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

non notable film, the sources that were once in the article are a variation of outright fake sources and unreliable sources. A search reveals little else other than a repeatedly published press release[24][25] Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:HAMMER. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Bearian said, "upcoming" is WP:TOOSOON. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:13, 1 February 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Sandstein 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GDP 3.0[edit]

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

Economic indicator that was first proposed last month in an article in The Straits Times (unfortunately paywalled). There are 9 other references but obviously none of them discuss GDP 3.0 since they predate its introduction. This is not the first time that economists have proposed alternatives to GDP to correct its perceived flaws but very few of them have ever gotten the kind of attention that warrants an encyclopedia article. Will GDP 3.0 ever catch on as an indicator? I don't know but until it does, we don't need an article about it. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:17, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palak Sharma[edit]

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

Subject does not meet minimum notability guidelines per WP:NSPORT and has not competed in an international competition that is auto notable such as WP:NOLYMPICS. Article could eventually be re-created if this athletes reaches that level of competition. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete youth that does not meet our athletics notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more round to attract more comments. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Winning Group C of the 12 year old Asian girls diving championships doesn't meet any notability criteria at WP:NSPORT. The only sources are simply results and that fails to show that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:23, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomination, and the two comments above. And geeze. Give the kid girl some privacy! —usernamekiran (talk) 19:17, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not following notablity guidline as of now per WP:ATHLETE. GargAvinash (talk) 05:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE Tayi Arajakate (talk) 08:20, 4 February 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. At least for now, since there doesn't yet seem to be agreement about where to merge to. Sandstein 21:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Insurgence[edit]

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

Non-notable fan game. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably get a mention somewhere given the first reference in the article, but I and the WP:VG/SE otherwise agree the topic is not notable enough for a standalone page. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Can't find additional sources beyond that Kotaku (from RSes, that is). There should probably be a section in the main Pokemon VG Series article about fan made games, which have individually weak notability but are notable as a general class of game to be mentioned there. --Masem (t) 18:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An obvious case of WP:TOOSOON. Can be recreated at a later date once it gets more coverage besides just a couple articles._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only reliable coverage is the Kotaku article thus it fails WP:GNG. I would not be opposed to it being mentioned in a small fan-made section on Pokémon as mentioned by Masem. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge - There could be a List of Pokémon fan games, or similar, I suppose, which would be a good location for a merge and redirect. I don't think the main Pokémon article would be a suitable location for specific fan games, (maybe a small sections in general though). If there isn't a specific merge location, then delete would be fine - clearly doesn't pass WP:GNG at this time. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:27, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't even call for a separate list. The idea of Pokemon fan games is just barely notable, so a standalone is not a good idea (and will draw "hey, post my homefan fan project!" type entries). Plus, with the recent release of Temtem, a section in Pokémon (video game series) of Legacy, with "games inspired by Pokemon" and "Fan-made games" (Alongside Nintendo's avid takedown of such games, per [26]), there is a very comfy fit for all that there. --Masem (t) 01:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Curious what people think of merge options regarding this article. Or should we just delete it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the relisting comment, I think it would be simpler to simply delete because there is not much in the article in question and there will only a small mention of it in the article it is being put in to. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:18, 1 February 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 21:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kottumala Aboobacker Musliyar[edit]

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

Non Notable Person, Not enough for WP:GNG Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 10:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 10:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 10:19, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep bcs many sources in Google Books, let's check it. Authordom (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It would be a good time now if you provide the sources/books. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his son (Who does not have a page) received obituaries in a couple of Indian newspapers, but I cannot find anything better than a passing mention of this guy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be great to have some more feedback here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. I also was unable to find any in-depth coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. He was never a grand mufti or equivalent. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 31 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 21:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinculum Group[edit]

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

Non notable organization that fails to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH & invariably fails WP:NCORP as well. A before only shows primary sources discussing them. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. It's some sort of software company, but the page is so badly written that I can't tell what it does that would make it notable. Ping me if you can fix this mess. Bearian (talk) 17:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources are all routine business announcements or hastily rewritten press releases. There doesn't appear to be any original reporting on the company. I don't think the SBR Business Case Studies Awards are a notable award, and the article that mentions them is the Singapore Business Review (SBR) who is writing about their own event, hosted by the Charlton Media Group, the owner of the Singapore Business Review. Vexations (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom - per WP:TNT and WP:GNG. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:27, 1 February 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 21:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Capsugel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Coverage is limited to press releases, their rewrites (all WP:ROUTINE, trivial events) and mentions in passing. Prior AfD cited two English sources: [27] and [28]. Both are not an in-depth about the company, it's about their partnership with another company, and is from a very minor, local source (Newberry Observer, that's so minor that it doesn't even have a wiki article yet, just linked from List of newspapers in South Carolina...), this makes the sources invalid per WP:AUD. Other sources have rotten away except [29] which is a classic example of a rewritten press release and trivial coverage of routine operations per cited NORG policy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:14, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've revised the article some and introduced content from two published books, one of them a textbook where Capsugel is used as a case study for students. I also gutted the unsourced Facilities section and added only that information supported by one of the books I found to use as a source. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 28 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. As concerns the mass nomination, which is controversial. These articles can still be renominated individually. Sandstein 21:30, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juruá River (Rondônia)[edit]

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

This is a very small waterway in a sparsely populated area of Brazil. Maps (including the one cited in the article) are the only references to the river's existence that I have been able to find, and WP:NFEAT suggests that this is not sufficient to establish notability. Given that there is a highly significant Juruá River (also in Brazil) with its own article, I think that this little creek may be better covered by a hatnote there than by this stub. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 22:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 22:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based on the feedback received thusfar, I'm expanding this proposal to include the following rivers which have a similar level of significance and article development. I have tried to review each with the care any article deserves (and perhaps especially because there are some articles in the List of rivers of Rondônia that are clearly worthy of retention), but I invite review. Generally I excluded any article with content beyond mention of a park/forest/preserve that overlaps with the watershed. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 03:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment While I can't speak Portuguese, judging by context this news clip is about the subject river, since the larger Rio Juruá doesn't go through Rondônia. (If any Portuguese speakers happen upon this AfD, please let me know if that's correct.) That being said, there's not a lot of information about this river, so what does exist can probably be safely merged somewhere. (Not entirely sure where; its source river has about as little information, and while the Ji-Paraná River has more information it also has more single-source stub tributaries than would comfortably fit in the article.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCatalyst31: the news clip was about Juruá River, the reporters mentioned Acre (state). Also I must register that in lusophone WP we don't have any article for a Juruá river in Rondônia. Best regards, Slade ☯ 10:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. In that case, I'd say delete (or at least merge) the article, with no prejudice to recreation if better sources ever exist/are found. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 13:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCatalyst31: You suggested that Ji-Paraná River has a high number of tributaries currently the subject of stub articles. Could you tell me if there's an easy way to find them? I don't have a method more efficient than comparing Category:Rivers of Rondônia against a map. Cheers —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of rivers of Rondônia is organized by drainage basin, which is how I discovered that. Though I didn't look at other rivers, so I doubt this is a problem specific to the Ji-Paraná. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It looks like virtually all of the tributaries of the Ji-Paraná have stubs that are empty of content beyond the river name and a lat–long coördinate (Preto River (Rondônia) has an amusing but unsourced anecdote and a couple other articles have a barely-relevant reference about the Jacundá National Forest, which already has its own article). I wonder if the best approach would be to delete all of these stubs and add to the article for the Ji-Paraná River a two-column table with the tributary names and mouth coördinates? A partial survey suggests this might work for nearly all the minor rivers in Rondônia, even those not feeding the Ji-Paraná. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 14:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ (vote on the set below) Natural features are not automatically notable and this one is lacking coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:56, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a little more participation on this conversation. Thanks everyone for your participation and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ji-Paraná River, the main stream. This small tributary of a tributary etc.,etc.,etc., of the Amazon has no evidence of independent notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Do you think it's worth preserving the coördinates in a table at Ji-Paraná River or just let them go? —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 02:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesLucas:, No, I don't see any value in doing so. Any more than I see value in an article or stating co-ordinates of the stream I have in my backyard that is a small tributary of a tributary etc.,etc.,etc., of the Connecticut River. If there really isn't anything to say other than; "you can find this on a map", then it doesn't help our readers in any meaningful way. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can we remove the huge list above?~~ I don't think these are self-similar enough to be bundled together with the original nomination, especially in a low-attendance AfD such as this. They are all sub-stubs from the same Brazilian state that were autocreated and have been left in a useless status, but they appear to possibly belong to multiple larger basins. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: I'm not sure which aspect of these articles strikes you as insufficiently parallel, but I can say that you're not wrong that defining the scope to the rivers of Rondônia is arbitrary. A quick skim through rivers in the neighboring state of Acre, for example, turns up a non-trivial number of similar stubs. I admit it would be neater to expand the scope of this proposal fit a single river system, but finding an obvious boundary short of the whole Amazon basin may be difficult.

I'm not particularly expert in the AfD process, but I know that anyone watching WP:Rivers of WP:Brazil would be aware that this batched AfD is happening, so my (naïve?) assumption is that the low number of comments is indicative of the uncontroversial nature of the proposal and not a lack of visibility. Of course, I welcome your further thoughts. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 16:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesLucas:, while they're all equally in need of redirects, the target(s) of those redirects appears different. These all ultimately wind up in the Amazon but they should be redirected to the smallest reasonable non-stub article for one of that river's tributaries. E.g., the original Juruá River should be redirected to Ji-Paraná River while at least three others should be redirected to Guaporé River. The Ji-Paraná River and Guaporé River are both notable enough for their own articles but they never meet over their courses so redirecting their tributaries has to be similarly separate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Ah, yes, you're right that it's worth noting that the paths of the redirects should reflect the paths of the rivers themselves and that the work of creating the redirects will need to be done with care that each correctly follows the flow, so to speak. Conversely, I think the decision to delete the stubs in favor of redirects can be bundled for efficiency. —jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 18:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesLucas:, on that basis, I'm willing to say Redirect all to the smallest applicable notable downstream river. It is a not-inconsiderable project to take on. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/delete all It is a massive waste of time to discuss these individually. These are rapid-fire bulk creations of 12-word sentences (these are certainly not "articles") sourced only to a map. WP:NGEO: "This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." These should not have been mass-generated in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 05:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the expanded proposal, nine days after the initial AfD, is a complete mistake. It's going to take awhile to go through all of these, and they're only related because they're river stubs in Brazil (unlike our previous procedural nom, which were all related because they were all sourced to a single database that was "unreliable" for establishing notability.) This should be a procedural keep for all of the rivers nominated after the initial nomination. Total screw up here. SportingFlyer T·C 03:42, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, I have added sources to the Candeias River, which now clearly passes WP:GEOLAND. Will it be a featured article? No, but it's clearly notable. I suspect a number of these other rivers will be as well, but it will take some time - a couple others I looked at looked to be duplicates and will need to be cleaned up, but a bulk AfD is clearly not the place for this, especially nine days after the initial AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 04:05, 2 February 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 21:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cider producers in Dorset[edit]

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

Nominating this and List of cider producers in Hampshire based on the deletions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Devon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Cornwall. Nominating with concerns of WP:PHONE and that there are articles about cider in the UK and we don't need lists of producers. WikiTravel can be used for that. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a WP:DIRECTORY of the names and websites of a particular class of non-notable local businesses. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following on the same reasons for the articles relating to cider producers in Devon and Cornwall. No notable entries, badly sourced and the very few notable entries are already included in List of cider and perry producers in the United Kingdom. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 29 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 21:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cider producers in Hampshire[edit]

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

Nominating this and List of cider producers in Dorset based on the deletions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Devon and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cider producers in Cornwall. Nominating with concerns of WP:PHONE and that there are articles about cider in the UK and we don't need lists of producers. WikiTravel can be used for that. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not a WP:DIRECTORY of the names and websites of a particular class of non-notable local businesses. Reywas92^Talk 19:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following on the same reasons for the articles relating to cider producers in Devon and Cornwall. No notable entries, badly sourced and the very few notable entries are already included in List of cider and perry producers in the United Kingdom. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 19:11, 29 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 21:26, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Houghton[edit]

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

An OBE by itself is a low level awardd and has never been consideredto give 1ny , and theredoesnt seem to be anything else. DGG ( talk ) 21:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 21:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She passes general notability guidelines. Sources include:

"Mint Velvet: the making of a £100m brand: As Mint Velvet celebrates its 10th anniversary this month, co-founder and CEO Liz Houghton has big plans for growth with the support of its new owner." from Drapers
"How I started a high street empire with my friends: A quick fire Q&A with Mint Velvet's Liz Houghton, the woman bringing laid back glamour to the high street." from Red (a Hearst-owned women's UK lifestyle magazine and I can't believe there is no WP article about it!)
"How Mint Velvet Became A Wardrobe Go-To" from Vogue - click "Read More" with your ad block off and the subject is interviewed
"Velvet underground" from The Yorkshire Post
"‘I knew my son’s heart was out there’: why the families of organ donors would love a thank you" from The Guardian
"The two words that helped heal a mother’s heart... thank you: After Will was killed on his bike, his organs helped save 12 people - Now, his mum tells how moving letters from the grateful families lifted her grief" from The Daily Mail
"Liz Houghton on why following her dreams helped launch fashion business Mini Velvet" from Berkshire Life
"Seven pieces that prove it is possible to comfort dress in style" from The Telegraph (as a subject matter expert)

She has also been profiled in Drapers for being on their top 100 list for entrepreneurs. I will drop these sources on the talk page on the subject's article. Missvain (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' These are either promotional interviews for her business, or for her charity. (and and I notice the similarly articles in the Daily Mail and the Guardian , two papers we usually regard as the two end of a spectrum; no source is reliable enough not to exploited for the purpose of PR. ). DGG ( talk ) 17:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:53, 28 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

F1 Manager (2000 video game)[edit]

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

Please can you delete this article, the game is not notable and the article contains inadequate source material. The presence of this article is also resulting in incorrect search information being pulled into the Google Knowledge Panel for F1 Manager which references the F1 Manager title from 2019 and Hutch. webster023 (talk) 14:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just from the references already in the article, the coverage on the reliable sources Jeuxvideos.com, GameSpot, and PC Zone are enough to indicate notability. If an article about the 2019 game of the same name is created then there's a discussion to be had about potential disambiguation, what counts as the primary topic, etc. but deletion of this article is not the answer. Lowercaserho (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clear COI for the nominator here. References on subject aren't fantastic, but clearly passed GNG. Worries about knowledge panel have zero input on a AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was the original creator of the article in 2014. Have given it a significant expansion to include critical reviews and have inserted more information concerning the gameplay. MWright96 (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly passes WP:SIGCOV.
SSSB (talk) 16:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Notability has clearly been proven and apparently nominator @Webster023: wants this deleted because it might interfere with people looking up F1 Manager (2019 video game) they created. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:24, 31 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 21:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of demon lords in Dungeons & Dragons[edit]

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

Collection of trivial characters that don't need coverage, neither establishing notability or justifying itself as a spinout. Demon lord (Dungeons & Dragons), although it should likely be deleted as well, already has a complete list on the topic as well, so this is also just redundant plot information. TTN (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost entirely comprised of plot information, and sourced only to primary material. The vast majority of the individuals here are not remotely notable (a number of these are specified as only having been mentioned once in a list in a single book), and the topic fails WP:LISTN. It is also completely duplicative of Demon lord (Dungeons & Dragons), though as mentioned in the nom, that article pretty much has the exact same issues this one does. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:LISTN, WP:RS, and WP:PRIMARY. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is excessive fancruft. As pointed out by Rorshacma, the topic fails WP:LISTN. The presentation also falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. Reyk _YO! 01:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demon lord (Dungeons & Dragons), which, in point of fact, includes a list of them. BD2412 T 03:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate it passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primarily referenced by WP:PRIMARY sources. Trivial, in-universe material. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As listcruft that fails WP:LISTN. No apparent need to redirect._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List cruft with excessive trival plot infomation. Fails WP:LISTN. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:02, 4 February 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 21:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Nicholson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

No notability whatsoever; entirely promotional Sirlanz (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:27, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and is bordering on WP:G11 levels of promotion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after taking a look at the nomination and the current references of the article, I decided to dig up a bit too see if it really meets deletion criteria. I think there are more references present. A few references that lead me to believe that the article does satisfy the WP:GNG criteria are [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. I think a better option would instead be to edit the article and copy edit anything that seems promotional instead. --43.245.11.105 (talk) 12:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the last three of those are reliable sources and he is only mentioned in passing in each of them as they are highlighting other people. GPL93 (talk) 12:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems largely promotional and I am unable to find any significant coverage in WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article of a non-notable person. -Zanhe (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable individual trying to be on Wikipedia with bogus sources that aren't about him. Easy delete if I ever saw one. PK650 (talk) 21:29, 3 February 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 21:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Secondary School[edit]

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

No indication that the school meets WP:GNG, as the article doesn't cite any sources. Not a very active user (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks any indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:52, 30 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. Closed as speedy G11. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tele-ressources[edit]

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

Promotional. No sources at all. Does not meet our notability criteria for companies and organisations, WP:NCORP. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP. I would have marked it speedy delete for spam. LibStar (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar, I should have mentioned that I noticed a request to "look into it" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Tele-ressources_an_employment_agency Vexations (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO. No notable third party sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted it under WP:G11. Blatantly obvious spam. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, can you close it as speedy delete then? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:34, 29 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 deleted (non-admin closure) --Pontificalibus 16:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KT Tyres[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP and borders on WP:A7. Sources for this article on a local tire shop are 1) an unlinked local newspaper article; 2) the company's website; 3) an in-person interview with the shop's owner; and 4) an entry on a company listing site GPL93 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails GNG. Missvain (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SPAM, WP:MILL, A7, and no allegation of notability: "small, family run business". Bearian (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in addition to the above policy violations, I'd add WP:G11
Delete: An article about a local company going about its mundane business. No claim or evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 18:16, 1 February 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 Kobe Bryant. My decision is based on the passing mentions used in the article to establish WP:BASIC – trademarking and the fact she was good at sports (resulting in her failing WP:SPORTSBIO, too). Kobe Bryant's wife, Vanessa, should also have an article if the same inclusion levels are being used for Giana Bryant to have an article. If someone is wishing to merge any information from this article I'm happy to put it in your userspace. Thanks everyone. Missvain (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gianna Bryant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:N • REDGOLPE (TALK) 11:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • REDGOLPE (TALK) 11:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. - Premeditated (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kobe Bryant. The subject did not achieve sufficient notability in life to satisfy WP:NBASKETBALL. WP:BLP1E also applies here to the recently deceased. Media interest in Gianna was a consequence of her notable father, not her personal achievements. WWGB (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ONEVENT. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kobe Bryant. Clear WP:BLP1E case. Edwardx (talk) 12:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to Kobe Bryant. Insufficient amount of information - the subject is more well known for Kobe Bryant's and her death, not for her own life. Too few sources that talk about Gianna Bryant's life outside of her death to use to expand the article. Thissecretperson (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is all dependent on her father. Just about every headline begins with "Kobe Bryant's daughter Giannna..." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP you asserted NOTINHERITED, elsewhere, and linked to three articls that included both Gianna and Kobe in their titles: [35], [36], [37].

But, is this a helpful, useful interpretation of NOTINHERITED? I suggest NOTINHERITED should not bar covering individuals who are associated with someone more famous, when they, themselves measure up to our inclusion criteria. It should only bar covering individuals when their press coverage is overwhelming of the "...also present was their associate..."

Consider the British Royal Family. Prince Charles is first in line, and an official list is maintained, of all the other individuals in line to inherit the crown, if only everyone above them on the list all died. No one merits a standalone article merely for being in line to inherit the UK Crown, when there is no other notability factor. But NOTINHERITED should not be interpreted as barring covering members of the Royal Family who have genuine notability factors of their own, even though Elizabeth Windsor is more notable than they are. All but a couple of the top two dozen individuals on that list have stand alone articles, because RS established genuine notability. Most of the next couple of dozen individuals don't have stand alone articles. Only a handful of the next hundred individuals have stand alone article.

I didn't start this article because Gianna was Kobe's daughter. I didn't start articles on his other three daughters. I started it because I thought, through RS coverage, she genuinely measured up to GNG, on her own.

A reference that covers Gianna in some detail, should not be dismissed merely because that article also says something about her father. All that should matter is whether or not coverage of her in the article amounts to a mere passing mention.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. It is very soon after her death, so I am not going to take the bait to argue her notability, other than to say notability is not inherited again. The article is clearly also getting deleted.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if not for her untimely death with her father in the helicopter accident, there would be no reason to have an article about her. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Kobe Bryant, per BLP and WP:ONEEVENT. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edit conflict) this article has already been deleted once through AfD, and CSD A3'd. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- L293D, you realize the first AFD dates to 2009, to a puff article written in, when she was just a NN toddler? Why do think its deletion is relevant today? Geo Swan (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I realize that it quite some time ago, but I don't think she's gotten much more notable since. Her claim to fame is basically that she's Kobe Bryant's daughter; that's why her name was trademarked, that's why sports media commented about her, and that's also why she I mentioned by name as one of the casualties of the heli accident. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, you use the word "fame" above. According to NPOV we are not supposed to rely on our own opinions, we are supposed to rely on the opinions of reliable sources. Reliable sources thought her viral video showed remarkable skills for someone her age. Reliable sources said Colleges were already trying to recruit her to their basketball teams, even though she hadn't started high school. Reliable sources said her nickname had been trademarked. Her older sister doesn't seem to have been interested in basketball, she wasn't being recruited for college basketball teams, she didn't have her name or nickname trademarked, so no one is suggesting she merits an article, or a trademark.
      No offense, but it your judgement of her "claims to fame"? Why shouldn't we regard them as irrelevant, when RS disagree with you? Geo Swan (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let's drop the whole trademark equals notability argument. If I start selling ThatMontrealIP beer coasters at the corner 7-11, Tomorrow, I could apply for and obtain a trademark just as quickly as anyone else. Trademarks depend on a business presence for the name, not on fame. If a few people have recognized the name as being attached to a product, you can get a trademark to protect that recognition.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for the reply. I too could start selling merchandise with some phrase on it. I too could apply for a trademark on that phrase.

And you or I would not become one iota more notable for having done so -- unless RS picked it up, and covered it. If I applied for a trademark, and the Financial Post wrote an article entitled "Wikipedia kook applies for a trademark, just to prove a point", that headline, that article, would confer a measure of notability on me. It would not be enough notability to merit a stand-alone article, all by itself. But notability relies on notability arithmetic, where we add up all of an individual's notability factors. Gianna's trademark is not her only notability factor. No one is arguing that her trademark would have been enough to establish she was notable enough for a stand alone article, all by itself. But, in my opinion, it does totally erode all the BLP1E claims that have been advanced here.

So, for that reason, I will not "drop it". Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned it because you mentioned it in your keep vote below: "Was the one event her having her nickname trademarked, on 2019-12-30?" I also do not imagine a 13 year old has money for intellectual property lawyers, so the coverage is really abotu her father trademarking his daughter's name, not about the daughter doing something. Anyway, knock yourself out on whatever argument you like. The article will still be deleted, given the concsnsus to do so.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Edwardx, WWGB and L293D stated or implied a BLP1E, or ONEVENT - without, however stating what that event was.

Was the one event her having her nickname trademarked, on 2019-12-30?
Was the one event her having many sports commentators praise her skills when a highlight recording of basketball plays went viral?
Or was it her death?

Y2kcrazyjoker4 did state that her death with Kobe was the one event, and I think they too are improperly overlooking the earlier events.

No offense, but I think to refer to these multiple events as a "one event" is a twisting of BLP1E's original meaning. Wasn't BLP1E intended for individuals whose fame/notoriety/notability is genuinely traced to a single discrete event; people who came from nowhere, had their 15 minutes of fame, and then disappeared? Geo Swan (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one event is her death. The news coverage she received before is mostly trivial stuff, because she was Kobe Byant's daughter. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, her death. Edwardx (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Edwardx, L293D, my point is you would be using BLP1E improperly if you realized she was known for multiple events. BLP1E is only supposed to be used for individuals known for, as it says one event. It seems to me you aren't, now, disputing she is known for more than one event. Geo Swan (talk) 16:01, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one event is certainly her death. Having her nickname trademarked and people gushing over a highlight video of a young baller are purely trivial events. The latter has gone on for decades and this instance is no different. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 16:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I mean yeah, I wish she could have her own article, and what happened was terrible but of course, the rules of Wikipedia call for something notable about the topic, and the fact that she's skilled at basketball, is taller than her mom, and she had a trademarked name, Mambacita, isn't really that notable. – K-popguardian (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Things are notable when RS write about them. That is basic policy. Are you sure you aren't ignoring the opinions of the RS we are supposed to be paying attention to, and substituting your own personal opinion, as if your opinion were more important than those of the RS who wrote about her trademark, or her exceptional skills? Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dad. He talked about her in interviews sometimes, as seen even on British tv obits, so a short section or para is warranted. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seven ways from Sunday. Yes, her death absolutely is tragic, but WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Death of Kobe Bryant/Kobe Bryant per nom. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:12, 28 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 21:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhead Junction, California[edit]

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

GMaps shows this is in fact just a railroad junction – not an unincorporated community! Only results on newpapers.com are legal advertisements apparently about a different Arrowhead junction annexed by the city. Reywas92^Talk 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A gas station with no electricity, telephone, running water or gas pump was located there. It seems unlikely more than one household was present during this period, and I found no evidence of earlier occupation by more households.----Pontificalibus 10:29, 28 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onjolee Nair[edit]

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

No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources with which to establish notability under WP:GNG. The9Man talk 07:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find anything to help establish her inclusion. Missvain (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that she fails WP:GNG, and she only has one film credit. The article itself is extremely sparse, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I could not find anything to help establish her notability, or inclusion of this article in any way. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable actress. Angus1986 (talk) 02:11, 1 February 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ebenezer International School[edit]

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

Searches of the usual Google types didn't find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources with which to establish notability under WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOL. Worldbruce (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 3 February 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:19, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle O'Brien[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Discussed briefly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Kyle O'Brien which gives some background. Fram (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, as the two non-primary sources only mention him briefly and are of non-FPL leagues anyways, and WP:NFOOTY, as NISA is not yet considered a fully professional league (and in any case, even if the league were to pass the FPL for the upcoming season, the first "season" of NISA was functionally a poorly attended, poorly covered tournament featuring two groups of four teams playing a total of six games, and one team folded nearly immediately, so playing in only one game of this tournament should not satisfy our guidelines, even though the WP:GNG fail means it should be irrelevant anyways.) SportingFlyer T·C 08:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't appear to satisfy the GNG. This press release from his former league (arguably a primary source) indicates he won awards for his play in Malta's semi-pro league and the UPSL (which is amateur/semi-pro). However, I can't find any in-depth coverage (even the league's press release is borderline) that is from a non-primary source. Jogurney (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 19:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and football notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 30 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Eustace[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2008. I can’t find any reliable independent sources that would suggest a pass of WP:MUSICBIO. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find anything to indicate sufficient notability. Aoziwe (talk) 09:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was also not able to find anything to indicate notability such as newspapers articles or independent press on the subject. Countrychick56 (talk) 00:07, 29 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zigity[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate it passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 17:42, 29 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. Clear consensus that available sourcing is adequate to meet the WP:GNG, and also that the subject meets at least one secondary notability guideline. Early closure (nomination withdrawn). (non-admin closure) VQuakr (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Gazecki[edit]

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

This person appears to fail all the criteria at the relevant notability guideline, WP:CREATIVE. All reliable mentions I found online (and that are existing in the article are about Waco: The Rules of Engagement, not the director, and notability is not inherited. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Documentary Oscar nomination is documented, and there's coverage in the NYT, among others. WP:BEFORE was not performed. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PK650: which of the criteria at WP:SK are you citing? What notability guideline references award nominations? You linked a trivial mention of the subject; have you found any significant coverage that would meet WP:BASIC? VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@VQuakr: Criterion 3 of SK. Are you aware of notability guidelines at all? WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST should be educational, for starters. The NYT article is not trivial coverage, and you'll find that Criterion 3 of WP:CREATIVE specifies multiple independent reviews specifically. Here's another significant review for you, and another one, not to mention print sources such as Oh, the Guilt: An Essay from Eating the Dinosaur at Google Books. Finally, if you're not convinced, there's WP:ENT too. Work he's been directly involved with (as sound editor and director, no less!) has received an Emmy and been nominated for an Oscar. Oh and I just saw he received an Emmy in 1982, and has been nominated 3 other times! So who are you kidding? PK650 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My nomination makes it clear that I read the article in question. Your SK !vote is frivolous. Your links are reviews of (or in the GBooks case, a 24-page pamphlet containing a single-sentence mention of) his work; they are not about Gazecki and contain no biographical information about him except that he directed these works. This discussion is about a biography. To repeat, have you found any significant coverage that would meet WP:BASIC? VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy: my observations above were clear, concise, and entirely policy based. If you can't admit you were wrong then kindly wait for other editors' comments. This is not the only AfD I'm currently participating in, nor do I have anything to add. Please don't take !votes personally; plus I highly recommend you refrain from assuming emotional editing from my part. If you continue to deny several Emmy nominations, an Academy Award nomination, an Emmy Award, not to mention SIGCOV (a simple search in print and online yields many sources, quite a few of which are good quality), you simply appear to be at fault in nominating, and I was therefore not mistaken in deeming WP:BEFORE was disregarded. Thanks, PK650 (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV totally exists, you just can't be bothered to produce any examples of it. Got it. I am happy to be proven incorrect; identification of better sources to rescue the article is the best possible outcome of an AfD. So far, you haven't cited anything I didn't review prior to making the nomination. VQuakr (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nomination for an award does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: He won an Emmy, had nominations for 3 others and an Oscar (WP:ANYBIO c. #1: "has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"), and has significant reviews of his work per c. #3 & 4 of WP:CREATIVE: "the person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of...multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Clearly notable. Best, PK650 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ barring PK650 (or anyone else) putting their money where their mouth is and producing sources specifically about Gazecki that aren't just name-drops, scandal rags, or interviews. You claim you have responsive sources, PK650, onus is on you (as the one making the Keep argument) to produce them. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano: See below. Thanks, PK650 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With sources now provided and in the article, Keep. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 21:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:FILMMAKER #3 since he has three films that have each been reviewed multiple times. While he was nominated for only one Academy Award, per WP:ANYBIO #1, the multiple Emmy nominations are also another reason to keep the article. Furthermore, Coast to Coast AM provided a biography of him here, and Film Threat has a piece focusing on him here. However, since he is not "popular", care should be taken to ensure that the article does not turn into a puff piece about him. For example, I would put the festival award mentions at the article for Waco and create The Outrageous Sophie Tucker so the review snippets could go there instead of being in his biography. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:42, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Multiple Emmy nominations and an actual win) I agree with Erik re the snippets. I added them merely because people seemed to ignore that there actually were reviews in existence. The NYT, LA Times, and HR are not trivial reviews per WP:RSP, and that's just for the 2014 film (Roger Ebert reviewed the 1997 one, among others including the NYT again). I think one of the main problems here is both the fact that these awards/nominations occurred several years ago (and the online sources prejudice that exists on Wikipedia), compounded by the fact this person was involved in sound editing as well as directing, which is a role that often goes unnoticed. There's probably quite a bit of coverage from the 80s in newspapers, given most I can personally find are substantital bits in books such as Stiffed: Betrayal of the Modern Man at Google Books. PK650 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention the Emmy win because it's not "a well-known and significant award of honor", being a Creative Arts Emmy Award as opposed to a Primetime Emmy Award or Daytime Emmy Award, which are the most-covered ones. Furthermore, sound mixing may be too niche to have contemporary coverage (especially from the 1980s) replicated to be readily available online. It may be that print publications about sound mixing have covered Gazecki, and we don't have visibility into these. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. PK650 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wgazecki has left an extensive statement on my talk page today. I've just encouraged him to join the discussion here, and have warned him not to edit the article himself. PK650 (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize that the filmmaker himself had edited the article, but I'm not surprised. While it had been cleaned up, the current version struck me as having a sense of having been originally written with a promotional tone. It seems necessary to simplify the article further, to drop everything unsourced and perhaps have a pre-career "Background" section and a "Career" section, a more condensed filmography, and a distinct and referenced "Accolades" section. It seems like the article Lucy Walker (director) warrants an examination too. Red flags for me are a lack of a person infobox (which to me means that it has likely been overlooked by editors who make improvement rounds), a lot of biographical information for someone not that famous, and an extremely indiscriminate list of awards. It's not an example anyone should be following. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the perennial problem of autobiographical promotional editing. I do wish everyone would stick to stuff they're not involved with...but then again it's Hollywood and one can't expect too much of an ethical side, eh? PK650 (talk) 04:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we now have enough sources to justify the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Erik, it didn't take me long to just clean up parts of the article and add some references. I think he's done enough to have an article per the sources and awards LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:20, 31 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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magahi people[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be such an ethnic group. The scattered mentions of "Magahi people" to be found in the literature refer either plainly to speakers of Magahi, or more broadly to people who are from the region where Magahi is spoken. – Uanfala (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to Indoyan and to Dev0745, who have been involved with the article. – Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one monograph and a passing mention in a book do not constitute significant coverage. Almost all of the text is completely unsourced. Bearian (talk) 22:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename ~~Keep~~ The article on language has a different scope, while this covers the culture and and social structure and other aspects of the Anthropology. The refs in the article are good. [38], People of Magahi [39] also threw some sources. Considering the regional language is Hindi, more sources can be found in Hindi. The topic IMHO is notable and I dont see it being redundant in any way. The deletion does not seem appropriate to me. DBig Xrayᗙ 05:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the fact that a certain search phrase returns results on google automatically entails that there is an encyclopedic topic behind that phrase. The point of the nomination was that there's no Magahi people as an ethnic group. If the article is trimmed down of the trappings of ethnolinguistic reification and renamed to something like Culture of Magadh, then that's fine by me. – Uanfala (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uanfala, changed my !vote to rename. see my comment below. DBig Xrayᗙ 18:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not delete, possibly merge and redirect. Agree with nominator. It appears there is no such ethnic group. This is a reference to people living on a certain territory. My very best wishes (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, User:Uanfala your suggestion to rename this to Culture of Magadh, is also acceptable to me, that way this content can be WP:PRESERVED. This topic on culture is clearly notable.Accordingly I have changed my !vote. courtesy ping My very best wishes, and Bearian for their opinion on the rename. Closing admin should allow sufficient time for others to respond, before closing this thread. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any good RS telling about the Magahi people or Culture of Magahi as a whole? If so, that would be a strong argument to keep. But if not, I would suggest merging the content to page Magadha (the corresponding territory). My very best wishes (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the content matter to attempt answering the core questions, but I don't think Magadha, in its present state, is a good merge target as it's entirely about the ancient polity, while the article nominated here is about a contemporary cultural region. As for preserving the text, I'm not terribly keen on the idea because the bulk of it is unsourced. – Uanfala (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala, FWIW I am half Magahi. There are already 9 sources as refs. I have checked the veracity of the unsourced content and they are not incorrect or imaginary. So it makes sense to preserve it, we should rename it as Culture. I agree that Magadha may not be a good merge target. DBig Xrayᗙ 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a revelation :) If you're ready to vouch for the veracity of the article's content, then of course I'm fine with that. At this stage, I think renaming appears like the best course of action. – Uanfala (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uanfala, :D. Yes, I can vouch for the veracity. And there are several books to expand the Magahi Culture article. [40]. DBig Xrayᗙ 05:43, 5 February 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 Actor model. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ActorFoundry[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY and has been tagged as such for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Actor model, where the tool is mentioned. The article does not meet WP:GNG, and it also suffers from promotional language. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Actor model, where it is mentioned in context. This seems like a reasonable search term, and the table entry seems like due weight compared to the other libraries listed there. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 05:56, 28 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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace of Mind Canada[edit]

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

promotional page for a small organization with local references only. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 28 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 21:20, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Martenson[edit]

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

Non-notable individual per WP:GNG. Handful of citations from the 90s and no scientific contributions whatsoever since make him fail NPROF too. He's now a conspiracy theorist, apparently, and I could find no SIGCOV about him. Sources listed are unreliable or straight up written by him. No article covers him exclusively nor substantiates his notability. I found no reviews of his book beyond known conspiracy sites, so he's non-notable per WP:AUTHOR as well. PK650 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he recently made some videos about the 2019-nCoV outbreak in China he is now suddenly a "apparently a conspiracy theorist" (which is unsourced) and some random PhD in pathology (which is sourced^[1]^[2]), who did not write any scientific contributions (cough^[3])? For the record pathologists study diseases and their causes, so you may consider him to be an expert on the subject. Someone Not Awful (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.huffpost.com/author/chris-martenson-phd
^ https://books.google.nl/books?id=B2k3CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=chris+martenson+phd&source=bl&ots=7waXw22aB3&sig=ACfU3U0SEvVSwe4LfHBZ6Yxqybh5CDHfGw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI1eSrw6rnAhVPIlAKHVV1Dyo4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=chris%20martenson%20phd&f=false
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Chris+Martenson&btnG=

Some other sources.^[1]^[2]^[3] Someone Not Awful (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://library.duke.edu/find/all?Ntt=Chris+Martenson
^ https://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3632017382001/#sp=show-clips
^ https://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/478888-rescue-roads-lead-elite/

Delete nothing shows the level of impact needed to show an academic is notable or the level of coverage needed to show a writer is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability established. 1Veertje (talk) 10:26, 4 February 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. While I am not aware of any policy or practice that would disallow disclosed paid editors from participating in AFD discussions on their work, consensus here appears to be that the sources presented do not establish WP:NCORP-based notability. Thus this is a delete consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HYPR Corp[edit]

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

Promotional article, created and substantially maintained by undisclosed paid editors, still being maintained by disclosed paid editors. When the bad press-release churnalism that the disclosed paid editors keep re-adding is cleared away, there's very little here that shows notability under WP:NCORP. A WP:BEFORE shows no better. Apart from it being promotional business spam, the company just isn't very famous. David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In working with the COI editor as a non-involved third party reviewer, I assembled a WP:NORG checklist for this article (shown here on the article's talk page). The result of that checklist suggests that the subject might not be notable. Two of the more reliable sources both incorporated interview material from the company's CEO within their articles, and thus were questionable as strong secondary sources — of which, multiple sources must be demonstrated to meet NCORP. The problems with the other strong sources are all described in the checklist. Additionally, performing a cursory search of the term in Google is complicated by the fact that information from a marketing company which produces influencer-type software — a company which is also called HYPR (and even uses a similar font for their name/logo) — those search results from that company populate the top half of the page, interspersed with search results from the subject company. Editors attempting to locate additional information on this company should be aware of that distinction. Regards, Spintendo 05:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per comments on the lack of notability already given. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: eweek article should be considered significant and notable, the article is about hypr technology and services, and its written by senior editor Sean Michael Kernern, I do not think there is any reason to believe he is not reliable. ^[1] Hypr was covered by wsj on their venture capital section. ^[2] Duncan Riley, senior writer at SiliconAngle, also covered hypr corp.^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talk • contribs)
  - Note: this editor is the disclosed paid editor on the article in question, now advocating non-RSes to shore up his client's promotion - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the level of sourcing (present on the current article and off-wiki) indicates this topic is a WP:NCORP failure. While sources are cited and more could be added to the article, none seem to meet the criteria for sources laid down by NCORP; almost all are press releases (considered dependent coverage by NCORP), routine business announcements, funding announcements (considered trivial coverage by NCORP standards), or construable as in-passing mentions. Much of the coverage generated by the topic (this article for example) rely heavily on WP:PRIMARY information (an issue given Wikipedia:Notability#SPIP). In short, the topic has not accrued the necessary level of in-depth, independent coverage needed to meet WP:SIGCOV, let alone the much stricter NCORP. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there are still a lot off wiki coverage, for example Peter Cohan analyzed Hypr corp on Forbes, although he is a contributor, his professional career precedes him. ^[4] Robert Hackett also covered Hypr in his publication. ^[5] Hypr recently made a research about “Usability of Biometric Authentication Methods for Citizens with Disabilities” which was published in the 2019 IRS Research Bulletin. ^[6]^[7] Tatum Hunter of Built in NYC took notice of Hypr growth. ^[8] Hypr is part of FIDO Alliance board. ^[9]^[10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriptocurrency (talk • contribs)
- Note: this editor is the disclosed paid editor on the article in question, now advocating non-RSes to shore up his client's promotion - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: I don't know what does this upper note means. I am just trying to put the sources on the table to show notability following wikipedia guidelines. This article is not maintanined by undisclosed payment editors as you say and I am not re-adding anything, I did add references once but because you placed a citation needed tag and I thought it was okay to add citations. Kriptocurrency (talk) 16:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kerner, Sean. "HYPR Debuts Biometrics SDK to Improve Authentication".
^ Zakrzewski, Cat. "Hypr Raises $3M to Replace Passwords With Biometrics". wsj.
^ Riley, Duncan. "Passwordless security startup HYPR raises $18.3M to fuel growth".
^ Cohan, Peter. "Should Symantec Investors Worry About HYPR?". Forbes.
^ Hackett, Robert. "Samsung Are Pouring Millions Into This Password-Killing Startup". Fortune.
^ "Usability of Biometric Authentication Methods for Citizens with Disabilities" (PDF).
^ Burt, Chris. "Dynamic device position key to usability of biometrics, HYPR and Mitre study finds". Biometric Update.
^ "HYPR Has a New Manhattan Office with Room for 30 to 40 New Hires".
^ Mayhew, Stephen. "HYPR Joins FIDO Alliance board". Biometric Update.
^ Dautner, Mike. "HYPR IoT Authentication Platform Achieves FIDO Alliance Certification".

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 Maurice River Township, New Jersey. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bennetts Mill, New Jersey[edit]

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

I can find no corroboration for the claim that this "is an unincorporated community": empty forest land on GMaps. There was an amphibian search there, but all other results on newspapers.com are to a Bennetts Mill Road and not all the one near the given coordinates (about Bennetts Mills, New Jersey). Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Everything says that this was, well, the location of a mill at some early date. Old topo maps and aerials show a small farm on the east side of the creek, and that's about it. Even very old topo maps don't show anything here. Mangoe (talk) 03:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maurice River Township, New Jersey per Gannett, Henry (January 28, 1895). "A Geographic Dictionary of New Jersey". U.S. Government Printing Office – via Google Books. Djflem (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maurice River Township, New Jersey. The entire content of the article is "Bennetts Mill is an community located within Maurice River Township in Cumberland County, New Jersey, United States." The place exists. The only sources in the article support its existence, and nothing more. There may be something to add one day and Bennetts Mill may merit its own standalone article, but for now a redirect is the best option. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 31 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mattg82 (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Turkey[edit]

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

A sea of red links, fails WP:LSC. Mattg82 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or reverse redirect: Take content from here to List of schools in Turkey which at the moment is redirects here. All countries have a list of schools article- infrastructure. ClemRutter (talk) 10:13, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of content in Category:High schools in Turkey and its subcategories, more than enough to merit a standalone list even if the redlinks are pruned and this list is limited to articles or entries that should have articles (which is clearly a fixable problem). Whether that should be included in a list of broader scope is a matter for normal editing and discussion. All of this means this should never have been taken to AFD; the nominator should read WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE carefully. postdlf (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry folks, I've improved the article now I'll withdraw this before I get trouted. Mattg82 (talk) 17:40, 28 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 Ewing Township, New Jersey. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Meadows, New Jersey[edit]

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

Subdivision/housing development within incorporated Ewing Township, New Jersey (townships in NJ are the legally recognized incorporated local governments unlike in other states). Sources are merely real estate agencies' context-free listings to sell homes in the developments, nothing with substantive sources establishing notability to pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Reywas92^Talk 00:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 00:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm all about improving geography stubs, but this isn't a populated place per GEOLAND #1 and after a before search seems to clearly fail GNG as a neighborhood. Only sources are to Remax and to a subdivision directory - it's not technically promotional because it's neutrally written (which I disagree with) but on the whole seems to be on the promotional side. SportingFlyer T·C 00:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ewing Township, New Jersey Djflem (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ewing Township, New Jersey per Djflem where it's already mentioned. Encyclopedia entries for new neighbourhoods built by a single commercial developer may appear promotional, but once all the property is sold the name tends to stick and the commercial side is forgotten as it becomes just another neighborhood.----Pontificalibus 11:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ewing Township, New Jersey. The entire content of the article is "Spring Meadows is a neighborhood located within Ewing Township in Mercer County, New Jersey, United States." The place exists. The only sources in the article support its existence, and nothing more, and they're both from real estate brokers. There may be something to add one day and Spring Meadows may merit its own standalone article, but for now a redirect is the best option. Alansohn (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a legally recognized place. Seems like the name was created by real estate agents for marketing purposes.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 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] "Civilan Daily Paper Succeeds Navy Paper on Guam". Evening Star. Associated Press. 17 June 1950. p. B-7.

[2] "Guam Recovers, Moving Ahead in New Status". The Chronicle Star the Moss Point Advertiser. 15 August 1952. p. 7.

[3] Information on Guam Transmitted by the United States to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Pursuant to Article 73(e) of the Charter. U.S. Navy Department. June 1952. pp. 50–.

[4] Dalisay, Francis (2009). "Social Control in an American Pacific Island". Journal of Communication Inquiry. 33 (3): 239–257. doi:10.1177/0196859909333694.

[Teare1980-5] Jacqueline Korona Teare (1980). The Pacific Daily News: The Small Town Newspaper Covering a Vast Frontier. Michigan State University. School of Journalism.

[CunninghamBeaty2001-6] Lawrence J. Cunningham; Janice J. Beaty (2001). A History of Guam. Bess Press. pp. 293–. ISBN 978-1-57306-068-4.

[7] Richstad, Jim; Nnaemeka, Tony (1979). News From Nowhere: Sources of International News in the Pacific Islands. Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism. Houston, Texas.

[8] ttps://www.huffpost.com/author/chris-martenson-phd

[9] ttps://books.google.nl/books?id=B2k3CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA207&lpg=PA207&dq=chris+martenson+phd&source=bl&ots=7waXw22aB3&sig=ACfU3U0SEvVSwe4LfHBZ6Yxqybh5CDHfGw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiI1eSrw6rnAhVPIlAKHVV1Dyo4ChDoATAEegQICRAB#v=onepage&q=chris%20martenson%20phd&f=false

[10] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Chris+Martenson&btnG=

[11] ttps://library.duke.edu/find/all?Ntt=Chris+Martenson

[12] ttps://video.foxbusiness.com/v/3632017382001/#sp=show-clips

[13] ttps://www.rt.com/shows/keiser-report/478888-rescue-roads-lead-elite/

[14] Kerner, Sean. "HYPR Debuts Biometrics SDK to Improve Authentication".

[15] Zakrzewski, Cat. "Hypr Raises $3M to Replace Passwords With Biometrics". wsj.

[16] Riley, Duncan. "Passwordless security startup HYPR raises $18.3M to fuel growth".

[17] Cohan, Peter. "Should Symantec Investors Worry About HYPR?". Forbes.

[18] Hackett, Robert. "Samsung Are Pouring Millions Into This Password-Killing Startup". Fortune.

[19] "Usability of Biometric Authentication Methods for Citizens with Disabilities" (PDF).

[20] Burt, Chris. "Dynamic device position key to usability of biometrics, HYPR and Mitre study finds". Biometric Update.

[21] "HYPR Has a New Manhattan Office with Room for 30 to 40 New Hires".

[22] Mayhew, Stephen. "HYPR Joins FIDO Alliance board". Biometric Update.

[23] Dautner, Mike. "HYPR IoT Authentication Platform Achieves FIDO Alliance Certification".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]