Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 August	10 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 keep. – bradv🍁 05:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews County Veterans Memorial[edit]

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

With two permanent dead links nor replacements for them, I'm thinking unless replacement sources for the ones listed are found, this may need to be deleted. Pahiy (talk) 21:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. I'm glad that every town, city, county, parish, and ward in the United States has a memorial to our armed forces. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEMORIAL proscribes memorial pages. This page is not in iteslf a memorial, but is a page about a memorial. ----Pontificalibus 14:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Note: I replaced the references.----Pontificalibus 14:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out, wp:MEMORIAL does not apply at all, this is not like a glorified obituary of a person, it is about a monument which is itself apparently a wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION (please see that awesome, well-written essay!). The Texas Historical Commission includes it in the Pecos Trail, per this source already in the article. I haven't compared original article to version after User:Pontificalibus's changes, but at least now it is pretty obviously notable. Meets wp:GNG. Also by the way the article is a little bit confusing for mentioning three county persons covered in it, as if only three persons are covered, but it is big block after big block of names apparently. It can/should be included in more categories, too, such as Category:World War I memorials in the United States, Category:Korean War memorials in the United States (not sure if that is right category name), etc., as long as a little bit more documentation supporting those categories is supplied. --Doncram (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no reason for deletion in the nomination. It is not questioning the actual validity of two sources in the article, and is only pointing out those sources are no longer available online. That does not matter at all.... we are allowed/encouraged to use off-line sources, like books and printed materials. The only other reasoning suggested for deletion was about wp:MEMORIAL which simply does not apply, so there is no valid deletion reason standing. (I !voted "Keep" above.) --Doncram (talk) 20:12, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Western Odisha Yuva Manch[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. No significant coverage beyond trivial mentions. Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Harshil169 My search effort found only a few passing mentions in English news sources, are you able to search in the local language(s)? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphan article about a local group, no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" per WP:ORGCRIT - Twitter is not a reliable source per WP:TWITTER - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:05, 17 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clay Silvas[edit]

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

Article about footballer who hasn't played in a fully-pro league (his single appearance in the 2017 Singapore Cup was against an invited semi-pro club from Cambodia). All of the online coverage appears to be routine (database entries, match reports or transfer announcements, with the possible exception of an article formerly hosted by fourfourtwo.com which has been taken down and I can't find on the internet archive to evaluate the significance of the coverage). Jogurney (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not make it to the level of notability for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Currently fails NFOOTY and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Still not capable to pass WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 14:05, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Columba (email client)[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this software per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - nothing found on Google search. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable email client. Szzuk (talk) 18:34, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bharathi Cement[edit]

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

Speedy deleted under the name Bharathi Cements earlier in the year. Recreated a few months later by same user under different name. None of the references meet WP:ORGCRIT and my WP:BEFORE search couldn't find anything better. The references are basically routine announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,looks more like a promotional article Alex-h (talk) 15:39, 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 redirect to Tecate/Telmex Grand Prix of Monterrey. – bradv🍁 05:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fundidora Park raceway[edit]

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

A dead external link has been removed from the article. Also, after searching on Google, I found out that this fails WP:GNG, so it should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Tecate/Telmex Grand Prix of Monterrey, where the same infobox is already pretty much copied in (and info that doesn't fit can be placed in the article body). Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, either to Tecate/Telmex Grand Prix of Monterrey or Fundidora Park. Not independently notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - complete lack of references makes this an obvious delete per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT - merging or redirecting to Tecate/Telmex Grand Prix of Monterrey is inadvisable as that article also lacks references and will likely be up for deletion soon - Epinoia (talk) 02:30, 17 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. – bradv🍁 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core Education & Technologies[edit]

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

The Company has dissolved over a year back. The listing of article is causing confusion between people. There is no update on this article, in January the moderator has requested for updates but yet after 6 months there has been no updates. The company is not even listed on the NSE or BSE since 2015.

Request to delete the page as there is no update on this article since many years.

Thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasha316 (talk • contribs) 05:45, June 13, 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement that articles be up to date or that organisations are still going. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I have no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @Nasha316: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion in the future, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO when you do so. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 23:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article being out of date is a fixable issue and not a reason for deletion. However, the references are not compelling – many are spammy. I would say this should be closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination if a valid rationale is provided. – Teratix ₵ 03:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep notability is not temporary, it is permanent; and AfD is not clean-up. If something from the article is confusing the readers, then try to resolve the issue. Post about it in relevant wikiprojects. By nominator's logic, we should delete Elvis Presley, Commodore International, and BlackBerry 10; because these legends ceased to exist. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the company just passes WP:CORP. I've updated the article a little bit, mostly using past tense throughout but also referencing a Forbes article about the company's troubles. I was unable to find the right reference that would allow us to say "the company went down at date XXXX" so I'm leaving the "update needed" template for now. Pichpich (talk) 23:17, 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 merge to 2024 Russian presidential election. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 06:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The transit of power in Russia after Vladimir Putin[edit]

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

Crystal balling. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CBALL: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.·Carn !? 13:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this is a collection of suppositions about what might happen, its not a clear cut analysis of future events.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: There can be no analysis of "future events". This is not "future history" it is a retelling of the analysis of present situation (trends and tendencies, forces of political actors, etc) carried out by experts - political scientists, sociologists and journalists.

There is no editor opinion in article, there are "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" as WP:CBALL allow us to do. Russian and international experts have long spoken out on this subject, so quite comprehensive generalizing works have appeared.

If I misunderstood the rules and there will be consensus that the article should be deleted - i ask instead of this please transfer it by subsection to 2024 Russian presidential election.·Carn !? 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Nomination is not valid without detailing why that policy applies here. It's akin to nominating 2020 United States presidential election for the same reason.----Pontificalibus 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 election is an event likely to happen, this is not about an event likely to happen but speculation about a number of events that might happen (well to be more precise speculation about what might stop an event (the 2024 presidential elections) from happening), one (according to the article, and the only one required in law) unlikely to happen. Hell even the page name is wrong, as at least two of the scenarios involve Putin remaining in power.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among Russian experts there is common name on a topic "Problem 2024", maybe it is better name for an article.

Article is about existing problem of succession in personalist regime - only one scenario (Constitution change) isn't about transit of power. Other scenarios about loosing formal power by Putin.·Carn !? 17:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the problem, this is not about one probable event but three possible (and one unlikely) event (according to the article). This is an example of various "experts" making conjectural predictions of what might be. The only difference between this and those "what if" books written by historians is here they are postulating different futures, rather then alternative pasts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you be more specific? All statements are given by sources, what exactly bothers you? ·Carn !? 11:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. At this stage only unfounded speculations are available Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If speculations are made by political scientists or sociologists, not by editors, as I wrote above - WP:CBALL specifies that they are ok. ·Carn !? 17:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Putinism. WP:CBALL tells: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.. It is properly referenced. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a lot of work (including a new name), but it's a topic that gets coverage, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. Encyclopaedic things can be said about it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a consensus that new name should be "Problem 2024"? I didn’t name the article that way because I didn’t understand whether clarification is needed, like "Problem 2024 (Russia)" ·Carn !? 10:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 2024 would be better than the current title. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2024 Russian presidential election. It's speculation that Putin will be succeeded by anyone in 2024. That said, the topic of the 2024 Russian presidential election is notable no matter what Putin does, and most (if not all) of the content can be merged to that topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per WP:CBALL. Article is filled with speculations. Best is probably to merge with any other article regarding Putin and Russia as a whole. Maybe the 2024 Russian presidential election? Lefcentreright (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Russian presidential election for now. The article is full of speculation and cannot be explained with accurate sourcing until 2024 arrives. Also, who knows, Russia could pull a China and change the term limit, especially with a unpredictable leader such as Putin. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sourced speculations into 2024 Russian presidential election. As the end of Putin's presidency is but one possible outcome, WP:CRYSTAL would suggest that an entire article of speculations should not exist at this stage. Even though it is too soon to create a neutral, well-sourced article on this subtopic, its verifiable contents that have already received significant coverage should be explained in the topic's broader article (which easily complies with the main policies). Additionally, I would suggest renaming this article (if kept) or resulting redirect (if merged/redirected) to Problem 2024 or another shorter, widely-used name; the current title is not WP:CONCISE and would probably not be a very helpful redirect for this reason. ComplexRational (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge acceptable sourced content to 2024 Russian presidential election possibly under a "Problem 2024" subsection. As a political science buff there is intrigue and I would offer interesting information but it is too soon for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 17 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) 20:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Mobile[edit]

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

A brand which uses name to sell Chinese-made phones in Pakistan. No factory, nothing in Pakistan. No impact on Pakistani people lives. Using WP as a promotional platform. Limited to no coverage in reliable sources. Badly fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references are press releases, and barely demonstrate that "Voice Mobile" is a thing that exists -- as opposed to a phone called "Voice" sold by United Mobile. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is merely an advert; not enough to pass WP:COMPANY; sources do not pass WP:CORPDEPTH. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:13, 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 redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. And protect. I see there is a consensus for removing the article for e.g notability and paid editing reasons. Some people have proposed to restore the previous redirect; while most people want a deletion nobody has stated a reason for deletion over redirection and the deletion policy favours redirection if it's feasible per WP:ATD-R, although only barely. Full protection has been recommended and in light of the promotion concerns will be applied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cocomelon – Nursery Rhymes[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG. The current 3 sources included in the article only show the number of YouTube subscribers and views the channel has which not enough to show notability (trivial coverage, and YouTube is not a WP:RS). A WP:BEFORE google search reveals videos made by Cocomelon on several social media platforms or YouTube subscriber counts. The only WP:RS source is [4] but a topic needs significant coverage and one source is not enough for notability. --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User 2yechan was hired by Treasure Studio Inc, the parent company for CoCoMelon. The user has been instructed to write information regarding the history of CoCoMelon company, which does not have much media presence outside of YouTube. The CoCoMelon Wikipedia page is a young work in progress, and current lack of sources does not justify grounds for deletion. All video screenshots are justified by fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.226.132 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unscrupulous paid editing; burn it to the ground. It might be possible to write a decent article using reliable sources like [5][6], but where decent sources exist, they seem to discuss "Kids YouTube" as a whole, rather than any particular channel. This page is a shady and secretive company trying to manage its own reputation by violating Wikipedia policy. It needs to go. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User 2yechan believes that nothing is further from the truth. With 10 minutes of research or by simply clicking on the links provided in the wikipedia page one could see that CoCoMelon had nothing to do with the children's video YouTube Scandal. We have always been dedicated to providing free education for children since the inception of YouTube. Be wary of bias created by internet articles. The user 2yechan apologizes for formatting errors that may have occured, these were created in ignorance of the Wikipedia method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.226.132 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please disclose your relationship with Cocomelon? How are you able to speak for 2yechan? TheAwesome Hwyh 17:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I created this page last year as a redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels and have had almost no involvement with it since. If this AfD determines that the page should not be kept as an article, I believe we would be best served by redirecting it again to the YouTube list, where Cocomelon is among the highest-ranked channels, rather than deleting it outright. Life of Tau 22:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Sourced" to the company's YouTube videos; no other sources actually documenting the company properly, cited (now or in the original article) or to be found; an edit history full of whitewashing like Special:Diff/907435630; edits from IP accounts writing the content that geolocate only either to Irvine, California (the formal location of the purported parent company) or to Murmansk (which I suspect might be a clue to the reason for the secretiveness); and
CoCoMelon lacks presence on the internet, under direct discretion of the company to maintain privacy. Please understand this choice […]
— User:2yechan 2019-08-09T22:12:32
Yes, let's maintain that privacy by removing this unverifiable unreliably sourced sneaky advertising through paid editing. The redirect is the right answer. Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page history is full of anonymous IPs doing weird things, like editing other users' sandboxes, including apparently trying to get them deleted, and attempting to answer a semi-protected edit request, and mucking about with automated reports and bot-task pages. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference's sake, Murmansk: 5.142.197.66, 5.142.228.103, 95.52.16.54, 95.54.185.123, 95.54.188.148, 178.68.118.42, 178.68.127.202. Irvine: 70.169.226.132, 98.185.164.198. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, restore the redirect and protect. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels per pretty much everyone else. I think that there could be some potential for notability in this article but in its current state is too far gone to even try to fix. TheAwesome Hwyh 04:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 04:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 04:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 04:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 04:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- undisclosed paid editing about a non-notable YouTune channel, with a promotional tone and no meaningful sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above,not significant secondary sources , promotional Alex-h (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If you search for this on Google but exclude results from YouTube and Dailymotion, you find exactly zero reliable sources. Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Asolutely no evidence that the company is notable outside of their own links Dexxtrall (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A YouTube channel with 50M+ subscribers should be notable. The fact that the only coverage we can find are people writing (e.g. in the WSJ) who are these guys? is somewhat disturbing. But we can't make an article out of that, and the paid-editing issue also means that the existing content is unusable and that keeping an article free of future promotion is not going to be easy. Better just to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm currently trying to rescue this article with a "criticism" section, as the question of who exactly makes these videos seems to be what the media focuses on. I don't know if the sources found are enough, though. (Also, how fast do you bet the I.P adresses will try to remove it? I give it a day.) TheAwesome Hwyh 18:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your section on criticism/controversy is good, but looking at the available sources, IMO they just aren't in-depth enough about this particular channel to sustain an article on it. That text could be incorporated, however, into YouTube or List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. The former already discusses controversies over child-oriented videos, and the latter already has a section about milestones and reactions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, after I wrote it I was thinking that too I woudn't have any problems with it being incorporated into another article if this one got deleted. TheAwesome Hwyh 18:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intraculturalism[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism. Most of the stuff I'm seeing online are mirrors. For the record, until now the article hadn't been edited in 1,112 days, and it only had 20 edits in its history, despite the fact that it has been on Wikipedia since June 2006. I'm honestly not sure if this subject is a thing outside of this article; the article does not cite any sources. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a book search throws up a number of refs in the context of theatre, so it appears to be a term used in critical discourse in that field. Not sure if it’s really notable or if it’s just a WP:DICDEF. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I did not find any sources for this concept, so this particular concept does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NEO. I did find some sources for the word, but they all seemed to use it to refer to an idea by Indian theater/cultural critic Rustom Bharucha. After wading through a lot of jargon, I found a definition here. Good luck making that understandable. But given that this is a totally different concept, I think we can delete the unsourced thing we have here, rather than struggling to write up an orphan article on this neologism just to put something under this title when fields like this are prone to neologisms, many of which we do not have articles for/are not notable. -Crossroads- (talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not appear to be a notable concept. However, I agree with keeping the article if sources that prove the word's sufficient usage are provided. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unsourced dict-def. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:43, 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 keep. – bradv🍁 05:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia McLaurin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is full of shameless promotion. She is just a local volunteer who is older then most others. Sources in the article are WP:ROUTINE coverage like had bed bugs in her apartment and used the media to get free help, and did something quirky around a President, but notability is not inherited per WP:NOTINHERITED. The article also tries to build her up by tying her to segregation, women's suffrage, and MLK's assassination despite her having nothing to do with that stuff. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:SIGCOV exists. She received the President's Volunteer Service Award - danced with the Obamas. and McLaurin received a volunteer community service award from Mayor Vincent C. Gray in recognition of her volunteer work. (The awards do not qualify her for WP:ANYBIO) but the woman managed to make herself notable through longevity and getting into international news [BBC so the article passes our GNG with WP:RS https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/virginia-mclaurin-109-birthday-harlem-globetrotters_n_5a9ee9a3e4b0d4f5b66b0ca2 Huffington Post ]. The writing in the article may be promotional however WP:NOTCLEANUP [ Wm335td (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the coverage of her is WP:ROUTINE bed bug stuff or WP:ONEEVENT news features centered around some jiggling she did when meeting a president. None of that is sustained WP:SIGCOV of her life or deeds. She is an ordinary woman who happens to live in D.C. which is full of prominent people, some of whom she happened to have met or get awards from as countless others do, but she doesn't inherit their notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a horrible example of presentism. Nothing she has done rises above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG (BBC, ESPN, Washington Post), but needs serious cleanup and trimming. — JFG ^talk 04:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG The BBC "source" is just a video only notable and recorded because it had a president in it, not her, the ESPN article is a short little opinion fluff piece, not hard WP:SIGCOV of her, and the Washington Post article is a fluff feature only in existence because she did something quirky around a president, which is where the bulk of "her" coverage comes from. She and her bed bugs are not notable, Barrack Obama is. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all the cleanup I could. Found more in-depth coverage at The Independent, and removed some bad sourcing. Re: only in existence because she did something quirky around a president, it's not our business to opine on why a person gets coverage; all that matters is that she did get coverage in multiple independent RS, hence it's still a Keep. — JFG ^talk 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. 172.56.28.248 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
banned sock struck. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. 71.161.233.35 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage, in reliable sources independent of the subject. Not only for her dance with the Obamas, but also before and after that. The article could use some additional articles to beef it up, but as is, the subject is already sufficiently notable. David in DC (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, she won a major award for volunteerism. Her meeting with the Obamas became an Internet meme and she got lasting, significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough coverage. Szzuk (talk) 18:30, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amica Chips[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. No significant coverage. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NCORP. There are many passing mentions in industry-related blogs and info newsletters about the extruded snack manufacturers group which includes this company, but I could find nothing with a solid focus on the article subject. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Widow's Bane[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 19:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage in the following reliable (albeit local) sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Admittedly some of these are (partly) interviews but I still think WP:BAND is met here. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified above, local reliable sources are acceptable for bands and musicians as per criteria 7 of WP:NMUSIC, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current references are sufficient to establish notability. Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pentacle (The Virtual Business School)[edit]

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

Have done a quick check and couldn't turn up any new sources. Article was first flagged for neutrality in 2010 - and seems to be one of those articles that just slipped through. Doesn't pass general and corporate notability imo, but not entirely sure about current procedures with criteria for schools (especially this). Hope AfD instead of RfD is appropriate. Ruhri Jörg 12:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:43, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smile (2003 film)[edit]

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

Non Notable film the sources are just too weak to pass WP:NFILM Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant,I think ita wil be deleteKimfromkorea (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC) striking a blocked sockpuppet --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before deciding what we do with this article, it would be important to bring in someone who speaks Kannada. That's the language of the film so reliable in-depth coverage may exist in Kannada. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Karnataka asking for help. Pichpich (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable article that contains four references with one a primary source, one (Chiloka) a user edited source, one is a forum, and one is a viewing certification. The article states "The film with hardly a theatrical run of 20 days". Otr500 (talk) 04:05, 17 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) 05:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marblemedia[edit]

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

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I have also tagged SEVEN24 Films, a related company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like with Distribution 360, non-notable company created by COI editor. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG, non notable media company. Josalm64rc (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. None of cited links passes notability criteria. --Wario-Man (talk) 07:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Notable television was produced by Marblemedia (Netflix) Blown Away Reality TV Several passing mentions for Blown Away here in the Observer Marble Media was nominated for the 2019 Canadian Screen Award in the category of Best Children’s or Youth Non-Fiction Series for hit series Just Like Mom and Dad.

Some routine press here and a show produced for CBC TV I am inclined to say that a media company is known by their work but I am going to keep researching before an ivote. They look to have won significant awards. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Response Even if notable programming or movies were produced by Marblemedia, notability is not inherited. We require two in-depth articles on the company that contains independent content - passing mentions fail as they aren't in-depth, press releases fail as they aren't regarded as having independent content. It is incorrect to state that Marblemedia was nominated for the 2019 Canadian Screen Award and I know they state this on their website but it is misleading. The nomination was for the TV program and not for the production. Similarly, the rest of the awards on their website are similarly misleading. You say that you are "inclined to say that a media company is known by their work" - I'd say that has nothing to do with the notability of the company and it isn't supported by any of our policies or guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SEVEN24 Films[edit]

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

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I've also tagged Marblemedia, a related company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable, just a promotional article. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 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. WP:SNOW. Randykitty (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedophile press[edit]

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

Sneaky pedophilia advocacy dressed up to look encyclopedic. This topic needs WP:TNT and does not meet WP:GNG.

It has 71.3% authorship by, and was started by, a user who mainly or only edited pedophilia articles and is now banned.

"Pedophile press" is not distinct from child pornography or pedophile advocacy. Google bears out that the topic is not notable. The list here has no encyclopedic value. It probably was created to promote these publications. Three links to pedophile groups still remain in the references, to Ipce, BoyWiki, and Alice Lovers.

Some material was recently removed. A careful reading of this material shows even more the pedophile advocacy motivation behind this article. It contained 3 more links to Ipce and 2 to another pedophile advocacy site called "exitinterview.biz", along with 2 others that looked suspicious but were dead links. It contained lines such as "Experts on pedophilia as Frits Bernard and Edward Brongersma..." (these men were actually pedophile activists) and "In 1987 was launched in Netherland Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, a scholarly journal which took a positive scholarly approach towards the study of pedophilia.[13] From the beginning, Paidika differentiated from other pedophilia-related publications. It had a professional layout and an impressive editorial board which reviewed the submissions to the journal. During its nine years of publication, Paidika managed to remain faithful to Bullough's (1990, 320) observation and publish a great number of well researched scholarly articles." (Did you catch how scholarly it was?)

Thanks to Uncle G for pointing this out to me. A related AfD is here. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator's reasoning. Also the creator of this and the other article mentioned was blocked in 2014, no reason listed anywhere. All of their edits seem to be related to this topic. Dream Focus 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously-deleted material, per the observation at the related AfD. And even if it weren't, the nomination makes a good case for deletion anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and maybe we can get an admin willing to WP:SNOW close this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and previous responders. Putting aside the controversial topic (which by the way Wikipedia is not censored), it is a full list of non notable publications. Ajf773 (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale, as at the other discussion, is that these specific edit histories plagiarising word-for-word promotional content from "BoyWiki" are entirely undesirable, and should be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is unclear that most of these publications are anywhere near notable enough to merit inclusion in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the entries are notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:00, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Ford (medical researcher)[edit]

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

As associate professor she does not meet WP:NPROF, her award as Emerging Leader in Science, Medicine & Health from a web site does not meet the award criteria in WP:ANYBIO. In a before search I found this [14] but it is an WP:INTERVIEW written by the communication director of an organisation that she belongs to. this looks like WP:TOOSOON Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A Google Scholar search results in 1346 citations and an h-index score of 19. Netherzone (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that list you have CC Ford CS Ford CE Ford C Ford, CP Ford and Caroline Ford, some of the articles are from before she started to publish (2005 according to her bio) with subjects as diverse as "Religion and popular culture in modern Europe" from 1993, "Altered Responsiveness of Rat Liver Epithelial Cells to Transforming Growth Factor β1following Their Transformation with v-raf" from 1990 "The Less Traveled Road: A Study of Robert Frost" from 1935 etc etc --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dom from Paris I'm not sure we are looking at the same thing. If you do a more refined search in GS, look at CE Ford here; the citations (and stats) are her cancer research. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops you are right, my apologies. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - According to SCOPUS her most cited work by far is this review with 239 citations. However, from my time looking at citations here it seems like reviews in biomedicine get cited way more than primary papers. So I'm not convinced a cited review indicates that a person's work has impacted the field in the same way that highly cited primary literature does. Her other most cited papers have 89 and 88 citations (with her as first author), and 53 citations (with her as last author). So while I think this is a bit of an edge case, I agree with nom that these citation counts are generally too low to demonstrate that the subject's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Happy to be persuaded otherwise by others. Cheers Ajpolino (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RebeccaGreen: It's great that you were able to find more sources! Do either the New Scientist or the The Australian pieces focus in any depth on Ford? Sadly I don't have access to either. I don't think she meets WP:NPROF, but I'm more than open to the argument that she meets WP:GNG; I just can't see a few of the sources. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ajpolino: Here are the articles you mentioned. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Australian media, but the Sydney Morning Herald and the Adelaide Advertiser are state-wide papers, not just city papers. The New Scientist article has a history of research into breast cancer in mice and discovery of that virus in humans. The bits about Ford are:

"Over the following years, several other groups reported similar findings. In 2000, Polly Etkind at New York Medical College not only found MMTV sequences in human breast cancer tissue, but also found that some samples harboured more than one strain of MMTV, suggesting multiple recent infections. In 2003, Caroline Ford, now at Lund University in Malmö, Sweden, detected MMTV sequences in 42 per cent of breast tumour samples from Australian women, but in just 1.8 per cent (2 out of 111) of samples of normal breast tissue. Ford's team also found MMTV sequences in six of nine male breast tumours examined. And when Ford investigated the two samples of normal breast tissue that tested positive, she found one came from a woman who had had a tumour in the other breast, while the other came from a woman who developed a tumour after the sample was taken. ..... In Vietnam, just I per cent of women develop breast cancer, and when Ford looked at samples from Vietnamese women in her 2003 study, she found MMTV sequences in just 0.8 per cent of tumour samples and none in samples of normal breast tissue. ..... The most recent studies by Ford and others, however, have been based on looking for MMTV sequences in tumours that do not resemble any known HERVs. What's more, these sequences have not been found in normal tissue from the same individuals, as would be expected if they were HERVs. "This suggests a recent infection and integration of viral DNA," Ford says.

Other researchers are not convinced. No one has yet isolated the entire MMTV genome in one piece from a human cancer cell and shown that it yields viruses able to infect cells, points out Robert Weinberg of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, winner of a Nobel prize for his work on viruses and cancer. ........ None of the supporters of the MMTV hypothesis are claiming to have provided conclusive proof. "Our results, and those of others, only indicate an association and point to some possible implications," says Pogo. "We have not claimed causation in any of our papers." Ford agrees. "This work is preliminary, and the topic as a whole is still really in its infancy," she says.

The Australian is about someone else questioning her research and the award. It had a paragraph break after almost every sentence, so I've taken them out:

"A SYDNEY PhD student has found herself at the centre of a scientific cyber row after a national award led to her breast cancer research gaining international publicity. In the science world equivalent of David and Goliath, University of NSW student Caroline Ford finds herself pitted against 2003 Victoria Prize winner David Vaux. Apart from questioning the validity of Ms Ford's research, Dr Vaux has also attacked the structure of the Fresh Science award and called for changes to its format. Fresh Science is a national program to highlight work of young Australian scientists that has received no media attention. All nominated work must have undergone peer review and have been published academically, as the main criteria in selecting the winner is the candidate's ability to explain their research. After her win, Ms Ford's research, which highlighted a link between breast cancer and a virus, gained media exposure in the ABC, the BBC, international and national newspapers, and was picked up on wire services from Spain to Mexico. Dr Vaux, who has been honoured for his pioneering work in the molecular biology of cancer, believes her findings are 'most certainly wrong' and during the debate on the Australian Science Communicators email list branded them 'junk science'. He has called on her research team to repeat the study using a more recognised technique -- a move Ms Ford has rejected. He has also called for an expert panel to judge the science of the nominees in future Fresh Science events. But according to Fresh Science co-ordinator Niall Byrne, Ms Ford's science had been subject to peer review as part of her publication in the international journal Clinical Cancer Research. The validity of her results was an issue for that community, he told the HES, adding that he saw the dispute as a 'case of two reputable research teams having a dispute over technique and the interpretation of results'. Mr Byrne pointed to the example of Barry Marshall, whose work on the role of infectious agents in the cause of stomach ulcers was resisted by the medical community but later proven. 'This may lead nowhere, but we shouldn't hide the idea,' he said. Dr Vaux said he supported Mr Byrne's view that the public should know science was not perfect. However, Dr Vaux said that where public health was at stake, unconfirmed reports should not be reported. He pointed to the scare over the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine link to autism that sent immunisation rates plummeting. If Ms Ford's findings were right, he said, it meant breast cancer was contagious and that women with the disease should be quarantined to prevent its spread. 'I believe that scientists have a responsibility to challenge reports that they think are wrong when they are in the public domain and they think they have the potential of causing harm,' Dr Vaux said. Ms Ford told the HES she believed scientific debate was 'really important', but preferred not to comment further. However, in an email to the Australian Science Communicators, she said the 'pejorative and personal comments by Dr Vaux are inappropriate and unjustified scientifically'."

I haven't tried to find the Spanish, Mexican, etc, coverage of her 2003 findings that this article mentions. Hope this helps, cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article meets WP:GNG and WP:RS and given the overall lack of articles about female scientists generally on Wikipedia, if this is borderline for WP:NRPROF I'd be inclined to err on the side of keeping the article. Bookscale (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree if WP:GNG is satisfied this should be a keep, but I'm not seeing multiple articles in independent sources discussing her in detail.----Pontificalibus 07:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - please note that this article was written as part of an edit-a-thon to celebrate women working in the STEMM area (particularly in Australia). The subjects were picked specifically because of coverage in various sources. I think it would be wise to show some good faith towards the creators of the articles. Please also note that the article has been improved with additional sources since the nomination. Bookscale (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe anyone has been accused of bad faith. Just because the article has been created as part of an edit-thon doesn't give it a pass on notability. I don't understand why a new user for whom this is their first edit gets a free pass on "confirmed user" status either. It would be far better IMHO to go through AFC. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Calm down, I haven't accused anyone of acting in bad faith - I'm suggesting that it would be wise to do so in this instance by erring on the side of keeping the article. And although a new user created the article, it has since been improved by others. Bookscale (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the advice but you couldn't imagine just how calm I actually feel at the moment, something to do with the summer holidays I suppose! Asking people to show good faith suggests that maybe they weren't doing so before your advice, but that is by the by. I don't believe that we are doing anyone or the encyclopedia a service by erring on the side of keeping or for that matter deleting. As you said, when I reviewed and nominated it the article had already been edited by 8 different editors including 2 administrators so I really think the "showing good faith to a new editor" boat had already sailed as was less than a dot on the horizon so I honestly don't understand your comment. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added more sources and some more information about her research. She, and her PhD research in 2003, gained national and international media attention after she won a national award. There has been more media attention on her recent research. I believe that she meets WP:GNG, or WP:BASIC ("If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" - there is significant depth of coverage about her research, less about her personally, but plenty to confirm where she has worked and what she has worked on (and at least one that gives her age, though I haven't added that info to the article); or WP:NACADEMIC #7 "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." (Some of these sources are in Newspapers.com, and anyone with access should be able to use the hyperlinks; some are in EBSCO, where urls are specific to the institution I access it through, but anyone with EBSCO access should be able to find them from the details given.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. In addition, I'd say that well-cited review articles are indeed an indication that someone is influential in their field, much as having written a standard textbook would be. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now meets basic notability requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PROF c1. Although her research/citation record is not especially outstanding in her field (cancer), it exceeds what we typically consider borderline for academics. Although it is a SPA-created likely fan/vanity page, the article has been improved (as noted above). Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. Article has been significantly developed and referenced since AfD lodged. Oronsay (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS citation record in this very highly cited field is to low to pass WP:Prof#C1 now: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. Notable not citations but for Superstars in STEM, prizes and also for organising a global book club with ~3000 people. https://www.positive.news/society/the-book-clubs-that-are-uniting-stemminists-around-the-world/ DrPlantGenomics (DrPlantGenomics|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Amin Karimpor[edit]

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

None of the sources is indepth coverage. There are a couple of user-generated biographies, and streaming sites. A before search threw up social media and streaming site. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG Dom from Paris (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:38, 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 draftify at least until the event actually happens. – bradv🍁 05:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2020 Taiwan legislative election[edit]

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

Results article for an election that won't be held until next year. As there is no possible content at present, it's a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. Prod removed by article's creator without a rationale. Number 5 7 12:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTCRYSTAL and per nom. Wug·a·po·des 02:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy We have many elections articles about 2020 elections. I see this is a "Results of..." article, which isn't quite the same. But useful to save the work somewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft too soon to have this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Taiwan legislative election seems like the simplest solution to me. Pichpich (talk) 22:32, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acky's XP Breakout[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. The article is referenced to WP:PRIMARY sources, WP:BEFORE shows press releases, listings, and unreliable blogs (besides 2 sentences in a book "How to Do Everything with Your Dell Axim Handheld, Second Edition". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no independent references in article. I did find some user-generated content (such as [15]) about the game, but nothing to meet GNG. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' Currently has zero independent references but I don't see any in-depth coverage elsewhere. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Landscheidt[edit]

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

copy right violation, its a straight copy and paste from his obit, which is chock full of unsourced claims Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy Delete~~ for copyvio. Mccapra (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the copyvio addition. Should be revdel'ed if the article is kept. —Kusma (t·c) 16:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I’ve struck my !vote and will reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a poorly referenced stub. Now sure if this has changed my mind or just changed the reason for delete.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as none of the sources I can find are reliable. Mccapra (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources don't seem good enough. The obit included a claim that he was a judge. Self-published claims tell us he may have been a judge at the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Bremen [de], the highest court in Bremen, which is a fairly high judicial position in Germany. However, most of the notability seems to be derived from pseudoscience activities, and we don't have any good sources for these (other than his own publications). —Kusma (t·c) 08:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 15:58, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Özay[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:notability guidelines. References given either do not mention him, are primary sources or are not WP:reliable sources. Half of the article appears to be a copy of Hero Concept and their is no indication of him being notable independtly. noq (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a scheduled delete on two of my articles recently and I decided that I could improve one of them with more first party resources, as recommended by the notice. That is why I added lengthy interviews with the notable person in question, Serkan Özay, by two large media entities, an invited contribution on an official Sony website, and also the videos of a guest academic lecture delivered on a university's official vimeo channel. For some reason, despite my attempts in good faith in trying to improve the article per Wikipedia's standards, it was nominated for deletion with the same exact reasons stated in the first notice--essentially disregarding the later edits that I surmise solve the valid issues raised.

If you could review the latest edit again and in particular peruse the references 8, 9, and 10 that would be great. Thank you for your help. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McRunninFly (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews are with him but about Hero Concept so do nothing to establish notability for him. noq (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sources, such as Linkedin and PlayStation Blog, do not meet WP:BASIC, other references are to the Doughlings company and not to Serkan Özay - does not meet any of the criteria of WP:ANYBIO - his contribution has not been "widely recognized" or "part of the enduring historical record" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:50, 17 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 Draftify. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Silvera[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Subject has not played in competitive match between two fully pro teams nor has he represented his nation as senior or Olympic level. Simione001 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify ~~Subject does meet WP:NFOOTBALL.~~ His current team Central Coast Mariners FC plays in A-League listed as the criteria to be considered as a professional team for Australia. Source shows that the subject did play a competitive match with that team. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from keep to draftify following comments by GiantSnowman. Even though there is coverage, I can't defend that GNG is met at this point NFOOTY is technically not met since his first match with the professional team was against a semi-pro, all indicates that both will be met shortly. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. He played in an FFA Cup match but, as Giant Snowman rightly points out, it was not against another fully-pro team so I agree that disqualifies him for the present as regards NFOOTY. Possible confusion here because the infobox records no appearances for the Mariners but the infobox counts league matches only. There is nearly enough coverage for the GNG with the potential for much more, so I think a deletion at present would be hasty. Unless we can put this on hold for now, in case he appears in the next match, can we draftify it instead, as we did with Jordan Archer of Bury several weeks ago? No Great Shaker (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played in a competitive match between two teams both from fully-professional leagues (his FFA game was against semi-pro Maitland), meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also no indication he meets WP:GNG. @Crystallizedcarbon and No Great Shaker: to reconsider. Giant Snowman 11:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss the fact that the first match with his new team was against a semi-professional team, so I do agree that WP:NFOOTBALL is not met at the time. Still, I think that being honored as youth player of the year does provide some level of notability, I also found a few other sources that provide additional coverage. I think that keeping it until the match mentioned by Pharaoh of the Wizards probably makes sense. In the worst case it should be draftified or moved to the user space of the author. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Giantsnowman is right as of now he fails WP:NFOOTY and the next match is only on 28th Aug only if he plays against Brisbane Roar FC he passes WP:NFOOTY. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – meets my draftify criteria: there is one WP:GNG source [16], but I don't see a second to make this a "keep", but the player is active and still playing in a top league (A-League), so a second GNG source may be written in the next six months, and then it can be moved from draftspace to mainspace. – Levivich 21:41, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alhassan Toure[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Subject has not played in competitive match between two fully pro teams nor has he represented his nation as senior or Olympic level. Simione001 (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. May meet the sport-specific criteria after recent debut in an FFA Cup tie but the coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG, which overrides NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject does meet WP:NFOOTBALL. His current team Adelaide United FC plays in A-League listed as the criteria to be considered as a professional team for Australia. Source shows that the subject did play a competitive match with that team.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Indubitably58 (talk • contribs) 12:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Indubitably58 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not played in a competitive match between two teams both from fully-professional leagues (his FFA game was against semi-pro Melbourne Knights), meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also no indication he meets WP:GNG. @Crystallizedcarbon: to reconsider. Giant Snowman 12:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @GiantSnowman:, That was not my comment. Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Simione001: Are you notifying the people that create the articles you've put forward for AfD? Govvy (talk) 12:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – cannot find any sources to satisfy GNG (The Advertiser articles are behind a paywall, but didn't appear to be sigcov). – Levivich 22:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify This is just a bit too soon. Already some international coverage of him, but agreed he's not ready for mainspace. [17] [18] SportingFlyer T·C 01:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about footballer who hasn't yet played in a fully-pro league and which isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 04:14, 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 keep. czar 00:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Pendry (hang glider pilot)[edit]

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

An almost-entirely-unsourced BLP. No substantial coverage in independent sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent, reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability, offered or to be found. Thought topic might be sexy enough to have generated more interest, but apparently not, or at least not in the digital world. If anyone can find good evidence, print or otherwise, happy to reconsider. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 17:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Twice a world champion and four times a European champion in his sports, which is reliably sourced, so clearly meets WP:SPORTSPERSON. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These championships do not appear to be in a "major amateur or professional competition", as specified by SPORTSPERSON; likewise, the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" that he "is likely to have received" is also absent. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can the world championships in a sport possibly not be major? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not major if not notable. Please provide substantial coverage from multiple, independent, reliable sources to indicate that AfD subject is notable. There don't seem to be any. There doesn't seem to be a particular reason to think that there would be. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSPERSON shows a clear presumption of notability for participants at his level in any sport. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get this "clear presumption"? SPORTSPERSON says "...major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor". I deny that he has done so, for lack of evidence that any of his awards could be termed "major" or "significant" in terms of WP's concept of notability. You decline to evidence that any of these awards are notable. Fortunately, SPORTSPERSON includes a link to "Main Page" Wikipedia:Notability (sports), where the results of "rule of thumb" discussions about participation and success in competitions in various sports are collected. I observe that none of his competitions are mentioned, nor even is hang gliding mentioned at all. Again, I request that you please provide evidence that this subject is notable based on substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that "major amateur or professional competition" means such within each individual sport. The fact that hang gliding and paragliding are not listed as specific sports is utterly and completely irrelevant. It just means nobody has done so yet. So yes, he has a clear presumption of notability, as I said. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A Google Books search shows that he pops up in plenty of works as a pioneer of hang-gliding, and achieved some world records. --Slashme (talk) 09:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could do with some more work but the world championship makes him noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a world championship may be notable within the confines of a minority sport, I'm doubtful that it meets the requirements of GNG which are based on "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There are other more serious issues with the article as given in the cleanup banners. It's obviously an autobiography and it contains original research. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After some excellent work by RebeccaGreen, I'm happy that this now qualifies and have struck put my previous entry immediately above. Well done, Rebecca. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have found and added coverage from digitised newspapers (I haven't yet looked in Google Books, so Slashme's comment suggests that there are more references that can be added). (I also found some more information about competitions he won, but not being familiar with the sport, I have hesitated to add information that I might get muddled - eg some Australian sources talk about world championship competitions in Australia, while British sources say he won Australian championships - do they mean world championships in Australia? or did the Australian sources mean that it was an Australian championship with entrants from around the world??) There certainly is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. As other editors have pointed out, he has won numerous world and national championships. He has also won two Royal Aero Club Gold Medals. These should all mean that he at least meets WP:ANYBIO, even if there aren't specific WP:SNG for hang gliders. I have de-orphaned the page, but if there were better coverage of hang gliding and paragliding championships on Wikipedia, or a list of winners of the Royal Aero Club Gold Medal, there would be many more links to his name. Pinging Hobbes Goodyear as having mentioned that they would reconsider if SIGCOV was found. Perhaps No Great Shaker would also like to look at the coverage. I must say that I can't see much evidence of original research, but anything that is could be edited anyway. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now well-sourced. A world champion is obviously notable. - Ahunt (talk) 13:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable according to the source presented. Barca (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now sufficiently sourced and compliant with GNG. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Due to changes made since the nomination and for Pendry being notable for being a champion ie WP:ANYBIO. Josalm64rc (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved since nomination and documented world champions will the nod from me for notability. Papaursa (talk) 20:47, 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. ‑Scottywong | spout _ 06:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 54 kg[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not simply a list of results. See other AfD results like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Men's 64 kg. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports games results list. This is information for another website. BluePankow ✉ 14:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per the outcome of the previous AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is about event at the notable multi-sport competiton such as the European Games. If we follow your arguments, hundreds of these articles should be deleted 1, 2, 3. Almagestas (talk) 05:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but renamed - I say keep the article but these articles need to be renamed to what the actual weight class was. For example instead of it naming it Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's 54 kg, what about Boxing at the 2015 European Games – Women's bantamweight. HawkAussie (talk) 02:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change my original comment to keep now that the results have been added. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are literally thousands of results articles like this one, contradicting the rationale for deletion. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fairly natural and standard way to organize our coverage of Boxing at the 2015 European Games. Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 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 keep. czar 00:36, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dadi Theater Circuit[edit]

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

This unreferenced article isn't a WP:HOAX; this [19] Hollywood Reporter article seems to confirm Dadi is China's third largest theater chain . However, being the third largest of anything usually isn't a cause for inherent notability. A basic BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find any further RS. It's possible Chinese-language sources exist but my (admittedly rudimentary) attempts to locate them have proved without fruition. I suggest this be deleted for failing the GNG with no prejudice for future recreation if sources could be one day discovered. Chetsford (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Zhang, Xin (2017-01-31). "Dadi Cinemas acquires OSGH Cinemas in mainland China". IHS Markit. Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
Ren, Daniel (2017-06-19). "Dadi Cinema expands in smaller Chinese cities to tap stronger growth in movie ticket sales". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
Frater, Patrick (2017-01-26). "Dadi Pays $575 Million for Orange Sky Golden Harvest's China Cinemas". Variety. Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
Chung, Peichi; Yi, Lianyuan (2016). "The regionilization of co-production in the film industries of Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China". In Keane, Michael (ed.). Handbook of Cultural and Creative Industries in China. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 213–214. doi:10.4337/9781782549864. ISBN 978-1-78254-985-7. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
"大地影院收购橙天嘉禾背后：母公司在深圳一个楼盘就能卖500亿". 投资界. 2017-01-26. Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
白金蕾; 张斐斐 (2017-02-21). "大地影院33亿"娶"橙天嘉禾是否溢价过高?". The Economic Observer (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
陈昌业 (2014-09-01). "深度解码：大地，紧追万达的院线新贵". 虎嗅网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
九连环 (2017-01-25). "大地影院的母公司开始买买买了，这能让它逆袭万达吗？" [The parent company of Dadi Cinema began to buy and buy, can this make it against Wanda?]. zh:36氪 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.

Sources with quotes

Zhang, Xin (2017-01-31). "Dadi Cinemas acquires OSGH Cinemas in mainland China". IHS Markit. Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
The article notes:

Chinese investment company Nan Hai Corp, the owner of Dadi Cinema, is to purchase all the Orange Sky Golden Harvest’s (OSGH) cinemas operating in mainland China for RMB 328.6 million ($47.8 million).
...
It is the largest acquisition in the Chinese exhibition market so far. The deal further strengthens Dadi’s position in China (in terms of screen count) and enhances its competitiveness with the market leader Wanda Cinema. Wanda operates approximately 3,000 screens at end of 2016, while Dadi comes in second with 2,442 screens after the deal (membership cinemas not included here). As one of the top 10 cinema investors in the market, OSGH cinemas are mainly located in tier 1 and tier 2 cities, which is a good complement to Dadi’s tier 3 and tier 4 locations.
...
Now, in the beginning of 2017, Dadi acquired OSGH, which is the largest acquisition among them.
...
Taking Dadi as an example, Dadi Cinemas is an official circuit, but Dadi Group also has another company Dadi Cinema Investment which has the real purchasing power.
Ren, Daniel (2017-06-19). "Dadi Cinema expands in smaller Chinese cities to tap stronger growth in movie ticket sales". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
The article notes:

Dadi Cinema Group, mainland China’s second-largest cinema investment and management company, plans to build as many as 60 new outlets this year, focusing on lower-tier cities where people have more spare time to make the trip to a cinema.
The group, trailing only Wanda Cinema Line in China in size, will also actively seek acquisition targets to increase the number of screens it owns following the purchase of Golden Harvest’s mainland cinema arm early this year, according to Dadi chief executive Yu Xin.
...
At present, Dadi owns more than 400 cinemas and about 2,500 screens across the mainland.
At the start of 2017, it paid 3.3 billion yuan (US$485 million) to buy out City Entertainment Corp, a subsidiary of Orange Sky Golden Harvest Entertainment (Holdings), which operates and manages 76 cinemas with 531 screens on the mainland.
The article further notes:
Dadi Film Distribution, a sister company of Dadi Cinema, books film screenings at a further 400 partner cinemas in the country.
Both Dadi Cinema and Dadi Film Distribution are controlled by Dadi Film Group.
Frater, Patrick (2017-01-26). "Dadi Pays $575 Million for Orange Sky Golden Harvest's China Cinemas". Variety. Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
The article notes:

Pan-Asian cinema operator Orange Sky Golden Harvest has agreed to sell its theaters in mainland China to Dadi, China’s second-largest exhibition group.
...
Hong Kong-listed investment firm Nan Hai, Dadi Digital Cinema’s parent company, is to pay $475 million (RMB3.28 billion) for 93% of OSGH’s China business. The China division has 76 theaters in China with a total of 531 screens. At the end of 2016, Dadi reported operating 350 theaters in 164 towns and cities. They had a combined 1,911 screens.
...
Dadi itself has recently sought the financial support of outside investors. Last year it sold $154 million of convertible bonds to Alibaba Pictures Group. And this month Huayi Brothers Media confirmed that it had paid $11.5 million for a 4.6% stake in Dadi.
Chung, Peichi; Yi, Lianyuan (2016). "The regionilization of co-production in the film industries of Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China". In Keane, Michael (ed.). Handbook of Cultural and Creative Industries in China. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 213–214. doi:10.4337/9781782549864. ISBN 978-1-78254-985-7. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
The book notes:

For instance, Dadi Digital Cinema Corporation is a Hong Kong film distribution company, ranked as the fourth largest theatre chain in China. The company is also one of the second largest film distributors following the Dalian Wanda Group and two other government owned companies, Shanghai United Circuit and China Film Stellar Theatre Chain.
"大地影院收购橙天嘉禾背后：母公司在深圳一个楼盘就能卖500亿". 投资界. 2017-01-26. Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
From Google Translate:

The business model of Dadi Cinema is fundamentally different from Wanda Cinema. Wanda mainly uses the commercial real estate model to arrange Wanda Plaza and Wanda Cinema in large cities, and actively promotes high-end film consumption such as IMAX giant screen. From the very beginning, Dadi Cinema has determined the development strategy of deep-growing second- and third-tier cities, and adopted all Digital projection technology while maintaining reasonable (low) fares. With the growth of the audience in the second and third tier cities, the number of theaters in the world reached 100 in 2011, and exceeded 200 in 2015. At present, the number of cinemas in the company has soared to 350, making it the second largest film studio in the country after Wanda Cinema.
白金蕾; 张斐斐 (2017-02-21). "大地影院33亿"娶"橙天嘉禾是否溢价过高?". The Economic Observer (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
The article notes:

It is understood that in recent years, the "family" of the fast-growing geodetic system includes the three major sectors: the land theater, the land distribution and the land film. Among them, Dadi Cinema is a professional film investment company. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Hong Kong-listed company “Nanhai Holdings”. Its theaters are self-built, using “Dadi” and “Free People” brands, and the future “Orange Sky Golden Harvest” "The brand will continue to retain, to achieve the parallel operation of the three brands, while the land and television film is mainly engaged in content computing.
The earth-based affiliate company, Dadi Cinema, was listed on the New Third Board in early 2016. Its business provides management, announcement, and typesetting advertising for the theater, and all theaters are joined.
...
Poly Theatre Line and Dadi Cinema Group are the practitioners of the second model. Taking the spread of the land as an example, the production team has been formed, and the Dadi distribution and the Dadi Theater Group have been established. This year, the transformation of the giant curtain hall will be passed. Add some content of stage plays and musicals. At the same time, through the "movie +" strategy, the sale of goods, advertising, catering and so on. The film that participated in the main vote will also be registered in the theater this year and next year.
陈昌业 (2014-09-01). "深度解码：大地，紧追万达的院线新贵". 虎嗅网 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.
The article notes:

Dadi Cinema is affiliated with Dadi Communication Group, and Dadi Communication Group and Nanhai Development (Hong Kong) Co., Ltd. and China Digital Information Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as China Digital) belong to Hong Kong listed company Nanhai Holdings (0680).
Similar to Wanda Cinema and Jinyi Cinema, Nanhai Holdings, the parent company of Dadi Cinema, is also a well-known real estate company like Wanda Group (the parent company of Wanda Cinema) and Jiayu Group (the parent company of Jinyi Cinema). The current land bank and the number of projects under construction and proposed projects of Nanhai Holdings totaled over 2 million square meters. It should be said that the deep background of real estate enterprises is the key factor for the development of theaters in the second and third-tier cities, and the accurate location of the theaters. At the same time, in the business model, Wanda is embedded in commercial real estate, SHOPPING MALL, and also real estate. The development of business models brought about by corporate genes – of course, most of the DH is embedded in third-party real estate projects rather than own projects like Wanda.
Different from Wanda Cinema and all other cinema companies, Dadi Cinema is a cinema company incubating from an IT company. Brothers China Digital (250) is also a Hong Kong listed company. It was established in 1999 and set foot in the company. Areas include enterprise IT application services, financial and financial information services, distance education services, culture and communication. China Digital began to enter the Chinese film industry in 2003. In 2005, it first launched a digital cinema construction project in Guangdong. At the same time, it began to cooperate with well-known universities and research institutions in China to develop digital cinema technology. The Dadi Cinema and China Digital's headquarters are located in the Digital Manor, a software park in the Economic and Technological Development Zone in Yizhuang, Beijing. Mr. Fang Bin, general manager of Dadi Cinema, told the author that the early team of the earth included himself as an IT person. “We are not traditional filmmakers. We are all from IT companies. The president is also from IT companies. We are in our hearts. There is an IT mindset and a digital mindset."
九连环 (2017-01-25). "大地影院的母公司开始买买买了，这能让它逆袭万达吗？" [The parent company of Dadi Cinema began to buy and buy, can this make it against Wanda?]. zh:36氪 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-08-04. Retrieved 2019-08-04.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Dadi to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Hong Kong-listed investment firm Nan Hai (SEHK: 680) owns Dadi Film Group, which controls Dadi Cinema Group and Dadi Film Distribution. Dadi Cinema Group is another name for Dadi Theater Circuit. There is currently only a Wikipedia article about Dadi Theater Circuit. A consolidated article about Nan Hai or Dadi Film Group may make more sense.
Cunard (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - this is one of the largest cinema chains in China and the world with 1,148 cinemas in 471 cities, according to official website. Evidence of significant coverage has been provided by Cunard above. Notable beyond doubt. -Zanhe (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Maybe notable, but if it remains unreferenced, it will still need to be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: The article was fully sourced until this IP edit last year. I've restored the old sourced info, even though it's a bit outdated. -Zanhe (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable and sourced. SL93 (talk) 22:09, 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. ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 06:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Afida Turner[edit]

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

Reality TV contestant (didn't win), tried to success in music and movies, without much success. More a "wannabee" than a celebrity. Credited as guest in some french tabloid talk show, more like a goofy, over the top, D-list celebrity trying to establishing her own fame. You'll find some articles in french websites about her, for sure, but these articles are mostly ironic. To sum up : nothing serious.--Xxxxx (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The French article has 79 references! For the rest of your argument, please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, 79 references including her own website, her own Instagram, some blogs, etc. Plus, i never said i don't like her. I just said she had some media coverage (i can't deny that) but nevertheless she doesn't meet criterias for actress, singer, tv reality or TV host. --Xxxxx (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They include Le Matin ([20]), Le Figaro ([21], [22]), Le Soir ([23]), BFM TV ([24]), L'Express ([25]). Regards, Comte0 (talk) 00:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again : yes, there are some references. But did you check her body of work ? Imo, doesn't meet notability standards in movies, music, tv, etc.--Xxxxx (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean WP:BASIC when talking about notability standards? Regards, Comte0 (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:05, 1 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? 22:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was two AfD on the French article. The first one was closed in 2010 as Delete, the second one was automatically opened after a deletion review in 2016 and was closed as Keep. More specifically, sources 2013, 2013, 2014, 2014, 2014, 2015, 2015, 2016, 2016 were brought and not challenged. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources above make the article pass WP:GNG. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in French reliable sources such as Le Figaro, Le Matin, L Express and others so that WP:GNG is passed as well as criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) so deletion is not necessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself clearly has a promo/fanpage form. Sources are Imdb, dead links, etc. Quick search turns-up lots of non-RS social media. Agricola44 (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Figaro and Le Soir cited above are listed on the Newspaper of record article. Would you mind explaining why you do not consider them RS? Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Put it in the article please...that's what many people read. (Closers are the only ones who are really bound to read the usual walls that crop-up at these AfDs.) That said, I looked (at one from Le Figaro), but I don't read French. I suspect that it is promo, since it lists all her social media outlets, but perhaps you could explain. I'm certainly open to changing positions if conclusive argument of notability is present. I just don't see it at the moment (again, perhaps because I don't read French.) Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will summarize these articles for you. Le Figaro TV : the former reality TV candidate talks about his miscarriage and her ex-future projects (never materialized). Franceinfo and Le Nouvel Obs : "Afida Turner ejected from the Cannes Festival red carpet. The former reality TV candidate was spurned by the security". Le Matin : interview in which she confirms that she has no record company and that her last album is only available on Youtube... Le Soir : she was banned from a network because she showed her sex live on tv. L'Express : Afida Turner accuses Beyoncé of plagiarism (okay, i must confess this one is my favorite...).

--Xxxxx (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The refs located above indicate she is notable. Szzuk (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in French clearly establish notability. Pichpich (talk) 21:37, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Armdale Rotary[edit]

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

Article about a pretty run of the mill piece of road infrastructure, not reliably sourced as clearing WP:ROADOUTCOMES. The sole footnote being cited here is a press release from the city government, which is not a notability-conferring source -- and the external links aren't evidence of notability either, comprising merely its location on Google Maps and a non-notable Movable Type blogger's page of rotary-(un)inspired haiku. As always, the notability bar for a road is not merely the ability to demonstrate that it exists -- it requires reliably sourced political, social or historical context for what might make the road important, but the only content here that even starts to tip in that direction is a completely unsourced anecdotal claim that driving on it used to piss some people off (which is hardly an "inherently" notable characteristic of a road in and of itself, as anybody who's ever driven on practically any arterial road in any big city can tell you.) Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I myself looked for sources and did not find any. That is why I did a failed prod on this. Most of the article is thus unverifiable anyway. If being poorly designed and infamous to locals conferred notability, I could write several articles about intersections in my city. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked for sources and had no difficulty finding plenty of them. For example, see Rehabilitation of the Armdale Rotary. So this should be kept per policies including WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Note also that WP:MILL is neither policy nor guideline, being just an opinionated essay. WP:MILL is also inapplicable is as this is a major junction with an exceptional history. Also note that WP:ROADOUTCOMES makes no reference to traffic circles and so is just a vague wave. Andrew D. (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An engineering report from a commercial engineering company is not notability-making sourcing. And traffic circles are roads, and thus are still covered by ROADOUTCOMES whether it specifically singles them out for specific mention or not. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Andrew Davidson. Bookscale (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why Andrew thinks a routine traffic engineering case study makes this notable - surely not every concept presented on at a transportation conference automatically gets an article. This is neither a peer-reviewed article nor published in a journal so it is not a strong source for establishing notability. I do not see any sources that attest to this being anything other than one of the generic roundabouts and traffic circles in Canada. Simply absurd to claim that because we're not made of paper, anything and WP:EVERYTHING must be kept perpetually; just because we can evaluate alternatives to deletion does not mean everything is immune from deletion. Reywas92^Talk 22:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A routine case of local squabbling that got very little coverage outside of its local area. Sounder Bruce 00:55, 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. Block evasion. Article was created by Jackmorrisan, a sockpuppet of Bothiman. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing Vijay films[edit]

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

This list is trivial to the core. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't categorize film articles by actor, though we do have a filmography for this actor, so intersection with a particular list ordering (by gross box office) is unencyclopedically trivial. In other words, WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NOTSTATS. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 06:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Important list keep.It is the only article which explains about his highest grossing films listed in his career and it also lists about the hits and flops in his career, so I prefer this article not to be deleted.--Jackmorrisan (talk) 07:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Jackmorrisan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
~~keep~~The filmography article of the actor is not about the highest gross figures, so the list article is about highest gross figures at the box office of the actor and also about his profitable films, so it is a contrary article to the filmography article so, obiviously this list article should exist.Jackmorrisan (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~this is a list article about his highest grossing films at the box office wheares your filmography article is basically about the various character roles performed by him. It is totally contrast to your article so it should not be deleted--Jackmorrisan (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Why do we need a separate article just to find out how much money an actors films have made? If it's noteworthy, merge into the filmography. Ajf773 (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~-Then why do article like list of highest grossing films in India and elsewhere exist in wikipedia. If you want to delete this article then the other money related lists should also be deleted . your statement doesnt have any logic. money is important. by the way it cant be merged into filmography article since its about the list of characters performed by vijay and this is about his highest grossing films. first understand and then text.Jackmorrisan (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jackmorrisan: You are only allowed one vote in an AfD, so I have taken the liberty to strike out all of your bold 'keep' statements except the first. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 16:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have separate lists of individual actors' films by box office. ~~Harrison Ford, probably the champ,~~ Samuel L. Jackson, the champ according to Box Office Mojo,[26] doesn't have one. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Highlights can be mentioned at Vijay filmography but this is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 02:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:8CCF:747C:B4E6:7CB0:7320 (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the eloquent reasoning above. Ravensfire (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why do you ppl so desperate about deleting this page. Its one of kind. Obviously its good sign to point out the box office stamina of a actor. If this article exists, other users will start creating box office lists for renowned hollywood actors too by the way all the box office figures cannot be mentioned in Vijay filmography it will look crowded with information and users will feel difficult to read, and thats why I created this box office list.Jackmorrisan (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of a kind means nobody else (i.e. reliable sources) have paid any attention either. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
users will start creating box office lists for famous hollywood stars like Samuel L. Jackson and so on . In that way I meant its one of a kind. the first article for listing out the box office stamina of a actor in wikipedia.Jackmorrisan (talk) 10:55, 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 speedy delete. G12 copyright violation and WP:SNOW looks like no chance of notability being shown. SpinningSpark 23:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Greek Love[edit]

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

This very-short-lived academic (?) journal about pederasty/pedophilia fails WP:GNG. Note that it published only 2 issues 53 years ago.

GNG requires "[1.] significant coverage in [2.] reliable sources that are [3.] independent of the subject". ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". "[M]ultiple sources are generally expected."

Examining the sources in the article, we find that three of the references are to the journal itself, and the external link is to a personal website that contains the journal's content. The two links in the infobox are just to library catalogs, which do not confer notability. The first and fourth refs are trivial mentions (note that the versions in the article are dead links).

Okay, let's look for new sources. Regular Google turns up some personal website; "BoyWiki" (which is exactly what you suspect); Google Books, Amazon, and WorldCat listings for the publication itself; the external link from before; a small specialist wiki; and a Routledge book edited by Vern Bullough. This book entry may be the best source; but its material is mainly about eulogizing (really) the journal's sex offender editor Walter Breen, and the journal is secondary. We do not have multiple sources; all the other search types turn up trivial mentions or (very few) citations; the only one that maybe looks promising turns out to be published by Lulu Press, a self-publisher.

This article was created by a user who mostly edited in pedophilia articles and is now banned. It links to the site "exitinterview.biz" four times; this is a site that is on the subject of "how can people of different generations interact with each other in a way that benefits both....I will focus on the interrelationships of boys and men." An examination of the rest of that page and the "research" he has collected here makes clear that this is a pedophilia advocacy site. The main point however is that the journal does not meet GNG.

This AfD is very detailed because I originally prodded the article, but this was removed by an editor who said it is "notable for its place in the MZB and Breen history". I don't see how this helps it meet GNG. Not everything a notable person works on is itself notable. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier now deleted page was deleted for being a copy and paste from a licence-incompatible wiki, see Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations/2012-05-24. This page is two of the same paragraphs, looking at the deleted revisions. The first paragraph of Pedophile press is also the same previously deleted licence-incompatible content; and I suspect that the rest is as well, as it seems that the banned user could not write in the first place anyway. Uncle G (talk) 11:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Other already deleted articles by that user turn out to be copy and pastes, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism of promotional blurb in lieu of writing is bad. Copyright problems are also bad. All of that where the source promotional blurb is "BoyWiki" is wholly unacceptable. I am in favour of deleting both this and pedophile press. This is not writing; and I think that we can very much do without these two entire edit histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will investigate and probably nominate that shortly. -Crossroads- (talk) 12:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That other article is now nominated here. -Crossroads- (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this mess per the thoroughly researched nomination – I searched for additional sources but couldn't find any. Haukur (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of previously-deleted material (and even if that didn't apply, the nomination makes a good case for deletion anyway). XOR'easter (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (WP:SNOW maybe) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I can hardly believe that an academic journal that only had two issues (and apparently little circulation) is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 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) 06:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justen Ericksen[edit]

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

Balant promotional content by possible undisclosed paid edits. Not notable outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of his news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 05:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only 2 references which may be good have expired, any searches I've done only come up with the same story about a local lawsuit for copyright violations with no follow up between this gentleman's company and another. I see no one else outside of smaller local coverage has taken notice of this gentleman which means Wikipedia shouldn't either. This fails WP:GNG. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much of the sourcing is to websites of his companies. I also have to say I find the Food Insurance article lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Sources are not good and give errors Alex-h (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless more information from reliable sources can be found, he fails my standards for lawyers. He was a "leading editor" of a law review, but that's the only factor I see. Ping me if you find anything more that could change my mind. Bearian (talk) 16:28, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Ehrsam[edit]

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

Another possible paid PR. Not notable outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of his news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. Wikipedia is not who's who, one does not pay their way to an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is clearly enough in depth coverage of this gentleman to pass the WP:GNG threshold. The Forbes, Fortune and Wall Street Journal coverage is enough to cover that threshold on their own. The coverage does not need to only about the subject but should cover them in some depth, which these do. As much as this looks like it may have been written by a paid editor there is still enough to pass and be kept. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 06:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes article is written by contributor, so not a Reliable reference, Fortune is an interview, Wall Street Journal is not an in-depth coverage for him. The problem lies here Fred Ehrsam is not indepedentally notable outside of his company coinbase. Merge to Coinbase, could be a better option if it is not delete. Meeanaya (talk) 11:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Mcmatter. 65.18.120.111 (talk) 09:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to Coinbase - coverage appears passing and PR-originated - David Gerard (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks paid. The refs don't indicate notability. Szzuk (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have any inherent notability per WP:PERSON - only notable because of association with the company - the article references mention him in passing, he is not the subject - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 00:10, 17 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John D. Ferguson[edit]

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

Not notable outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of his news coverage are primarily for the company. I am surprised that his $1500 donation also had a political activity section. Meeanaya (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable + can't find independent reliable sources. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. While I think that being in the news repeatedly for political notoriety or "bad works" might make someone notable, the longstanding consensus has been that notoriety in the local media is not enough. I'm not going to cite the many past precedents. Bearian (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG notable CEO. Globenewswire, Nashville Scene, Nashville Post. WP:PRESERVE WP:NOTPAPER. Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 New York Cosmos season[edit]

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

Article fails WP:N. The New York Cosmos are not playing in a sanctioned professional league in 2019. The second team competed in the National Premier Soccer League, a non-professional league that is not sanctioned by the United States Soccer Federation. The main team will compete in the NPSL Members Cup this year but that is not a USSF sanctioned league. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the article, this page is for the 2019 New York Cosmos season in the NPSL Members Cup. The information about the NPSL and the U.S. Open Cup is included for a narrative story about the 2019 season and it is stated repeatedly that it is the amateur Cosmos B squad in these competition. The NPSL Members Cup is a USASA sanctioned league. Though the USASA is the governing body for amateur clubs, the competition is a professional league. The teams in the NPSL Members Cup consist of paid, non collegiate binded players. If there is a rule that only USSF sanctioned leagues may have club season pages on wikipedia, that is fine. But I was under the impression that as long as the team AND league are professional, this is allowed. Tychu9 (talk) 3:10 11 August 2019

None of these reasons are valid for why the Cosmos should have a page for the 2019 season. Per WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG, the only reason an individual club may have a season page is if they played in a fully-professional league or if there is enough independent secondary coverage of their season, neither of which apply here. The only competition the Cosmos are playing this year is the NPSL Members Cup. The club only played their "B" team in the National Premier Soccer League and the U.S. Open Cup. Neither of these three tournaments is a fully-professional soccer league. The NPSL is a semi-professional soccer league and the U.S. Open Cup is a soccer cup competition which encompasses clubs from very amateur to fully-professional. The NPSL Members Cup is also just a soccer cup tournament, not a league. It doesn't matter if the club itself is fully-professional, the league overall needs to be professional, which the Cosmos have not played in. You can argue that the Members Cup is a fully-professional league but you would have to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues and make your case there, not here. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article fails WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. The NPSL is not a WP:FPL and the Cosmos only fielded a "B" team in that anyway. The NPSL Members Cup is also not a fully-professional soccer league, and just a soccer cup tournament. Also, since there is no reliable independent secondary sources upon which to base this article on, we shouldn't have this article. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability, can be summarised on the main page if required. Giant Snowman 07:59, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:15, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Auburn Hills Mobile Estates[edit]

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

This is a mobile home park in North Auburn, California. It has a listing in the Geographic Names Information System, but that's about the only source I can find on it outside of real estate listings. Mobile home parks, especially those inside of larger communities, aren't presumed to be notable per WP:GEOLAND, and this one isn't notable for any other reason. (See this AfD, among other AfDs, for additional discussion about mobile home parks and GEOLAND.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a "legally recognized place", so non notable per WP:GEOLAND ~~ OxonAlex - talk 17:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Small neighborhood/subdivision of homes within incorporated North Auburn, California, not a recognized community with substantive sources covering it to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 03:41, 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. Perhaps a bit of time will provide clarity on whether or not this event has lasting impact. ‑Scottywong | babble _ 06:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 California stabbing rampage[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS, no indication of any lasting impact whatsoever, currently simply a retelling of news articles. Nableezy 02:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , I agree with the nominator's explanation. Here come the Suns (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now that "a new debate on prison reform is opened" according to sources in the article,^[1] involving blue-linked legal experts vs. what the police says about the case,^[2] it appears the implications of the case may extend beyond the current and ongoing coverage. XavierItzm (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep stabbing rampages like this are rare here in the US as were more used to gun rampages, the event has been covered by numerous national news sources, though to have this article stay, it would need to be heavily rewritten YatesTucker00090 (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. rayukk | talk 05:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a notable stabbing spree rather than an ordinary crime. The article needs to be improved a lot; I don't know why the article has had so few editors. Jim Michael (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jim Michael.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RAPID the question whether it is lasting will be kwown after some time.But for now it is keep.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID at this point. Wide coverage at the moment - international - e.g. BBC, Guardian, The Hindu. Unusual enough (large scale violence without a gun in the the US) that it will probably get continuing coverage - but in any event assessing continuing coverage at this point requires a crystal ball. Icewhiz (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. –apap04^talk^|^{contributions} 09:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS In this U.S. we have had over 200 mass shootings this year, so far. Do they all merit articles?

I admit, multiple stabbings is a category apart.

OTOH, WP:RAPID is a prophylactic against premature deletion, the question being whether it is lasting? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have on a professional capacity written much about mass shootings, particularly violence in the work place. When I first penned articless beck about 15 years ago, they were rare. the St. Valentine's Day Massacre was a benchmark. Sadly, this stuff is daily news, and a testament to the ineptitude of our Congress and Executive to meaningfully do something. The Brady bill was allowed to expire! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems a valid topic, sources are good and passes WP:GNG in my view. No comments from E.M.Gregory ? Govvy (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: - blocked at the moment.Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: Strange one, I am so use to seeing EM Gregory's comments are AfD. Blocked as a sock? Makes no sense to me... Govvy (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well not quite just for the moment if yes at the moment. nableezy - 14:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd argue that fatal mass stabbings are more notable than mass shootings. Jim Michael (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would this argument be based on? Im trying to understand the thinking that leads to articles like this being created. In a city near and dear to my heart, 4 people were stabbed in July at a party. Two others in the middle of downtown also in July. The number of people stabbed in the poorer (and browner/blacker) areas of the city isnt even something I can find reported on. This in a city that so far this year has 296 murders this year. Stabbings are so incredibly routine in some cities they are not even reported in the local news. How is this anything other than a news story that nobody will note in any way in 6 months? I see the lineup here and it's pretty clear this will be kept, but I legit dont understand how people think this is an encyclopedia article or even a topic that possibly could be turned into one. nableezy - 14:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stabbings are common, but fatal mass stabbings aren't. Jim Michael (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTNEWS, this is just a crime no WP:GEOSCOPE, not every crime needs an article. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. No indication yet of lasting significance. WP:RAPID is never a reason for keeping at afd (it's guidance that has a counterpart -- WP:DELAY, after all). There may be some things that it makes sense to cover immediately, before all the facts come out, while we're still relying on continuously self-correcting (or not!) news coverage, but crimes like this, with the many layers of BLP in play, are not among them. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. This is receiving attention because of other recent attacks in the US, but it's otherwise not notable enough. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:NOTNEWS, etc. Yilloslime (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:RAPID also meets WP:DIVERSE I added BBC source there are also Guardian [27] --Shrike (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok? So far all sources are from the same day it happened (as is your Guardian source). I just checked CNN, the source used to start this article and there is nothing at all about the stabbing on the main page.--TMCk (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article now has four sources from August 9th.--Tdl1060 (talk) 03:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note. The author's creator was blocked after an SPI report, filed by Nableezy, revealed E.M.Gregory was engaging in persistent WP:Sockpuppetry. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Socking, including avoiding a topic ban on immigration and crime (that this was one of the early edits isn't reassuring in this article, given past context, though at this point it probably doesn't matter). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable event. Oranjelo100 (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sequence of events has well exceeded the WP:GNG. For example, the Associated Press, a worldwide news syndication service, is reporting daily on the subject matter; the latest is that the suspect has been charged with 11 felonies. No crystal ball is needed to realise that as the case winds its way through the courts, in will remain in the news for the foreseeable future. XavierItzm (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG with continuous coverage and it's too early to test for sustained coverage imv, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:GNG as of today with continued coverage. And good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Delete as article was created by now-blocked sockpuppet who was topic banned from "illegal immigration, immigration policy, and the relationship between crime and immigration" which this article falls under (though it's unclear if that was evident at the time of its creation). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read any stories that identify Zachary Castañeda as an immigrant. Furthermore, the page was not created in evasion of any block.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no claim in the article about anybody being or having anything to do with immigration, no article categories link to anything to do with immigration. The article has nothing to do with immigration. Yet aspersions are being made about "crime", "immigration", and "illegal immigration," which are three entirely unrelated subjects that have nothing to do with each other, and much less with this article, nor this AfD. Frankly, it is a very insulting claim. As an immigrant, I am highly offended. A retraction and full apology is in order. XavierItzm (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources identify the killer & victims as Hispanic, but that doesn't tell us whether they were legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, or from the US. Jim Michael (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim, that's the point. Assuming that a Hispanic person is an immigrant is also a woeful insult. The article clearly says that the suspect is Hispanic. But jumping from that to "crime", "immigration", and "illegal immigration," is just awful. XavierItzm (talk) 21:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - I'm agreeing with you. Immigration status in regard to the suspect (if he's an immigrant) would be relevant enough to include. Jim Michael (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, that great defender of the Hispanic people, XavierItzm and lest we forget E.M.G's valiant effort to promote understanding and harmony in that topic. nableezy - 23:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by now-blocked account, so our starting point should be deletion. If we go beyond that, it comes under WP:NOTNEWS: yes, it's got some attention, as many individual crimes do, but there's no evidence of broader or lasting impact. Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't created in violation of a block or ban, so that's not a reason to delete it. Jim Michael (talk) 13:14, 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shahira Barry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It doesn't matter that some Irish media sites wrote a few gossipy or promo stories on her. That's not the issue here. The issue is she is NOT a notable model because she has no career to speak of. Going to the Playboy Mansion a few times isn't an accomplishment. Thousands of other women have done the same for decades. She never actually became a Playmate. If she did, maybe there would be something to stand on here. But being the "Irish version of Kim Kardashian"? NO. Any girl with a working iPhone, neutral palette wardrobe, and a bob hairstyle can say the same thing for themselves nowadays. Trillfendi (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:Notability. Spleodrach (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add, page is orphan and SPA-created, likely fan/vanity. Agricola44 (talk) 17:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Contra the nom and other votes, I think it doesn't matter what her career actually looks like, it matters what the quality of the sources and their coverage is. I count 4 refs to The Mirror, 1 in each of about 9 other british papers, 1 in a Filipino paper, and 1 reference to her own website. Are any of the british papers reliable (or even reliable adjacent)? I suppose someone should go see if any other sources exist rather than just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The last deletion discussion involved someone saying the articles were not a single flurry of activity, but were spaced out over months. That might indicate passing the ~~third~~ second criterion in WP:NMODEL. Rockphed (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC) (updated at 12:16, 15 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I have written well over 100 modeling articles, clearly I would know what equates to NMODEL by now. If you think this is “IDONTLIKEIT” when I blatantly pointed out that the sources are gossip and promotion, not limited to the BANNED Daily Mail, then I can’t help you. Buy some common sense. The Sun, The Star, or any other of the celestially named tabloids are not reliable whatsoever. One has to have a modeling career to begin with to be a “notable” model. What “notable” modeling work has she done? Nothing. Period. As exemplified by her own words

What is your proudest moment in terms of modeling? My proudest moment so far would have to be hanging out with the main man himself, Mr. Hugh Hefner! He is such an icon and it was great to meet him. For a young Irish girl from a very small town, it's definitely a world apart from where I come from. It was a huge honor!

At what point did she actually model for Playboy. Or anywhere for besides her Instagram account for that matter. Trillfendi (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since WP:NMODEL is actually WP:NENT, let's go through it. I think we can ignore the third criterion (made a unique, prolific, or innovative impact on their field) and focus on the first 2. Has she actually had significant roles in multiple notable works? This is completely unsupported by the evidence (and probably contradicted by evidence). Does she have a cult following? She had a variety of pieces written about her in a variety of (completely unreliable) places over the course of some months. She still has the occasional piece written about her (albeit the pieces seem to be in the same vein and locations as they were 5 years ago). Does that indicate a cult following, or simply that she has a decent publicist who schedules interviews with tabloids? I don't know.

As for why I said this reeks of IDONTLIKEIT, the reasons given by the nom and two delete votes to date are "ignore the sources, she has a failed career", "not notable", and "orphan written by a SPA", and are almost quotes from WP:DIDNOTWIN, WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE, and WP:ORPHS respectively. Frankly, I am not going to shed a single tear if this article gets deleted, but process is important. If this article gets deleted with the weak justification here, then overturning the delete (especially in the face of 2 previous keep consensuses) will be trivial. If you want to drive a stake through the black heart of this article (because you think it is about a non-notable person and is probably being used as advertising and promotion by said person), you should be using policy based reasons for doing so. Rockphed (talk) 17:01, 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 per WP:BOLD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

British music[edit]

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

I don't think a disambiguation page is necessary here. I can understand French music being a disambiguation because there is French language music outside of France, but the term "British music" exclusively refers to music of the United Kingdom. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 20:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 20:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Music of the United Kingdom. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above, quite sufficient. There is no confusion with, say, Scottish music. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Moaz786, sounds like a perfectly valid search term. Govvy (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#Campaigns and consumer boycotts. Any content to be merged can be accessed from the revision history. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 06:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Fried Cruelty[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page is more about the individual who changed his name to "KentuckyFriedCruelty.com" rather than the campaign itself. The campaign doesn't appear notable. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect I really don't see how this passes WP:GNG as an article, the KentuckyFriedCruelty.com section feels completely trivial leaving one paragraph at the top. However I feel the title is a valid search term and should be directed to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals#Campaigns and consumer boycotts with a mention there. Govvy (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PETA and its activities can be adequately covered on its own page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move any valuable content to the KFC and PETA articles. The title can serve as a redirect. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to PETA. My very best wishes (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect to PETA. Sourcing is poor and doesn't support a standalone article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals § Campaigns and consumer boycotts as a functional WP:ATD-M that will improve the main article. Worthy of inclusion in the main article, but may not have enough coverage to qualify for a standalone article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 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 no consensus. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 06:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Byatt[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO because there is no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She's an actress, so the WP:SNG WP:NACTOR would apply. I am checking to see what she has appeared in - on stage, she has played Linda, Mrs. Johnstone and (apparently) Mrs Lyons in UK tours of Blood Brothers (musical). I can find other stage performances too. Of the TV shows, she certainly seems to have had a significant role in Springhill (TV series). In Bread (TV series), she played the girlfriend of one of the major characters in 8 episodes and a Christmas special - she appeared towards the end of Season 6, and throughout Season 7, at the end of which they were going to?/did? get married, so that is also a pretty significant role. I think she probably does meet WP:NACTOR - I will keep looking and add more sources and info to the article (I've already started adding some biographical info). RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like she does not pass WP:BIO and WP:ACTOR to me mainly because she will unlikely land any significant roles anytime soon. Sheldybett (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Few trivial mentions but can't check all sources (paywalled). But, claim to notability is not convincing. Agricola44 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has two prominent roles in notable productions for WP:NACTOR in Springfield and also in Bread which was a prime-time hit on BBC1, as well as prominent stage roles, the referencing on the article is being improved since the nomination Atlantic306 (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added tables of some of her stage and TV roles. I believe that she does meet WP:NACTOR #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Her multiple roles in productions of Blood Brothers in the West End and in regional centres are significant, as is her role in A Taste of Honey. The Tommy Cooper Show does not (yet) have a WP article, but her role in that is also significant. On TV, she has had significant roles in Springhill (TV series) and Bread (TV series). I am not as happy with the references as I would like to be - I have used listings more than reviews. But WP:NACTOR does not require multiple reviews, and the references do verify her parts in those productions. If I can find more reviews, I will add them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep She probably just passes the WP:NACTOR test but I'm not convinced that she passes the WP:GNG test. Currently, the only reference that is genuinely about her is the (basically useless) two-paragraph blurb from 30 years ago in the Liverpool Echo. Pichpich (talk) 21:23, 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 speedy keep. SK1: nomination withdrawn and no deletion arguments czar 00:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peculiar Chris[edit]

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

I found nothing that shows this book is notable and the author doesn't have an article. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GBooks search indicates that the book seems to have attracted a typical amount of review coverage when it came out, to be recognized as significant by later scholarship, and to be discussed at length in some scholarly sources eg. [28] –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to withdraw this per that book and sources that I found for the stage play today. I just don't know how to close an AfD. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 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.

^ https://abc7.com/criminal-record-of-oc-stabbing-suspect-under-scrutiny/5456844/
^ BRENDAN COLE (9 August 2019). "WHO IS ZACHARY CASTANEDA? CALIFORNIA STABBING SPREE SUSPECT WAS KNOWN GANG MEMBER JAILED 14 TIMES SINCE 2016". Newsweek. Retrieved 12 August 2019. Garden Grove police Chief Tom DaRe said Castaneda was a "violent individual" who should have kept him in prison, where he's been 14 times since June 2016. He blamed Assembly Bill 109, legislation which was brought into law in 2011 by California lawmakers to try to reduce the prison population.

[1] ttps://abc7.com/criminal-record-of-oc-stabbing-suspect-under-scrutiny/5456844/

[2] BRENDAN COLE (9 August 2019). "WHO IS ZACHARY CASTANEDA? CALIFORNIA STABBING SPREE SUSPECT WAS KNOWN GANG MEMBER JAILED 14 TIMES SINCE 2016". Newsweek. Retrieved 12 August 2019. Garden Grove police Chief Tom DaRe said Castaneda was a "violent individual" who should have kept him in prison, where he's been 14 times since June 2016. He blamed Assembly Bill 109, legislation which was brought into law in 2011 by California lawmakers to try to reduce the prison population.

[1]

[2]