Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 August	9 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Moszkowicz[edit]

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

No coverage other than press releases, promotional features and passing mentions; fails WP:NBIO. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and clean up), CEO of major film company. Lots of nontrivial mentions, e.g. [1], [2]. —Kusma (t·c) 09:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources like this show notability as does being the head of a major film studio and the honorary degree he got. Josalm64rc (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why is it not possible to improve the single issues instead of deleting the whole article? According to Variety [… Moszkowicz, Constantin’s head of film and TV, has become the face of Germany’s leading independent producer-distrib in recent years, overseeing such diverse concerns as film and TV production, domestic and international distribution, licensing, acquisitions and marketing. He has worked on more than 100 features, serving as producer, exec producer or production company head on such commercial and critical hits as Soenke Wortmann’s “Maybe… Maybe Not,” Michael Herbig’s “Manitou’s Shoe,” Caroline Link’s Oscar-winning “Nowhere in Africa,” Tom Tykwer’s “Perfume: The Story of a Murderer,” Oliver Hirschbiegel’s “Downfall” and Uli Edel’s “The Baader Meinhof Complex.” …] [3] Just in Variety there are 248 articles about Martin Moszkowicz: [4]Parola per parola (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, about 240 of these are just that - no more than passing mentions, and effectively worthless. However, that still leaves at least half a dozen more substantial articles, which should suffice. The Variety archive clearly was a good place to look. - I'll leave this open for another day or so and then withdraw if no dissent emerges. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(NB, Parola per parola - it's useful to actually provide this type of source when starting an article. Why you would put this into mainspace as reliant on the crap sourcing originally used is mysterious. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for your notes. Next time I'll try to be more effective and use the sources like this one [[5]] --Parola per parola (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked in the Nuts[edit]

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

I cannot find any basis for notability on this. It's been flagged as needing references for almost five years, and only has two. One reference is a college newspaper article [6] on a different topic (interviewing one of the co-creators, Mike Henry) with only one sentence on this show ("Henry and his brother Patrick also created ‘Kicked in the Nuts,” a popular and well-received entry in 2003 for Channel101.com, a short film-oriented Web site.") The other is a dead-link with no archive on the wayback machine. I independently found one other passing mention: a single sentence in the obituary [7] for the other co-creator Patrick Henry ("The pair produced a list of short films and the web series “Kicked in the Nuts,” a spoof on hidden camera shows."). Apart from that, nada.

The fact that it was alluded to in a Family Guy episode would initially suggest that it was notable enough, if it was referred to in a mainstream TV show... until you realize that the episode that referred to it was itself written by the Kicked in the Nuts co-creators.

It's been marked as needing sources for almost five years. I don't think it's going to get any; I certainly can't find any. And given that it's an Internet-based show, any sources would be likely to show up on the Internet.

I was going to take a stab at improving it, but apart from an infobox and an external link to IMDB [8], I don't see much of a way to do so, There simply isn't much of anything written about it; which is another way of saying it does not meet notability standards. TJRC (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJRC (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I believe this is better considered as a short-film and not a "web series". Regardless, there is inadequate sourcing (though it is on Youtube). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn’t much about this series I could find, imo lacks WP:GNG. 1989 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British Pearl Finance[edit]

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

The only "coverage" I can find are funding announcements and other WP:MILL stuff. Fails WP:GNG possibly just too soon. Praxidicae (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as highly likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 16:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by an editor with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is completely rewritten, for the reasons espoused above Sam-2727 (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Duttapukur. No prejudice to recreation if coverage can be found. Randykitty (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dattapukur Mahesh Vidyapith[edit]

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

Not notable LuciferEdits (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Duttapukur where it is mentioned. High schools are typically kept at AfD but in this case, I really can't find coverage that would satisfy WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Weyl[edit]

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

No evidence nor claim of notability. WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, nothing with biographical detail. Previous AFD was actually the same guy when he was a student. David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 13:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when the previous keep votes argued the person was notable because of how fast he got his Ph.D. to me that is a screaming sign that he is not notable. People are not notable because they get educated fast, and often people who plow through subjects fast do not have a deep understanding of them. OK, maybe I am biased because it was 9 years between when I started my bachelors degree and completed it, but still nothing shows this person is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't have the time to invest in adding this stuff to the article, but Glen Weyl is a fairly prominent and respected figure. He's widely cited as an inventor of quadratic voting (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting-methods/#QuadVotiLiquDemo), he co-authored a popular and influential book (https://www.amazon.com/Radical-Markets-Uprooting-Capitalism-Democracy/dp/0691177503), and he's one of the founders of a new and growing political organization/movement (https://radicalxchange.org/). Just googling his name turns up a large number of news articles and videos. He's also at least as notable as his co-author on Radical Markets, Eric Posner. User:Zhoulikan
Keep hot young intellectual needs a better article. Note incoming link from Quadratic voting, a concept Weyl co-created. Recent book was widely reviewed - I added a few of the reviews.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)strike vote of sockpuppet.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The cites you added seem to be material for the book's notability - do they cover Weyl himself in any biographical detail? - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~not in depth, but multiple WP:RS do cover his ideas in depth. Page just needs an editor, or just keep it and wait for it to be crowd-sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)~~ strike apparent sockpuppet - David Gerard (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source analysis
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) and WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book he co-authored is notable (that's a start), quadratic voting, which he co-invented is also notable. There's not a lot of references that focus a bit more on Weyl specifically but there are some (including some in French). I think he passes WP:GNG barely but certainly WP:PROF. Pichpich (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete spam for non-notable company — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abacus Consulting[edit]

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

Promotional content, non-notable company, started by User:Abacus Consulting, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Appears to be a WP:G11. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 23:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

J Farell[edit]

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

There's no claim of notability (or references) in the article and a Google search turned up almost nothing about him, let alone anything reliable and verifiable that would support notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I don't know why this page was never CSD'ed to begin with, page never had references, but not sure if we can do that now. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Searched Google and didn't found substantial information to support notability. Barca (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom CurtNeiMeng (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could have been speedied as A7 or BLPPROD'ed since there are no references. Now that it's at AfD, we need to check if there's any significant coverage of this man: I did not find any and I think he plainly fails WP:GNG. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandrine Le Normant d'Étiolles[edit]

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

Not independently notable. Not legitimate, so no claim to the throne. Scandal was about her mother, so no need for a separate article about this 9-year-old girl. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 19:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Her notability is not demonstrated by any claim to the throne but by the fact that she has been the subject of sustained interest by historians and biographers, as attested by the references provided in the article. There’s ‘no need’ for much of Wikipedia, but we judge notability on sourcing, meaning this clearly passes. Mccapra (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources cited are about her but about her mother. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes the sources are all books about her mother, but they all make reference to the daughter. The girl’s entire life is known through these sources. AFAIK every book about her mother discusses the daughter means so she has received sustained coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The girl was not historically significant, but per our guidelines she was notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her mother was notable, nothing suggests that this 9 year old girl ever rose to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- … apart from all of the history books with her life in them. Not even cited in the article is Margaret Crosland's book, which would also support all of this, across 8 pages. Then there are the books on the privately collected works of Boucher, the books that are in French … Mccapra is right. We keep stuff because it is properly documented objectively and in depth by multiple people. Subjective ideas of fame and importance are no more the rule for historical figures than they are for atolls in the Solomon Islands and species of beetle. People suggested fame and importance, years ago. It was wrong. Uncle G (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge briefly to her mother, who was an extremely notable royal mistress. She is certainly not independently notable. Even if she had been legitimate, a princess being educated in a convent would hardly be notable by the age of 9. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you are mixing up significance with notability. There is no argument at all that she was significant. However if you look at WP:BASIC you’ll see she definitely passes our notability threshold. Mccapra (talk) 03:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Regarded by a king as his stepdaughter. Definitely notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage, though this could possibly be handled in a section of her mother's article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:06, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think merging to her mother would lead to a rather lengthy digression so keeping a (well-referenced) separate article is most appropriate. Pichpich (talk) 19:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Football Scouts Association[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable organisation. About 11 hits on GNews, no verifiable hits on Gbooks. I don't see the sort of in-depth coverage in a variety of solid independent reliable sources that would satisfy WP:NCORP, and also provide the material to write a proper article about it rather than the two brief sentences we have (which were, I'm afraid, written at least partly by me). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GS – Levivich 17:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Encantadia. Lacks evidence of separate notability. RL0919 (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muros (Encantadia)[edit]

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

Non-notable fantasy character, not to mention that there is no mention of the character's real-world background and cultural impact in order to establish its notability. I don't mind its inclusion as a separate article in Wikipedia, but unless OP provides anything to back up its notability, the deletion request still remains. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think that it's necessary for an article to have a cultural impact if it's literally a piece of the culture itself. This article is creating a more in depth understanding of the story line it comes from, and adding that information to Wikipedia --regardless of it's cultural significance-- seems appropriate to me. The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant. Keep, because it is a good piece of information, even if it is rather insignificant, to have in the Wikipedia database. BluePankow ✉ 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following parts, "it is a good piece of information" and "The character was created for the story line, which is in itself, culturally significant", are not good "keep" arguments. I would recommend instead finding coverage of the character in third-party, reliable sources to prove notability to make a stronger argument to keep the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Encantadia as there does not appear to be enough coverage from third-party, reliable sources to support notability. It could be a viable search term though so I think a redirect would be better and more helpful than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encantadia Fails WP:GNG to become an independent article. 1989 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:19, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paulius Danisevičius[edit]

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

Deprodded without improvement or rationale. Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:NBASKETBALL or WP:NCOLLATH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so it fails the GNG. The information suggests a player who is not in top-level competition and so fails the terms of WP:NBASKETBALL. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just passing and routine mentions (since he plays in a pro league that is bound to happen), he fails WP:NHOOPS all in all a delete. Josalm64rc (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Fails GNG. Barca (talk) 23:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet either WP:NHOOPS or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He seems to meet the more basic WP:NSPORT for winning a gold at the 2017 Summer Universiade. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSPORT requires athletes to have competed "at the highest level" which the Universiade clearly is not.Papaursa (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASKETBALL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Ilincev[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a child writer, with no properly sourced evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR. As always, writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the notability test requires evidence of significance, such as winning major literary awards and/or having received enough reliable source critical attention to clear WP:GNG. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable primary sources such as Amazon and GoodReads and a press release on the self-published website of the school he attends, with not a shred of real independent third party media coverage shown at all. This is not how you reference a writer as notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No in-depth coverage from independent, reliable sources, so he doesn't pass WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is said 'writers are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles', but it is not highlighted that the author is 13, something that should be 'notable'. Ilincev was on the List of books written by children or teenagers, and all of those that are listed have their own wiki articles, even if they only wrote a single book (example: Faiza Guene). So, Ilincev should be included. As to the so-called 'unreliability' of the sources, it should be shown that these were used to reference personal information about the author, and the school websites' article was written by one of their administrators, not by Ilincev himself, of course.
As well as that, the author is the only Czech child author. Is that not notable?AlphArcher (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You are erroneously conflating subjective criteria of importance with notability. Notability is not fame nor importance. It is, indeed, what we came up with years ago when we found that Project:fame and importance did not work. A biographical subject gets a biographical article if there is in-depth documentation of the subject's life and works from multiple sources with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, from which to construct a biography in accordance with our content policies. It's that simple, and a good argument for having a biography, that will actually hold water where subjective evaluations of importance will not, is to cite multiple good sources that document this person's life and/or works in depth. Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not "has done something that I find interesting" — it is "has received reliable source coverage in media for it". Even a person who was actually the Second Coming of Jesus Christ wouldn't get a biographical article about him on Wikipedia until after media have written about his claim. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)Note to ivoters and closing administrator: E.M.Gregory is a blocked sock. Lightburst (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Keep - Being a child author is rare, and AlphArcher makes a good point in saying the notability of Ilincev publishing a novel at that age is sufficient to warrant an article. Threyed (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Threyed, Welcome to Wikipedia. I can see that this is your very first edit. It takes a while to understand how Wikipedia works, so allow me to suggest that you read WP:NOTAVOTE and WP:GNG, and understand that while your comment may be true, it is necessary to support opinions with WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:E.M.Gregory Thank you for informing me. I still think my opinion should count, but I was just reaffirming the obvious fact that AlphArcher pointed out while looking through the Articles for Deletion section, that of the comparison to other child authors.Threyed (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter how "rare" something may be, a person becoming notable for it requires him to have received media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SIGCOV. TeriEmbrey (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a teenager who gets works published is not read enough to give default notability. We need third party coverage which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 20:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tomsk-7 (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Defunct grindcore metal band, whose entire output appears to be two limited-release split 7" singles with other bands, and three song contributions to three non-notable compilation/tribute albums. Entirely sourced to user-generated websites like Discogs and Rate Your Music, and the usual metal wikias, and no better reliable sources have been found – no demonstration of notability at all. Richard3120 (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Barca (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill local band; there's no evidence of national touring, which might put them into the category of notable bands. Bearian (talk) 16:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brain vital signs[edit]

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

Promotional - the current article is a WP:COATRACK for Ryan D'Arcy's research. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brain vital signs is a new neuroscience technology that is groundbreaking because it's newly developed by several neuro-researchers from Simon Fraser University including Dr. Ryan D'Arcy. The neuro-technology is used in several clinical studies by other non-related researchers. It's no different from when Elon Musk and his teams develop something new and innovative. Musk's Wiki entry includes all his companies/initiatives, each entities with its own wiki page. I cross referenced Wiki's deletion policy and don't see that this entry incurs any infractions? Info is correct and referenced and sourced. Can you advise how you're seeing differently and how I can revise to address your concerns? Keep in mind I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so not well versed in coding etc. so apologies for format issues. YoEmFuji (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC) User:YoEmFuji 10:42, 1 August 2019 (PST)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There are a few bits of language that are puffery but those can be removed. The article cites both academic and popular sources that appear to support WP:GNG. I read WP:COAT but don't see how it applies here: a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely — the nominal subject is the framework, and that's what the article discusses. editing to add: I'll leave my previous comment, but I'm glad some editors with experience on medical articles showed up to comment; I defer to their expertise. Schazjmd (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Overemphasis on one research team, overemphasis on one research teams' primary studies, and promotional. I'm not seeing secondary medical sources that we could summarize, otherwise the article could be saved. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thjarkur. On topics pertaining to medicine, we have to be particularly vigilant in avoiding churnalism and other kinds of uncritical coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Thjarkur. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just an advertisement for the scientific framework. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in multiple indepenent sources.----Pontificalibus 11:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MEDRS compatible sources lacking. JFW | T@lk 21:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's too much of synthesis. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impending Doom (German band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Previous discusson determined that they had multiple albums on a notable label, but I don't see the notable label either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I checked Napalm Records and they aren't on their roster. It appears the previous AfD had faulty information. Simonm223 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I might be willing to change my mind if there were good evidence from reliable sources that this band toured Europe. Bearian (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Participants in the discussion do not believe there are sources that are independent and reliable to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Losliya Mariyanesan[edit]

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

No true in depth coverage, fails WP:NACTOR, nothing much has changed since the last AFD in terms of available sources. Praxidicae (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was nominated for G4 speedy, and I (reluctantly) declined speedy deletion because this new version is substantially different from the original, deleted version. However, IMO the new version still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. If it is deleted again, I suggest the deleting admin consider salting the title, since it has been deleted and recreated multiple times. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content if I remember is slightly different, yeah, so I get the decline but coverage wise it's still more or less the same, the previous nom was better than mine, so everyone should just look at that ;) Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, As per my comments on the previous AfD - fails WP:ANYBIO, the references provided are from 'celebrity' websites (with uncertain independent editorial oversight - more like fan sites) which only relate to her appearance as a contestant on an Indian reality television show.Dan arndt (talk) 23:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS and quick check just reveals more social media cruft. Agricola44 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above. This has been created too many times and poorly each time. This feels like some WP:UPE is happening here. Ravensfire (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Creator feels like a sock of Thiyagasothy given this and other evidence, will file at SPI after lunch. Ravensfire (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind - I'm way too slow, already been done WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Thiyagasothy. Ravensfire (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Favour Ogubuike[edit]

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

No reliable sources offered--but there is a website link, so BLPPROD is out, I guess. A kind of claim of importance is made, but it's weak, and maybe A7 is out. So here's the old-fashioned way: there is no proof of notability whatsoever, not via WP:GNG and not via WP:NMUSIC. No record deal, no hits, no coverage, no nothing--and it reads like an autobiography. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Due to reasons above. Also, a Google search shows very little sign of notability - some social media pages with ~3000 followers, and a self-made website. 2A00:23C4:3ADE:0:384B:3701:FAB2:E84D (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No claim of notability and no independent coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:10, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Paul Nomel[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who made a total of 1 appearance in Hungary's fully-pro Nemzeti Bajnokság I. Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage in French-, Hungarian-, and English-language sources appears to be routine (database entries or transfer announcements, with the exception of one interview with a Luxembourgish sports blog and a post by his employer - which I believe are considered primary sources). Jogurney (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a few brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one sole appearance many years ago does not make up for the massive GNG failure. Giant Snowman 07:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while technically passing the "one game" rule, de minimis non curat lex. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic lacks significant coverage and so it fails WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taewangkorea (talk • contribs) 10:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete all rather than redirect, as no specific redirect target(s) have been identified. If people find suitable targets later they can add appropriate redirects at their discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails to meet WP:GNG. We don't even have enough biographical information to write this person's full name. Mehta is a very common surname in India, for those of you who didn't know. This RfC already confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. Dee 03 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 15:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I direct you to my question here. If you can please answer my question there instead of clogging here. Bobo . 15:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have already asked the same question in multiple places and can find my answer here. Dee 03 15:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per my reasoning at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/D._Gamit. Reyk _YO! 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer the question I have posed you there, regarding "extra prose"? I still have no idea what the answer would be. Bobo . 15:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I would be happy to see them all redirected to relevant lists, probably club-based, if such exist or can be created within a reasonable timespan. It does look as if the cricket project has a major problem with the number of these miniature articles that I've seen on this deletion page since I adopted it only yesterday. As I have said in several deletion discussions below, for football (my sport) or hockey or cycling or paragliding or whatever, an article must have narrative so that the reader (who?) has something to read. These "articles" are nothing more than brief notes taken from a glance at a dubious online page containing scorecard statistics. I see that the Cricket Archive site is again in evidence, usually as an external link only. It is paywalled but I am told that it is an unreliable source, self-published by a private society. Unless you are a member of the club or are prepared to pay an exorbitant subscription fee, you don't get to see stuff that is any event available upon the professionally run Cricinfo or in books like Wisden and Playfair. Okay, you have to pay for the last two but at least you get a good book for your outlay. All of these "articles" lack significant coverage and fail the GNG, as Dee03 rightly points out. As he also says, Mehta is a very common Indian name and is among others the name of a famous dirigent, namely Zubin Mehta. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot be certain of how up-to-date it is, but List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers at least looks more comprehensive than many other teams' pages. Bobo . 19:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate "List of (Indian state) cricketers" articles. They may be repurposed into a List of English cricketers (1787–1825) style to accomodate permastubs. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Cricket has some of the largest collections of articles on people who almost nothing is known about of any sports. We are finally making headway against some of the filler articles on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the relevant state/team list pages as appropriate - or delete if that option is considered unsuitable for some reason. The lack of biographical information means that the chances of finding in depth sources about any of these chaps is remote in the extreme. If that information does show up then we could reconsider the articles - a redirect makes this easy to establish. Given that that they each played just one match that we know of - with the exception of Narain who played in two - the chances of finding sources just now seem remote at best. Given that only Ajantha has a page on any other wiki that's linked (Tamil - contains no more than the en-wiki page) this seems even less likely. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete all: per my comment on similar bundled AfD. Existence with verification is one thing, and notability is other. These players fail WP:GNG big time. Even if the subject passes some subject specific guideline, it doesnt mean we must have an article on it. All the coverage I could find came from the websites that try to cover everything n anything related to cricket, this doesnt establish notability. And due to the lack of persistent significant coverage, we can delete the articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one (or two, in a few of these) first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cristopher Mejia[edit]

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

Article about former footballer who made a total of 1 appearance in Trinidad & Tobago's potentially fully-pro TT Pro League (however, per the discussion at WT:FPL, I don't think the sources demonstrate the league is fully-pro). Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage is routine (database entries or transfer announcements). Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whether he scrapes by NFOOTY (doubtful in this case as nom points out) is immaterial as NFOOTY merely creates a presumption of GNG. Per my assessment and search we don't have anything close to meeting GNG here. Icewhiz (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG. There is no narrative beyond a couple of brief notes and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one sole appearance many years ago does not make up for the massive GNG failure. Giant Snowman 07:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritesh Agarwal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has a long history of recreation and deletion. Most recently, it was WP:G4'd, but I've backed that out and posting here per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Blatant spam, as with every other iteration. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this page has failed WP:GNG, I would have deleted it myself and really would like you to review in detail. I am not sure why there is a delete vote without reviewing detailed page history and a quick google search. As Mkativerata has said here, The case for notability here is blindingly obvious. Meeanaya (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and strongest keep, if content is advert, it is not just the reason to salt and burn, content was again edited by a new editor User:Tortew which was overlooked by admin in July 2019. The content was perfect when it comes to this version. As Agarwal is one of the most notable entrepreneur in India, you just think of all reliable news references in India and you will find his name organically in all reliable news sources over the last 5 years. He not easily pass WP:GNG and deserves a speedy keep. AS User:Mkativerata has said at this undeletion review, The case for notability here is blindingly obvious: BBC, Bloomberg, Bloomberg profile, Financial Times (UK) profile. Here are a few sources if you dont agree (These all news links are covering Ritesh Agarwal in-depth and not just his company, No articles in this list are written by any contributors/guests, they are written ONLY by staff)

Ritesh Agarwal's journey from being a SIM-seller to the helm of OYO Rooms (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/entrepreneurship/ritesh-agarwals-journey-from-being-a-sim-seller-to-the-helm-of-oyo-rooms/articleshow/48322588.cms)
45 Indians in Forbes list of achievers under the age of 30 (https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/forbes-list-of-achievers-indians-under-the-age-of-30/story/227768.html)
(https://www.ndtv.com/business/oyo-rooms-founder-in-forbes-list-of-achievers-under-30-1262283)
Will the real Ritesh Agarwal please stand up? (https://www.livemint.com/Companies/7CN7u5d4i3bfYgBAZLdLpM/Will-the-real-Ritesh-Agarwal-please-stand-up.html)
Oyo founder Ritesh Agarwal to triple his stake with $2 bn share buyback (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-to-buy-back-shares-from-early-investors-for-2-bn/articleshow/70292114.cms)
(https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-to-triple-his-stake-with-2-bn-share-buyback-1563529810359.html)
The 21-year-old building India's largest hotel network (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34078529)
Making an impact in hospitality industry (https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/making-an-impact-in-hospitality-industry/article7621313.ece)
The Real Story of Oyo Rooms' Ritesh Agarwal (https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/opinion/the-real-story-of-oyo-rooms-ritesh-agarwal-783004)
At 21, He's the Mind Behind Multi-Million Dollar Start-Up OYO (https://www.ndtv.com/people/at-21-hes-the-mind-behind-multi-million-dollar-start-up-oyo-1204353)
Ritesh Agarwal: Finding room for growth (http://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30/ritesh-agarwal-finding-room-for-growth/42163/1)
Want to start your own business? Know what helped OYO’s Ritesh Agarwal start his own company! (https://www.businessinsider.in/want-to-start-your-own-business-know-what-helped-oyos-ritesh-agarwal-start-his-own-company/articleshow/47718013.cms)
How OYO's Ritesh Agarwal transformed the business of budget accommodation (http://www.forbesindia.com/article/8th-anniversary-special/how-oyos-ritesh-agarwal-transformed-the-business-of-budget-accommodation/46971/1)
From SIM Card Seller to Multi-Millionaire: A 24 Year Old’s Incredible Journey (https://www.thebetterindia.com/133859/ritesh-agarwal-oyo-dropout/)
Bejul Somaia taught me how to hire right: Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, Oyo Rooms (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/people/bejul-somaia-taught-me-how-to-hire-right-ritesh-agarwal-ceo-oyo-rooms/articleshow/59953562.cms)
OYO Founder CEO Ritesh Agarwal felicitated for work in India’s hospitality sector (https://www.indiablooms.com/finance-details/6337/oyo-founder-ceo-ritesh-agarwal-felicitated-for-work-in-india-rsquo-s-hospitality-sector.html)
THE 23-YEAR-OLD OWNER OF OYO ROOMS TALKS ABOUT BEING A YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR (http://www.vervemagazine.in/people/ritesh-agarwal-oyo-rooms-on-entrepreneurship)
OYO would see a further reduction in losses this year: Ritesh Agarwal (https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oyo-would-see-a-further-reduction-in-losses-this-year-ritesh-agarwal-117120500044_1.html)
Oyo Rooms CEO Ritesh Agarwal narrates his Odisha story (https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/oyo-rooms-ceo-ritesh-agarwal-narrates-his-odisha-story/53882529)
Ritesh Agarwal had a fascinating success story at 22 (https://e27.co/he-built-his-first-startup-in-2012-shut-it-down-started-another-in-14-got-softbank-to-back-it-and-turned-it-profitable-20160511/)
Oyo's Ritesh Agarwal finds backing from Mizuho, Nomura (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/oyos-ritesh-agarwal-find-backing-from-mizuho-nomura/articleshow/70339335.cms)
Why Ritesh Agarwal's $2-bn deal to hike his stake in Oyo to 30% is a riddle (https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/why-ritesh-agarwal-s-2-bn-deal-to-hike-his-stake-in-oyo-to-30-is-a-riddle-119072200028_1.html)
At 24, OYO founder Ritesh Agarwal becomes youngest entrepreneur in India, says Hurun India Rich List (https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/at-24-oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-becomes-youngest-entrepreneur-in-india-csays-hurun-india-rich-list/story/283043.html)
https://www.arabianbusiness.com/travel-hospitality/423828-too-many-entrepreneurs-give-up-says-oyo-ceo-ritesh-agarwal
http://www.forbesindia.com/article/cross-border/ritesh-agarwal-building-a-muchloved-company/53605/1
https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/mOub1Fgn8EDw9gtYigaqHN/How-24yearold-Ritesh-Agarwal-built-Oyo-into-a-5-billion-s.html
http://www.forbesindia.com/article/tycoons-of-tomorrow/ritesh-agarwal-making-affordable-cool/51379/1
http://www.forbesindia.com/article/india-rich-list-2018/oyo-theres-room-at-the-top/51697/1
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/greater-clarity-required-on-data-sharing-cii-on-draft-e-comm-policy/articleshow/68688326.cms?from=mdr
https://www.ey.com/in/en/about-us/entrepreneurship/entrepreneur-of-the-year
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/sim-card-seller-college-dropout-millionaire-at-22-boy-from-naxal-area-scripts-incredible-story/articleshow/64678808.cms
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/new-cayman-base-to-bring-funds-to-oyo/articleshow/70253747.cms
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/meet-oyo-rooms-ritesh-agarwal-the-dropout-who-dined-with-peter-thiel/articleshow/48536789.cms
https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/sme/ritesh-agarwals-oyo-softbank-set-up-investment-vehicle-seek-cci-approval-for-increasing-stake-in-oravel-stays/1645590/
https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oyo-hotels-plans-300-million-push-in-us-market-ceo-ritesh-agarwal-119061901257_1.html
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/oyo-founder-in-talks-to-buy-back-1-5-billion-shares/articleshow/70121644.cms
https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/oyo-hospitality-ritesh-agarwal-american-dream-us-market-investment-new-york-los-angeles-san-fransisco/story/357882.html
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/wicket-just-eased-up-for-a-5-trillion-chase-ritesh-agarwal/articleshow/70101094.cms
https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/this-is-how-24-year-old-ritesh-agarwal-built-oyo-rooms-a-5-billion-hotel-chain-in-just-five-years/1327354/
https://www.cnbctv18.com/entrepreneurship/how-ritesh-agarwal-a-college-dropout-built-the-5-billion-oyo-empire-3185041.htm
The most powerful people of India 2019 (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/the-most-powerful-people-of-india-2019-full-list-1574021-2019-07-26)
Meet the billionaires in the startup world (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/meet-the-billionaires-in-the-startup-world/byju-raveendran-the-freshly-minted-billionaire/slideshow/70432535.cms)

He is also the co-chairman, Confederation of Indian Industry for National Committee on Tourism & Hospitality and Chairman, Confederation of Indian Industry National Committee on e-commerce. In 2016, NDTV's inaugural Unicorn Awards recognized Oyo Rooms as their Dream Chaser of the Year. In 2017, he was honored with the “Gaurav Samman” by the Government of Haryana. The award was given to people of Haryanvi origin residing outside of Haryana who have made significant contributions in various fields. In 2018, he was named Best Entrepreneur by International Institute of Hotel Management in cooperation with International Hospitality Council. He was also listed in Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award- Services Dataquest magazine named him IT Person of the Year at their ICT Awards.

He has been named on several young leader lists and awards including: The Economic Times 40 under 40 (2016); Fortune 40 under 40 (2016); Forbes 30 under 30 (2016, 2018); Barclays Hurun India Rich List for Youngest Entrepreneur under 40 (2018); and CBC-TV 18 India Business Leader Award for Young Turk of the Year (2019).

Restore it to this version and lock it for extended user edit for one year. Meeanaya (talk) 04:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject of the article is obviously notable. There is clearly significant coverage in reliable sources: BBC, Bloomberg, Bloomberg profile, Financial Times (UK) profile. The aricle could be better but it is not in the irretrievably spam category that warrants deletion.--Mkativerata (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, enough sources to pass general notability. 1.39.212.15 (talk) 09:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources linked by Mkativerata clearly indicate notability. SmartSE (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage (BBC in particular), and current version is not too promotional. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brentwood Bank Robbery[edit]

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

Coverage in local sources but no widespread coverage to indicate enduring significance. Per WP:EVENTCRITERIA "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes)...are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Polyamorph (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incredibly WP:ROUTINE failed crime, and unnotable. Nate • (chatter) 16:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publish and Be Damned[edit]

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

No sources are cited to show that the topic is notable. In fact, no sources are cited that mention the topic at all. This may be the same topic previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publish and be damned, which was unanimously agreed to be deleted in 2005 and was deleted again in 2006. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. After sifting through a few pages of results for "Publish and Be Damned" + "publishing fair" on Google, the only in-depth coverage I found was this and this, which isn't enough to pass GNG. I also found some blog coverage, but no other reliable sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm changing my !vote to neutral based on the sources found by E.M.Gregory. Unfortunately, the databases I have available to me do not index The Guardian or Artforum, so I'm not able to evaluate whether these additional sources provide significant coverage or are just routine coverage (as BarrelProof seems to think). – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if the publishing fair is deemed non notable then this term should be redirected to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington just like Publish and be damned but if it is deemed notable then WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:2DABPRIMARY will do. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~{{{1}}}~~

- Most of the identified sources, which apparently took some effort to dig up (by someone who thinks the article should be deleted), are just minor promotional material and routine announcements of what's happening around town. The only source linked in the article is identified as an "event notice" and is only 12 sentences long (and has an ungrammatical sentence). Clearly this was a pretty minor event. We should not have articles about every little fair that is held at the local ~~high school gymnasium~~ church crypt, which seems to be roughly what this article is. This article is doomed to perma-stub status and should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~permanent stub status is a common and unobjectionable feature of Wikipedia. Many bried articles are worth keeping. this one does need improvement.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

I object. I find it very objectionable. If something is so non-notable that even after looking for sources we can't find anything that really discusses the subject in detail, and if that situation looks like it is never going to change (e.g. because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct, so that no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication), then we should not maintain a perma-stub about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be used as a vanity press, obscure fan site, or personal blogging site. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is always a good idea to look at the most recent updates before opining. And, when sources have been found, doing a fresh WP:BEFORE search can be enlightening. I speak as an editor who often changes my opinion after someone sources a page that my initial WP:BEFORE could not source. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did review the latest changes before making that comment. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~p.s. - we really should have a stand alone article on Wellington and his phrase.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]
- There is already an article on Wellington and it discusses his phrase. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes, I am aware. What I intended to suggest is that an article on the subsequent uses to which the phrase has been put would be worth having.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is plenty written about this event. I did a simple article search in my library's article database for the event and its curators and found seven (7) references, e.g. Zappaterra, Y. (2006). Punk publishing. Design Week, 21(30), 36-36. I find the dismissive tone above "about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct" objectionable. Wikipedia is the ideal venue for such information. It is what many people come here for. Emphatic Keep. Gerntrash (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, it was cited in this doctoral dissertation: Sullivan, Molly E. The Multivalent Platforms of Alternative Art Publications as Agents of Authentic Cultural Change, University of Southern California, 2010. Gerntrash (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:HEY nice job of sourcing by User:Gerntrash. And a reminder that the fact that a book fair is now defunct is not an argument for deleting it, we have thousands or defunct things in Category:Former entities, thousands more in Category:Defunct media and other similar categories. Contrary to Nom's assertion that "because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct... no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication" people do continue to publish copiously about many small defunct events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aybars İbak[edit]

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

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

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

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

The sources are all very short pieces that have no by-line in sources that seem to be mostly user-generated such as imdb, haber life, kimnereli where you can email your bio for publication etc etc. The sites seem to have no staff. This is a case of way WP:TOOSOON. Nothing in a before search of interest Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is not a valid reason for me because there is no such thing as every news headline will be long, and when it comes to IMDb, there may be only known people in IMDb. Paulahted^(T) 8 August 2019 (UTC) — Paulahted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Paulahted: the above comment is your only edit to Wikipedia – you joined Wikipedia just to comment on this AfD? Richard3120 (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sources are the same biographical paragraph, he does't pass WP:GNG he maybe notable someday but he's not notable now. Whispering^(t) 15:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. The sources are unreliable and they do not help with establishing the subject's notability. He does not pass WP:GNG, at least for now. Keivan.f^Talk 06:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Resources seem to be sufficient. It's okay to stay. What is mentioned in the news is that the person (child) is slowly becoming a nationally recognized child. Kimnereli.net is a site where only well-known people are present and their personal information is provided. Sites like: famousbirthdays.com The information available by e-mail is an option for lesser-known people, and in such cases there is the “special request” sign in parentheses. Prianhana^(T) 7:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Prianhana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep editors of kimnereli style sites find things like birth date, height, biography from the internet. If they can’t find. E-mail option is available to receive e-mail from people who know it or from the manager of that famous name In very rare cases famous people can also e-mail. Huriyeot45^(T) 9:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Huriyeot45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
~~Keep I can't see anything negative on the referenced sites. Only known, well-known people can be found on Imdb and kimnereli sites.Tarikmarulanson 12:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)~~ — Tarikmarulanson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment to closing administrator: WP:MEATPUPPET alert – every one of the "keep" voters has joined Wikipedia in the last 24 hours, and all of them by coincidence have decided to use the same font for their signatures. Richard3120 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep I reviewed the given sources There are no problems in the sources. Fikeithomas 20:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)~~ — Fikeithomas (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sockpuppet contributions struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fikeithomas. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as not currently meeting WP:NBIO, created by a sock and supported by a flock of sox. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep There seems to be some problems with the sources, but I think the person is worth notable.User:Kimfromkorea (talk) 10:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)~~ blocked sock Dom from Paris (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Definitely WP:TOOSOON. ZettaComposer (talk) 00:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This person maybe a notable.Correcting the sources may not be a problem.Resources can be corrected.185.82.218.139 (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)— 185.82.218.139 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Weak Keep Once the necessary resources are added and corrected, the person can be everytime notable. (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)—(talk)~~ Striking yet another blocked sockpuppet !vote...this must be a record! --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethical banks[edit]

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

Although I accept that 'ethical banking' is a real phenomenon, this list is inevitably problematic.

The nature of the title gives it an innate POV slant that is going to be very difficult to overcome (and are we saying that banks not included in this list are not ethical?).
The criteria for inclusion are unclear, all banks presumably consider themselves 'ethical'.
It's a pretty broad term that is impossible to objectively assess. Just look at the section in the main article about judging what is ethical. If Mill, Kant and Aristotle can't agree then how will Wikipedia editors?
Finally, what one source might describe as 'ethical' will vary from what another might.

A redirection to Ethical banking could be an option but I oppose that on the grounds that there is currently no such list in that page, and I would avoid ever creating one for precisely the reasons given here. Hug^syrup 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ethical is a subjective phrase, and even if the term ethical bank reffered to a bank with a specific type of business model, there is no objective way of determining whether a bank matches the criteria. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only banks identified as such by reliable sources should be included (e.g. The Guardian[9], The Ecologist[10], a Journal of Business Ethics article[11]), but that's an issue for cleanup, not deletion. The delete lvoters are focusing on the general meaning of the word "ethical" rather than the specialized, financial one. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Read the second half of my sentence. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, how are we to know that those articles are referring to a 'specialized financial meaning'? None of the three links you provide refer to any objective specialized meaning, they simply describe a bank as ethical without further explanation, or describe it as a strategic positioning of that bank. Indeed, the Ecologist article notably places ethical bank in scare quotes every time, which rather illustrates my point. Hug^syrup 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTDIR. Ethical is a point-of-view that may differ depending on who defines something as ethical. Ajf773 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hugsyrup, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a super subjective term, all the more so considering how long banks can exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and others; this is highly subjective and therefore highly problematic. Even if we only listed those banks that were noted by independent sources to be "ethical", this is subject to change without additional coverage. Nope. Pegnawl (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle Gear[edit]

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

I can not find any sources that indicate subject meets WP:ORGCRIT Tropicanan (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 12:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Ryukyuan and Okinawan Studies[edit]

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

I cannot find any significant sources that establish notability of this organisation. Collaboratio (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Sadly, their work looks interesting - the Ryukyuan languages are fascinating. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cichy[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to WP:NHOCKEY. The Polish league isn't considered for any criteria and though he plays for Poland internationally, he has never played in a World Championship or an Olympics (he played in an Olympics qualifier but that doesn't count as Olympics participation). He was a first team All-Star in the USHL but crucially the league is not listed among the leagues in criteria #3. The Canadian junior leagues (OHL, WHL, QMJHL) are counted but the American junior leagues (USHL, NAHL) aren't. Therefore he fails #3. He also doesn't have any preeminent college awards to pass #4. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey plaeyr.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flowmaster[edit]

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

Promotional article about non-notable company with no substantial, independent coverage. Does not meet WP:NORG, and particularly WP:ORGCRITE. A previous prod was removed by a significant contributor, which is why I'm bringing this to AFD. Hug^syrup 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be a direct violation of WP:G11. The "article" doesn't even have any references. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 per PuzzledVegtable, unsourced and clearly promotional. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Pretty much cut-and-dried self-promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent company Holley Performance Products. This article, which has been here for almost 12 years, does not qualify for speedy deletion as obvious spam. As written now it reads more like a general description of the company, its history and its products, with no price list or call to action as might be expected in blatant promotion. But this standalone article of a fairly known brand does have its problems. StonyBrook (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Bruess[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 55 AHL games and has no preeminent in the ECHL or WCHA. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Bielke[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 83 DEL games before his career was cut short due to injury. Has no preeminent honours and did not play for Germany at a senior World Championship. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. I would encourage User:Bobo192 to tone it down a bit with the accusations of lying.Making mistakes is human and AGF is expected from all editors, especially sysops. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmasdrasinhji[edit]

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

Does not meet GNG. Only statistical profiles and a scorecard found on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. I could not even find this name in Saurashtra Cricket Association database (http://www.saucricket.com/MenPlayers/Detail?PlayerName=dharmasdrasinhji). Dee 03 08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he does appear in the database: here, but it reveals no further information, and remains a bare statistical profile. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, Dee. Now not only are we trying to censor information, but we are lying in the process of doing so. The sad state of Wikipedia. Bobo . 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Bobo192, you're better than that. I'm confident that Dee03 searched in good faith, but didn't think to split the name. I only found it by trawling through manually. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you can at least understand my frustration. I've been working my tuchis off for 15 years only for people to come along and say my work is unacceptable. This is why I'm upset. Bobo . 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of lying. I input the exact name provided by you in the article and got zero results on the Saurashtra website. I was searching that site only hoping to find this person's full name as I had just found another Saurashtra cricketer's first name there. Now even if this cricketer's name is found (in a different form) on some other statistical website, it does not change the fact that he does not meet GNG. Dee 03 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he meets WP:CRIN, that is only a rule of thumb to suggest whether a player will meet WP:N. It is clear that based on the sources we have, and those that can be found from a Google search, that there is only routine coverage of this player, forming a bare statistical listing. Lacking significant coverage, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He does meet N. This is the whole point. N states "or". Bobo . 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. However, while some SSGs such as WP:PROF state that they are independent and "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline", WP:NSPORT and by extension WP:CRIN are not an alternative, as confirmed by community consensus in this discussion. Harrias ^talk 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are lying too. Well done. Lying has got this whole project and this whole debate where it is. What a sad state of affairs. Bobo . 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"CRIN is just a rule of thumb which suggests whether a player will meet N". CRIN is just as much a "guideline" as N. As long as N states "or", the two guidelines are of equal footing. Bobo . 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest no, your understanding is flawed. Harrias ^talk 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I was just pointing out the irony that both were of equal footing and yet one is given more credence than the other even though N clearly states or. Bobo . 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time. Bobo . 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have a universe to attend to. I may be back. I may not... Bobo . 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- another virtually empty article about an obscure cricketer, full name unknown, based on pure stats databases containing not a single word of prose. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article. A merge might be possible if there is a good target article. Calling people liars merely for disagreeing isn't acceptable behaviour. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A claim was made. It was immediately proven to be false. How much more information do you want in the article? Any further information would be superfluous and unnecessary. Bobo . 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. It consists of brief notes transcribed from a statistical source and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion to a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable criketeer who does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers - this seems better than deleting and the incomplete list can be worked on at some point I'm sure. The lack of biographical information and single known match suggest very strongly that suitable sources for a standalone article are unlikely to be provided in the foreseeable future. If they are then we can create the article easily enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Sharma[edit]

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

Not notable. No RS SIGCOV. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Does have some coverage in independent sources but it all seems a short-lived fame, almost BLP1E. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NENT. Josalm64rc (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely fanpage but not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NENT. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Looks like promotion of her here. How the person got photo of her? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:37, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Firm consensus that notability is shown, and that articles created by blocked users but with substantive edits from others users aren't subject to deletion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Novoland: Eagle Flag[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philologick: Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those like me looking for the actual deletion rationale: it appears to be that this is a creation of Boyhoodjams (talk · contribs) using a sockpuppet Lolastarlight (talk · contribs) and others, which per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion and enforcement is currently the project's policy on blocked sockpuppeteers using sockpuppets to create stuff. Here are the subsequent edits by (apparently) other people. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Aside from any issues with the initial creator of the article, it's a widely distributed mainland Chinese television series and should be considered notable. matt91486 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blocked user. Keeping only encourages sockpuppetry.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is certainly notable, and the blocked user is not the only major contributor. -Zanhe (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep topic is certainly notable. 103.200.134.150 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zanhe. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rind Snacks[edit]

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

Failing GNG and NCORP. Sources seem largely aligned to PR/churnalism or are mentions in passing (short product intros). Available search results yield mostly routine corporate announcement or further aligned reporting. May be too soon for an independent article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that, at best, this is WP:TOOSOON. I also tried to find reliable sources on these fruit snacks, but also encountered food industry blogs, press releases and churnalism, not to mention a lot of otherwise reliable articles on the non-related pork rind snacks. Alas, there is yet nothing more. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:43, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Druk Trowa[edit]

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

magazine that fails WP:NMEDIA. Supplied references are to a study of all media in Bhutan that mentions it but is not significant coverage of it, a news report on its first issue and a directory entry. Google finds no WP:significant coverage. noq (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D. Gamit[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias ^talk 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete all No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. None of these cricketers meet GNG. Dee 03 08:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time. Bobo . 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction. Bobo . 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree completely with the nominator's reasons and don't really think I'd be doing anyone any good by trying to add to them. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- more empty microstubs based solely on score cards and statistical entries, without a word of prose between them. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is not enough to support a stand-alone article. As the nominator points out, this SNG does not trump the general guideline. A merge or redirect to some suitable list article might be possible if a candidate target can be identified. Reyk _YO! 12:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What extra prose would you expect? Surely any other material would be superfluous. Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are purportedly biographical articles, with a person as their subjects. Biographical material, explaining this person's life and works, is the expected content of a biography. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all six articles. There is a lack of significant coverage and so they each fail the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. The articles consist of brief notes transcribed from statistical sources and there doesn't appear to be any potential for worthwhile expansion to readable narratives. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Same question. What extra prose would you expect that wouldn't be utterly superfluous? Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bobo192: I believe it's not so much extra prose as extra sourcing that is needed to prove that there is significant coverage of the subject in the wider media. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the key ruling or guideline within the GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Equally, and again correct me if I'm wrong, sport-specific criteria such as NFOOTY and the cricket one only seek to establish potential notability within the scope of the sport itself and that can then be used as a qualifier for GNG consideration (obviously some sporting subjects could achieve GNG without meeting any sport-specific criteria). It is the GNG that counts because you cannot write an article (and by that I mean article, not brief notes) unless there are adequate sources available. You cannot transcribe statistical data into brief notes and call that an article. I would not be against the statistical data being used in a relevant list, subject to sourcing. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have demonstrated over and over that those who compile Cricket Archive and Cricinfo are independent of the subject - and of each other. As for "the media", and i'm speaking entirely tongue-in-cheek here, I trust the media now a lot less than I used to! ;) Bobo. 15:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Bobo192: Looking at S. K. Desai, as I have a friend of that name, there are no citations in the article which has four short sentences only. The inference is that the information came from the Cricket Archive site, which you mention above, because it is given as an external link. That site is paywalled and so I can't access it but I'm reliably informed that it is the cricketing equivalent of Soccerbase except that it is not professionally run. Received wisdom is that Cricket Archive is self-published by a private club or society of some sort, so it's like an "in-house" publication, same as an online parish magazine or whatever. Cricinfo, of course, is run by ESPN and it does articles as well as statistics so no problem with that, but this Cricket Archive site looks like a dubious source to me.

(Please forgive me, because this reply is to this part of the post I've re-indented slightly). I missed this comment, sorry. Back in 2009 when this article was first created, I created about eight zillion articles like this and, as was the custom at the time, I put external links on the bottom rather than inline citations. We'd be quoting basically the same information and the same sources. And even if the article did have "narrative", we'd be quoting from exactly the same sources as we would without. My simple answer when a situation like that is easily fixable, by virtue of WP:SOFIXIT. The fact that these articles are being deleted in spite of these external links upsets me greatly - as there are hundreds which are missing such links, as I've outlined elsewhere. Bobo . 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know much, much more about football than about cricket but, even though Soccerbase is a professional setup, I would not support an article based entirely on stats lifted from Soccerbase. An article, almost by definition, must contain narrative and a good article must have a flow of narrative. You do not get narrative from a statistical site that gives an incomplete name, as recorded on a scorecard, and tells you that he played in one match and didn't score a run, which is the sum total of Mr Desai's career.

You mentioned fifteen years earlier and that is about the time I've been a reader of Wikipedia. Given a busy career, I only made edits when I saw something that needed correcting or, occasionally, expanding. I didn't become a member till after I retired end of last year. While I was primarily a reader, I used to hate it whenever I followed up a Google search and found something like S. K. Desai. Sorry, but it isn't an article. It is a transcription of raw statistical data that just doesn't pass muster and is indefensible. The GNG is a good principle and it's right. These NFOOTY variations are okay up to a point but that point is potential qualification for GNG; and potential is never certain, only potential. Apologies for the length of this reply. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can say very little other than the fact that it saddens me not only that GNG exists but that notability guidelines are contradicted on WP namespace pages themselves.

My argument throughout all of this is the same argument as that of a certain founder of this site. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge. Not "all human knowledge except for that which other people find offensive". And that is what I've been attempting to do all along. Censoring information because we don't like it is morally wrong. Bobo . 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing the documenting the person in-depth part. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant team category, for example, P. Balsara should be redirected to Category:Gujarat cricketers, ect, ect. StickyWicket (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard to direct to a category. If there is an article List of Gujarat cricketers, then if people so desire, they can redirect it there, surely... *rifles around Wikipedia* There is, and nobody keeps it updated. On what basis these list articles were created in the first place, and how the information was selectively chosen, I've no idea... Bobo . 15:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. That page should be refashioned to something like List of English cricketers (1787–1825) due to the success of the plan to merge hundreds of permastubs into there. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none come even close to meeting the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: existence with verifiability is one thing, notability is an other. I ran searches for two of the subjects; all I could get is stats, or the websites that cover everything related to cricket. It doesnt establish notability. I will cast my vote soon (in a few hours) for these bundled AfDs (after running searches for the lot of dozen players or so), and most probably it is going to be a delete. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. I know this is an incomplete list, but it allows the key information to be retained and can be developed when someone has time. Without more specific biographical information I doubt we're going to be able to find properly in depth sources on these chaps anytime soon - if at all. Each played just one match and we really don't know anything beyond that and a name and initials. If sources became available I would have no issue with recreating the article - by redirecting to a list that becomes easier to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete all: per my comment above. Existence with verification is one thing, and notability is other. These players fail WP:GNG big time. Even if the subject passes some subject specific guideline, it doesnt mean we must have an article on it. All the coverage I could find came from the websites that try to cover everything n anything related to cricket, this doesnt establish notability. And due to the lack of persistent significant coverage, we can delete the articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N. Kumara[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias ^talk 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. This cricketer does not meet GNG. Dee 03 08:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time. Bobo . 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction. As for "in clear cases where GNG does not apply", that is clearly stated on N. Bobo . 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've replied to you elsewhere, your understanding is flawed. Some SSGs such as WP:PROF explicitly state that they override the WP:GNG, which is what that clause covers. WP:NSPORT, and WP:CRIN as part of that, do not do that. Harrias ^talk 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards even within SSGs. Wow. If that isn't flawed, I would like to know what is. Bobo . 10:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article is based on raw statistical entries that do not contain a word of prose between them. Given that we only have a first initial and a (common) surname for this player there might even be issues distinguishing him from similarly named people active around the same time. Harrias is correct that WP:CRIN defers to the general notability guideline, and not the other way around. A merge to a suitable list article might be possible if there is a good target. Reyk _YO! 12:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only other N-anything Kumar played 17 seasons later.... Bobo . 14:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so it fails the GNG. This is exactly like S. K. Desai below with brief statistical transcriptions, no citations and apparently taken from the paywalled Cricket Archive site (mentioned as an external link) which, I am reliably informed, is an in-house self-published source that contains statistics only and no narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a suitable list like at List of English cricketers (1787–1825). It may be at List of Sri Lanka first class cricketers and can accomodate several permastubs. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cricket inclusion criteria are clearly flawed. So for that matter are the football ones, where 2 and three leagues per country, even in a country like the US where football is not followed much at all, are included. Our inclusion criteria for actors are more demanding than for many sportspeople. It is time for us to stop giving a pass for one game, we do not give passes for one film, even when the role is significant, which is a word that does not apply to the relationship between the one appearance in a game and the role of some of these sportspeople in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR is an excellent comparison. Half the actors who appeared in the film which won this year's Best Picture Oscar don't seem to have their own Wikipedia articles. And like you said, inclusion criteria need to be tighter and more consistent across all fields. Dee 03 11:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if anyone wants to create one, redirect to a suitable list. A lack any other biographical information tends to suggest that we're unlikely, at this stage, to be able to find any sources which deal with the subject in detail - I certainly can't find anything. That we know of only two matches he played in - one club match I think as well as his FC match - makes this more likely in my view. If such sources become available I would, as always, have no issue with the article being recreated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The House Between[edit]

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

Nominating this for deletion mostly due to not finding it being notable enough to have its own article. Cannot find any reliable sources that covered this series either. GamerPro64 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. The references include personal blogs, the subject itself, and other self published sources. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WordPlay T. Jay[edit]

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

Per WP:ARTIST. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non major awards or Top 100 lists. Comatmebro (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was initially inclined to !vote delete, but two things are giving me pause. WP:NMUSIC #11 counts placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network as a signifier of notability, and this artist had a video at least air on MTV - was it possible it was added to a rotation? Possibly more strongly, #12 counts Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. This article notes Wordplay’s rise began with a feature on MTV’s RapFix Live and that turned into making Music for the Underdog. Were either of these a "substantial broadcast segment"? I'm having trouble telling right now. I will try to look into further, but if you are able to conclusively answer either of these questions before me, it might settle things. MarginalCost (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not inclined to believe it aired on MTV; it may have been in the rotation on MTV Jams perhaps (a lesser-viewed sister channel), but by 2009 if you aired a video on MTV, it was likely only in a late night slot, not as a prime attraction. And according to this, it seems like the feature segment was only hosted on the MTV website. Nate • (chatter) 16:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where in that link it says anything about on air vs. website-only. MarginalCost (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally over the last ten years, short feature segments about music have been web-only for MTV overall (it's been a longtime problem where low-wattage artists that have come to AfD have claimed they've been on MTV, only to be a web-only clip very buried on their website). This link about it indeed airing on MTV Jams beginning only in 2013 clearly notes RapFix is 'the popular webseries'. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above discussion. It seems the series was not aired on "a national TV network" when WordPlay would have been featured, if the piece was even "substantial" in the first place. No evidence of placement into rotation. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. MarginalCost (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate notability, in an article which makes unsubstantiated attempts to suggest significance, such as saying that a song "was huge success" when none of the cited sources says anything remotely suggesting that it did, and nor does any other source I have seen. The fact that one of the sources is a report of the fact that he "starred" in a video promoting one of his own recordings is an indication of how far this article is scraping the barrel in trying to find citations to give an impression of notability. Breaking sticks (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Deb (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Neguesha[edit]

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

Realistically, everything out there about her with the exception of appearing in Drake's music video (not really an accomplishment) is gossip. Someone even lacked the self-preservation to go to the notorious Lipstick Alley! Trillfendi (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep People of equally dubious notoriety have Wikipedia articles, after all — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonKY (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean... other stuff exists? That ain’t it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable entertainer. Yes, lots of other articles are on people equally as unnotable, which is why we have pretty much constantly 200 or more articles on people up at AfD, plus more going through procedural and speedy deletion, and with some of these articles having lasted a decade or more the best indication is we have lots more articles on non-notable people that do not get deleted, probably in part because creating a deletion nomination takes at least 5 steps of editing, and in addition you are epected to do an indepth before search prior to moninating, and doing this process will often get you berated and accused of all sorts of ill will for even suggesting we should delete an article on someone who just had a daughter die, or is is a member of a "protected class", or who might have been covered by a newspaper that we no longer have because all the copies burned in a fire, or whose following numbers on Instagram clearly show they are notable, and on and on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are mostly internet. Agree w JPL that this is a non-notable entertainer. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Notability is not temporary. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page (or done in a WP:BOLD edit). Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nvidia Tesla Personal Supercomputer[edit]

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

The topic isn't significantly more notable than daily developments happening at its time, and has now lost significance. Even the 1st linked webpage in External links section had changed title. Dannyniu (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This 2008 article at Tom's Hardware suggests that it was a milestone at the history of supercomputers. Quote: "Desktop supercomputers became a reality today as Nvidia announced the release of its new GPU-based Tesla personal supercomputer". --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one source, are you very certain that's not over-hyped and unreliable? I think the article is just a routine report of a niche product. The article in its current form is just a description of a proprietary technological setup, having no mention of its sigificance. And after all these years, Nvidia is no longer the sole provider of GPGPU ICs. Dannyniu (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, the French Wikipedia removed the corresponding article back in 2012. Dannyniu (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nvidia. There are just enough sources [12], [13], [14] to support this being significant when it was released, and I'd point out that notability is not temporary so it cannot have 'lost its significance'. However, I'd agree with the nominator that there is not enough substantial coverage of this specific device to merit a standalone article. Hug^syrup 11:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZMR[edit]

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

Fails WP:BROADCAST. And the sources are a long way away from meetingWP:NCORP Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compared to most Filipino radio articles for smaller stations, this meets BROADCAST; plenty of sources to its existence. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. Could you identify the sources that you are talking about? Dom from Paris (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of a flood of entirely non-notable radio stations that have had articles created recently. Does not come close to meeting WP:NCORP, which is the required standard. Hug^syrup 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough sources to prove that the station exists. You wanna ride in the Six. You wanna dine in the Six. 23:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't about if it exists. It's about notability. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SaintCards[edit]

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

non-notable product; no coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom after de-prod. No significant coverage, not notable. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Holy card, this is maybe as notable as the "Collecting" heading on this article. Obviously a great deal of condensing would be needed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single radio interview isn't sufficient for notability; the rest of the references are not independent or reliable sources, and some are promotional. I couldn't find any sources to add to the article to support it. Schazjmd (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Participation in this debate was rather poor and there also seem to be some misunderstandings (i.e., a "delete" !vote per someone who seemed to be arguing for "keep"). Therefore no prejudice to re-nomination in a month or so if better sourcing is not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govt ENT Hospital[edit]

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

Both sources mentioned in the article fail WP:ORGDEPTH - they discuss a lack of suregeons at the hospital, but not much in depth information about the hospital (year of founding, etc.). Same goes for the sources I could find when searching on Google. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment: The hospital serves throat deceases, and also serves patents. These are really remarkable feats. I mean, how many other hospitals serve patents, or try to cure E/N/T problems of deceased people? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pretty rudimentary. I'm not even sure if the name of the hospital is accurate. But it would be very surprising if a public hospital of this size was not notable, and there seems to be plenty of coverage of it in reputable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find any WP:ORGDEPTH stuff. If the hospital really has a different name, that may explain it. --MrClog (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost impossible to find detailed coverage of any hospital. They are too complicated. It have to be pieced together over time. Rathfelder (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't sources meeting ORGDEPTH yet, then the article should be deleted and recreated once these sources exist. --MrClog (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus needed at this stage to decide an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per Rathfelder. The article lacks significant coverage. We cant even be sure of the name. The hospital fails general notability criteria, as well as specialised notability criteria. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran, I believe Rathfelder is arguing against deletion, but I am not sure. --MrClog (talk) 12:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan M. Busch[edit]

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

small-town mayor. Not notable and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. As with any local politician, he received coverage from the local press, but that's not enough to meet the guideline. Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage is local, and Metuchen, New Jersey's population was only 13K (in 2010), so being its mayor confers no particular notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to what some editors have thought there is not a special exception that makes New Jersey mayors default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable legal and political career. FWIW, the Diocese of Metuchen is quite large, but the city is smallish. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concede that the page should be parred back, but Busch is mentioned regularly in statewide and regional news outlets and qualifies as receiving "significant press coverage." Homerseditor (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't garnered anything more than routine coverage and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is local, fails WP:NPOL, we do not keep mayors of small towns unless they pass WP:GNG for other reasons (otherwise notable, or achieved notability over an area significantly larger than their town.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Just in New Jersey, there are numerous other pages for mayors that are no more notable than Busch. Took me two minutes to find four: James M. Cahill, Thomas Lankey, J. Christian Bollwage, Mohammed Hameeduddin. Homerseditor (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homerseditor, you've already voted above, so I've struck your second !vote, though your comments are still welcome - but please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some of these may also need to be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lankey and Bollwage preside over populations over 100K (the unofficial cutoff), while Hameeduddin is a pioneer of sorts. I've nominated Cahill for deletion (despite his 28 years in office, and counting) due to a lack of significant media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable fails wp:npol from a city of less than 15,000. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Government TB and Chest Hospital[edit]

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

The criteria at WP:NHOSPITALS are met easily enough, but I can't see where that was achieved for this example - no in-depth coverage is provided, and I couldn't find anything beyond the passing mentions already referenced. Possibly editors who get lost less easily in the inventive grammar and complex nomenclature of the relevant search results may be more lucky. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i am added additional reference for this page for avoiding deletion of the article because this hospital is serving all most 20 million people in Andhra region and only one government tb and hospital in the region this hospital is listed in national health mission all so i added that reference all so http://www.nrhm.gujarat.gov.in/images/pdf/RNTCP_District_TB_Officer_contact_details_210814.pdf Jeevan naidu (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – in reviewing WP:NHOSPITALS, the hospital doesn't seem to satisfy the in-depth coverage criterion, and from what I have been able to find the majority of coverage seems to be limited to passing mentions of a government TB hospital without much comment on the hospital's organizational structure or history aside from brief news stories about recent operational developments. This is reflected in both my own searches and the references in the article, which seem to establish the notability of King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, moreso than Government TB and Chest Hospital whose name doesn't appear in any significant coverage. More often than not, the hospital appears in press coverage through association with other Visakhapatnam hospitals rather than by virtue of its own notability. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 22:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Ramirez (skateboarder)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to have been the subject of substantial coverage before his death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree. This article in the SF examiner explains Pablo's significance well.I just added three links and new info of substantial coverage pre-death including a list of his skate parts. I should have included them earlier. RIP Pablo. 1. GQ magazine article 2. full-length video part published in Roll Up video through Thrasher Magazine 3. gx1000 El Camino video - also published on Thrasher --Wil540 art (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the coverage is significant enough for the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has made a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to skateboarding (or close enough to as per San Fran Examiner article pointed out above), plenty of coverage before and after his death (again as pointed out above). This is a keep. Josalm64rc (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visibly[edit]

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

WP:CORPDEPTH not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I need to think about this one more, but am inclined to keep. There has been significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources (over a number of years even). But it's all because of lawsuits, both by them and against them, and FDA regulation. Example of coverage: BuzzFeed News. There has been a smattering of other coverage of its service like from this NYT blog in addition to lots of Chicago Tribune coverage the best of which is [15], [16], and [17]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: doesn't coverage because of lawsuits count as coverage? If the lawsuit is what brings the company the attention of the press and results in news articles being published about the company in relation to the lawsuit, isn't that coverage? If the sources discussing lawsuits are not to be counted here, then it looks like the original deletion nomination should maybe have been made per WP:ILLCON and not WP:CORPDEPTH overall, but then I don't think the lawsuit-related sources are suggesting that the company has been acting illegally (which is what that standard is poised to address), only that it has been legally banned from offering its services in certain US states. Visibly isn't in the news because of illegal activity (to my knowledge). Let me also be clear: I have no WP:COI here in creating this article— I do, however, have poor eyesight (!) and was doing research on vision tests when I came across Visibly and thought, "Hey, this may warrant an article," and then found sources, and then wrote it up using those sources— nothing more nor less. Just to be clear! A loose necktie (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natti Ronel[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. All references included in the article were authored or co-authored by Natti Ronel. A search for significant coverage from independent reliable sources did not yield anything that would satisfy notability guidelines to merit the inclusion of the subject on Wikipedia. Ə XPLICIT 01:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ran a news archive search and aded 2 WP:RS on his early career. Also ran his name throughgScholar search, he is quite widely cited, but arguably not widely cited enough to keep. I am inclining towards a WP:NOTPROMO DELETE, but waiting to see what folks who work in counseling, psychology have to say. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Note: On august 8, 2019 E.M.Gregory has been indefinitely blocked as a sock[reply]
Delete Not notable. The nominator is correct. Primary sourced article - WP:PROMOTION. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Mani[edit]

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

Deprodded, but a minor actor with limited roles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete: The subject fails general notability guidelines, as well as notability guidelines for actors. Creator seems to be either a movie fanatic, or a UPE. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:MILL. He seems to be a very ordinary character actor. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as he does have one leading role in a notable production but that is not enough on its own so it is WP:TOOSOON at this stage, though he may well be notable in the future with more roles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Stepp[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only 167 games played in the AHL and 200 is needed to pass #2. No preeminent honours to pass #3 either. Tay87 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. Also, bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:NHOCKEY, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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