Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 July	8 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Justiz[edit]

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

Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a writer, whose primary notability claim is having written a book that was optioned for a film that still hasn't actually been released six years later. This is not a solid notability claim that would hand a writer a free pass over WP:AUTHOR all by itself -- but nothing else stated here meets any other notability criteria, and the sourcing is not getting him over WP:GNG: it's referenced primarily to primary sources, blogs, Q&A interviews in which he's speaking about himself and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not to notability-supporting coverage about him. There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by an editor whose only other contribution to Wikipedia was an equally poorly sourced article about the subject's wife. Literally nothing here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of establishing that he passes our subject-specific inclusion criteria for writers or aviators, but the sourcing isn't even close to getting him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:AUTHOR and fails all other standards just as Nom states.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 8 July 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) 01:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dayna Steele[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized biography of an author and unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as passing any of Wikipedia's notability criteria. This is referenced far too heavily to sources that are not support for notability, such as raw tables of election results and blogs and YouTube videos and a book's buy-it page on Amazon.com -- and the fewer sources that are reliable source media coverage are almost entirely from her own hometown media, except for a brief glancing namecheck of her existence in a human interest piece about her parents-in-law.
There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was first created by a user whose only other contribution to Wikipedia was an article about Dayna Steele's husband, and has since been "managed" primarily by a user who has periodically returned to update it with new information at random intervals over the course of six years, but has never contributed to Wikipedia on any other topic whatsoever -- so if that user isn't Dayna Steele herself, then it's almost certainly a friend, a family member or a paid PR agent.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of establishing that she would pass any of our subject-specific notability criteria, but the sourcing isn't even close to getting her over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a reference. A long-time big city radio dj who earned the moniker "First Lady of Rock 'n Roll" is presumably notable. I'm seeing coverage in WP:RS, and there seems to be some print coverage from the '80s that needs to be looked into. Any WP:AUTO or WP:COI issues can be corrected with edits. StonyBrook (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That moniker was bestowed on her by the local radio station where she worked. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is weak, local, and/or brief, even though her enthusiastic self-promotion does get her mentioned in some non-local media. Her careers have been minor and local. And although she has had a series of careers, her claim to notability in any of them remains unclear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notethat User:Muboshgu tagged page and discussed PROMO tone on talk over a year ago, but the SPAs editing the page have responded only by doubling down on the ADVERT tone and content.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourcing is very weak for someone involved in politics and who works in the media. Definitely a WP:PROMO as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:32, 8 July 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) 01:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sumarria Lunn Gallery[edit]

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

I can't see how the topic of this WP:SPA-created page is notable. The gallery gets about 12 news hits, all relating to discussion of work or artists who had shown or been shown there. I do not see any of the substantial in-depth coverage of the business itself that would either justify having an article or enable us to write it – though the Independent article is a small step in that direction. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to suggest a merge to Will Lunn, but notability by our standards is marginal there as well. GNG and NCORP fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of those sources that are about the gallery and not what it is showing... Whitehot Magazine of Contemporary Art probably satisfies as being sustained coverage in a WP:RS. The 2 Dazed features are interviews so don't count. There's a bit more than just an announcement (albeit along with an interview, which has to be discounted) in The Independent in 2011. If Whitehot is a RS then that totals 1.5 by my reckoning, not enough to build an article on yet but enough to think that one could be salvageable given a deeper hunt for sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the Whitehot Magazine meet the criteria for establishing notability but I don't think any of the others are. Hopefully another reference can be found (I am unable to locate any) but if not, I would say Delete. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - not the best article, but this is about a gallery in a major art district, with at least a couple of in-depth, reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unremarkable private gallery; available sourcing fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:18, 13 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Sobel[edit]

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

Article has had a notability tag for seven years, and I'm not finding any sources that aren't self-published or passing mentions. The only sources in the article relate to the subject winning a non-notable award and being nominated for another award that doesn't seem notable either. It also appears the article was deleted in 2010 for similar notability issues. Aspening (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant independent sourcing. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see lots of news pieces written by her, but none about her, and without the latter it's impossible to write a proper and neutral article. This is especially important for BLPs. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. It can't be good if one of the 2 sources is a listing naming them as the Top 40 Promotion of the Year...among 5 others, all unencyclopedic entities themselves. StonyBrook (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article, the subject fails GNG and also it's not notable.Forest90 (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:ANYBIO is not automatically passed by every winner of just any award that exists; it requires notable awards that get reliable source media coverage. But there's none about the awards, and there's none about her as a person either, but nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to get over WP:GNG on the sources. This is also a likely conflict of interest, as the article was created by an WP:SPA with no non-Sobel-related edit history — but Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and is not a place where people are entitled to place their own résumés for the publicity if they don't have reliable source media coverage to make them notable. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 14 July 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Nicholson[edit]

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

Jenny Nicholson has requested that this article be taken down. Personal information has already been removed by various users because she expressed discomfort with the details having been shared due to a stalker in the past, but Ms. Nicholson would prefer to not even have a page, as it's likely that people will still try to add that information or refer to what was previously there. One user (likely assuming the deletions were malicious) has already been reverting deletions made by users attempting to remove personal information on the subject, hence the ask to remove the entire page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickycrayon (talk • contribs) 21:40, July 7, 2019 (UTC)

It’s clear that it’s one or two people who are adding the personal information and it’s making her feel uncomfortable. It’s an abuse of the system and it’s better off being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B163:79C:88DE:A871:4FFC:6A2A (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I understand there are privacy concerns with this article, I do not know that deletion of the entire article should be a solution if this article meets the criteria of notability for living persons. If it does I recommend keeping it if the privacy issues can be rectified. We do not want to set dangerous precedents that subjects can start dictating what should be and should not be in articles about them or even if there is one about them, lest we start having issues with neutral point of view. --Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 22:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with No1Lakersfan, the subject is notable enough to warrant an article, but given how bizarrely personal the article was before it was edited I feel like the page needs protection/semi-protection or someone to watch the page and make sure it's okay. In the interim I will vote to keep the article, but there needs to be closer monitoring. More importantly this needs to not happen again, so extending protection as long as possible would be best. AngryZinogre (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fully respecting Ms. Nicholsons feelings of unease and agreeing with any edits deemed fit to rectify this situation. The information may have been too detailed but it's inaccurate to label as extraordinarily personal as it was readily available through her influential social media platforms for her large audience and regarded topics she routinely discusses as a Youtuber and influencer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightFluttershy (talk • contribs) 01:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would second protecting for as long as possible if the page cannot or should not be removed, and I would contest the notion that information is "readily available" on social media. Ms. Nicholson clearly stated earlier today that information contained in the page as of earlier today would have to be found by doing quite a bit of digging back into her social media accounts; not to get too much into semantics, but that's not the same as "readily available" as in "something you can find by looking at her own Twitter bio or website". Trickycrayon (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - While IMDb is not a good source of information for Wikipedia, it does have some of the same information that was being displayed here. Yes some of what was posted someone ‘dug’ up, but some of it is out there just by searching Google. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 02:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Already agreed with whatever action the team deems correct but respectfully, what content would we have on every actor, musician, writer and content creators page on this site if not information that's been "dug up" as opposed to a few sentences they post on their facebook, instagram or twitter bios. Her DOB is on her imdb, her city of residence on twitter, her patreon count on patreon and numerous articles about her or even written by her are all a google search away but stripped from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightFluttershy (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's obvious that the majority of the additions made to her page grossly violates the BLP standards and that the only neutral things that can be put on her article right now is what is already on there. Because of that, I don't think she's particularly notable enough to warrant a wikipedia page, and thus I vote to delete this page as well. Victory in Germany (talk) 05:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nicholson is on the edge of notability, and we should honor her request. WP:BLP says to consider people's privacy and the possibility of causing harm. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. PearlSt82 (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proper sources of the subject other than databases or primary that do not establish notability and given the privacy issues along with her wishes, it's better than the article doesn't exist. : Zubin12 (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Normally, I'm against having articles on Youtube celebrities but Ms. Nicholson is IMO one of the exceptions. There are reliable sources that mention her, she's one of the most notoriable of people who make their living on Youtube. Here are 3: https://www.slashfilm.com/the-women-of-solo-deserved-better/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/02/24/lets-ignore-youtubes-worst-creators-for-a-moment-and-watch-these-8-channels-we-actually-love/?utm_term=.a713c91791ca https://www.looper.com/146099/disney-breaks-silence-on-will-smiths-genie/ The question of having personal information is another issue. It seems her page has been locked but I don't recall any personal info being in previous versions of this page. But if there were those should be removed there is no need to delete the entire article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- "most notoriable" is extremely subjective and, to be honest, inaccurate. There are thousands of creators who are more well known, have higher subscriber counts, etc.; it's not as though she is a notable exception among YouTubers. Trickycrayon (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to an online article in the Washington Post (see link above, clearly a wp:reliable source) she is one of 8 Youtube original content creators that stand out from the rest.
    - Is a single source enough? This is a fluff piece. I'm not saying that Nicholson isn't great, but this is about one degree away from a Buzzfeed listicle, and isn't "these are the most notoriable YouTubers", but "here are some fun ones we like". Trickycrayon (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources, which hasn't been demonstrated. She has plenty of short mentions, and appears in some lists of YouTube channels, but that doesn't really cut it, as the length of the article as it stands shows. There's not enough RS coverage of Nicholson to write an encyclopedia article about her, for now. Ralbegen (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you judging based on the article as it currently stands? Because there WERE references to newspaper articles where she is singled out as one of a few Youtubers who actually are making a name for themselves but those references are now gone as someone took a hatchet to the article for no reason that I can understand and now that the article is locked (as well as previous versions) it's hard to find those references. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MadScientistX11: An administrator locked the article and made previous versions invisible due to serious BLP violations. I'm judging the reliable source coverage based on looking for appropriate sources. Being singled out by a newspaper doesn't necessarily constitute significant coverage, and I've not been able to find any RS coverage that I think is significant. The article in its previous state was dominated by primary sourced material. Ralbegen (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. This version (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenny_Nicholson&direction=prev&oldid=897872177) had 27 sources, of which 16 were mainstream news outlets. 86.41.176.226 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article revision noted here does not have the privacy issues that have brought about this whole process, and the sources noted are reputable, it appears notability can be established. I do care about the privacy aspect, but if there is enough information available on the subject that does not breach privacy (if it’s published in a secondary source it’s public knowledge anyway) the article has merit. The content that breached privacy primarily came from social media, a source that can have its issues with being a good source depending on what it is cited for.

Long story short, I hope this aspect of the discussion will be considered along with all the other information. Hopefully this will become a lesson for the subject on publicly sourced info, and for everyone else on how to handle privacy issues.--Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this page which as a fan is a bit awkward. Is the page as I created it (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jenny_Nicholson&oldid=900988298) so bad? I did search her Twitter just to see where she went to school and to confirm her birthdate (it was already on IMDB) . To be honest I don't like the idea that a celebrity can just ask that a page on them can be deleted and wikipedia users just jump to it. Maybe it could remove any personal info. Sheila1988 (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The swift addition of further extremely personal details by other users is what became problematic, and the concern is that it could happen again. As far as celebrity goes, see other comments on WP:GNG. Trickycrayon (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - We are conflating two issues here. One issue is that allegedly (I haven't seen the evidence) inapropriate personal info kept being added to her article. The other is whether her article meets the standards for wp:notability I think she does meet the standard. The personal info can and should be dealt with in other ways such as protecting the page and/or blocking the editors who keep putting it back in. The personal info question has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether her article should be deleted. And it's hard to make the case for notability now that the page is locked and all that is there is a stub with all the references that were there in the past gone. I've actually participated in a few AFDs where I always argued against "Youtube celebrities" and when I stumbled across this article my first thought was I might nominate it for deletion but when I looked at the references (now no longer there) they seemed to be enough to merit an article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just addressing both points brought up by the original author. Information such as when Nicholson worked in what position at Disneyland Park, when she left, her horse's name, etc. were added to the article. This is particularly inappropriate due to past stalking behavior and Nicholson's concern for her safety if information is aggregated about her in an easily searchable/public place. We can disagree on notability all day long, I suppose, but I'm also concerned about safety here. Trickycrayon (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NPF and the subject not wanting the article in the first place. We don't like sourcing to IMDb, and I know TVTropes certainly isn't meeting our sourcing guidelines in the first place. Not a lot of WP:GNG either (please don't bother responding about the past state of the article either, it isn't germane to the as-is state of the article now, nor could I even comment on it as I'm not an admin). Definitely keep the salting until the subject both wants an article, and it's not written in a privacy violating manner. Nate • (chatter) 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tv Tropes is not cited as a source, just an external link. Wikipedia generally does not ask people whether they want an article or not. The advice you linked to seems good: exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution; see § Using the subject as a self-published source. I mean, we get endless comment about lack of coverage of women on Wikipedia, but i don't think we should cover any living women if the whole thing can be salted at the subject's whim. Sheila1988 (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if someone can find sufficient secondary sources to meet WP:BLP guidelines (note: not just any secondary sources, but reliable and verifiable ones) then they should do so. The article doesn't meet these criteria now and going through the history, it never really has. Heavily citing her personal twitter page as past versions did is a gross violation of WP:NOR sthomson06 (Talk) 20:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are tons of new secondary sources now that I check. The "younglings" affair earned a whole article from Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/star-wars-galaxys-edge-cast-younglings-disney-1442668) - There are few bigger Star Wars fans than movie YouTuber Jenny Nicholson, another namecheck from CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/04/you-can-buy-jedi-robes-at-star-wars-galaxys-edge-but-cant-wear-them.html), another list of "top YT channels" on Mashable (https://sea.mashable.com/culture/4296/7-youtube-channels-to-watch-when-you-need-to-kill-some-time) and a mention on /Film (https://www./theme-park-bits-disneyland-childcare-shocking-water-park-news-and-more/), I don't know if there's an exact metric of what makes an Internet videomaker "notable" but i can see we need to work out something Sheila1988 (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this will ever be a sufficient BLP because of the credible chance of harm to the subject. In particular, while not necessarily disputing notability, it looks to me right now as though additional information that doesn't violate WP:NOR and meets notability criteria for inclusion in the article will pretty much always also increase the chance of harm to the subject, and so should not be included per WP:BLP - Astrophobe (talk) 07:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Echoing what's been said above, given Ms. Nicholson's questionable notability and own personal uneasiness with the article, I believe delation for the time being is the proper course of action. If she becomes more notable in the future, I think an article could be remade, but given the current situation it seems unnecessary. If a new article is made at any point, it should definitely be monitored carefully. ViolaCola (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I would agree that the subject is notable, they have requested deletion. We have precedent for complying with these requests, see CGP Grey and edits around his name. While this would not technically be a G7 speedy (as she is not the author of the article), we also have the Speedy Deletion criteria for authors who request a page be deleted. In the CGP Grey case, we as editors maintain Grey's privacy because we're decent human beings (sometimes). In its current form, there are very few WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV to make this viable in the long-term. I agree with Astrophobe's assessment above. Nicholson has a variety of published articles and mainstream mentions, but to get the type of information that we get on other BLP candidates would involve a level of invasion of privacy that would at the very least violate the spirit of WP:NOR. I know that the intentions of Sheila1988, MadScientistX11, No1lakersfan and TwilightFluttershy are good (I hope), and this is not a suggestion that Nicholson is not talented or notable in Youtube spaces, but we should consider if this is really worth the amount of personal strain that this may cause to the subject of the article, and how much reliable information could theoretically be obtained without violating her privacy. Bkissin (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We could perhaps prevent the article from being a tool for stalkers — indefinitely semi-protect it, etc. — but deletion is simpler, and her wiki-notability is at most borderline. The available sourcing does not demonstrate that having an article on Nicholson is necessary to serve the public interest. (Unlike Lindsay Ellis, say, who is a Hugo nominee, received a lengthy profile in Wired, and so forth, the news stories "about" Nicholson are basically tweets quoted with stuff in the margins.) XOR'easter (talk) 21:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on WP:PERSON. This was not as clear-cut a case as I expected; I'm basing it on this revision, as noted above, which had 22 footnotes. It does not appear to me that there is enough coverage from independent reliable sources focused on Nicholson herself. Please note, I'm not arguing that this is a grey area in which we should act in accordance with her preferences; rather, it seems to me that regardless of the request, this is a subject that does not meet our guidelines for inclusion. It's possible that I'm missing something; a well-formed "keep" vote would need to include a list of several reliable sources, with significant focus on her (as opposed to merely quoting her). The quotes-as-an-expert help, but in the absence of anything besides the Washington Post article that are substantially about her or her work or focus on her beyond a short quotation, and in strong publications, this should be a "delete." -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the matter is resolved so be it but a lot of people are talking about her relevance or lack there of, she does have two published articles on Playboy.com https://www.playboy.com/read/bert-ernie-sesame-street-gay and https://www.playboy.com/read/disney-princess-problems-kristen-bell I don't think anyone mentioned these so just FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwilightFluttershy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Remove the BLP-inappropriate content, and this article is just "Jenny Nicholson makes videos, mostly about Star Wars and Disney". Not notable, and there is not enough information to support an article beyond a stub. Smurrayinchester 12:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oceana Rain Stuart[edit]

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

GNG fail. I came across this article when it was much larger and contained much more puffery. I cut a significant amount of material, and along the way realised that this is essentially a puff-up job on a non-notable artist. Yes, you can find one or two profiles out there, but the vast majority of coverage is insignificant, as is most of what is claimed. Virtually all aspects were puffed up. The main editor of the page has persistently restored the the puffed-up version and removed notability tags and the like over a number of years.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable artist does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Two of the citations in the article are non-neutral, in that the "online gallery" www.lightspacetime.art list of "Top 25 artists" is of artists in their own online gallery (thus a financial COI). The other questionable citation is the one in Southwest Art - it's a special section where artists or their galleries can purchase space in the magazine for promotional purposes. The National Sculpture Awards citation is a press release listing many artists. Nom is accurate - the article is a promotional puff-piece. Netherzone (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. She has (allegedly) an art work in a collection founded by Napoleon. That's it. Bearian (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm an inexperienced user, the author of Oceana Rain Stuart, and have COI. I've ceased from editing the page further, and have been trying to get feedback on the page. Though I admit the possibility of WP:TOOSOON, my humble assertion is that perhaps this artist's record of exhibitions qualifies her for notability. I am not interested in a "puff piece" as asserted above. My only goal is to make this an honest, legitimate article. This article is currently being judged entirely via its remaining content. Deletions performed immediately before coming to "article for deletion" removed better evidence of the artist's notability. I've included several citations below (in external link format for now) that might help substantiate notability in the absence of content in the article. "...vast majority is insignificant". Not sure if the reviewers here are familiar with the organizations represented here, but these are not "insignificant" exhibitions, but rather some of the most prestigious art orgs in the US. Many have WP articles themselves. Please disregard the Southwest Art and lightspacetime articles. Happy to have them removed. These are the important ones.
- To User:Bearian: perhaps this link helps resolve the questions of this artist's inclusion in the permanent collection in Catania (see [1])
- Special Honors (ARC, MEAM and Portrait Society of America are world-class art orgs)
  - Finalist, Sculpture Category, Art Renewal Center (ARC) 14th ARC Salon Competition [2], March 2019.
  - Non-Commissioned Portrait Finalist, Portrait Society of America 2018 Members Only Competition 2018 [3], Portrait Society of America, 2018.
  - Pre-Selected Work, Figurativas 2017, Museu Europeu d'Art Modern (MEAM) [4], Barcelona, Spain, September 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdtompkins (talk • contribs) 06:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary Exhibitions: The artist has exhibited her work in numerous museums on a temporary basis, admitted by jury selection/invitation. These links were formerly included in the article (in WP citation format), but deleted in the prelude to tagging the article for deletion:
  - Jury-Selected Artist, Marietta/Cobb Museum of Art Metro Montage XIX Juried Exhibition (see [5] - NOTE: artist's name listed), Marietta, GA, July-September 2019.
  - Jury-Selected Artist, Wausau Museum of Contemporary Art International Biennial Portrait Competition 2019 (see [6] NOTE: artist's name listed), Wausau, WI, April-June 2019.
  - Jury-Selected Artist, California Art Club 108th Annual Gold Medal Exhibition (see [7]), former location of Pasadena Museum of California Art, March 2019.
  - Jury-Selected Artist, Salmagundi Art Club "Figuratively Speaking: An Exhibition of Portraiture & Figurative Art" (see [8]), New York, NY, February-March 2019.
  - Jury-Selected Artist, American Women Artists "Full Sun: American Women Artists Illuminate the Haggin Museum" (see [9] NOTE: artist's name and artwork listed), Haggin Museum, Stockton, CA, August-September, 2018.
  - Jury-Selected Artist, California Art Club 107th Annual Gold Medal Exhibition (see [10]), Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, CA, June-July 2018.
  - Jury-Selected Artist, California Art Club "Art Between the Lines" Exhibition (see [11]), Peninsula Museum of Art, Burlingame, CA, April 2018.
  - Jury-Selected Artist, Catharine Lorillard Wolfe Art Club 121st Annual National Exhibition (see [12]), National Arts Club, New York, NY, January 2018.
  - Jury-Selected Artist, National Sculpture Society 84th Annual Exhibition (see [13] NOTE: artist's name listed), Brookgreen Gardens, Murrells Inlet, SC, October 2017.
- Also appears in media - these are better than the articles listed on the current page:
  - Featured in: Masters of Contemporary Fine Art, Volume 3, Pedro Boaventura (editor), Art Galaxie (publisher), ISBN-13: 9789895428908 (see [14])
  - Interview: On Art and Aesthetics (see [15]), March 17, 2018.
  - Interview: The Guide Artists (see [16]), February 2018.
  - Interview: L'Italo-Americano (see [17], January 9, 2018.

Pdtompkins (talk) 06:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC) — Pdtompkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think you might have made a typo above when you said "most prestigious art orgs in the US"; it is plain that these are not very prestigious at all. That's the core of the notability problem (as well as the fact that these are mostly low-calibre member shows and open-call exhibitions). When you pack an article full of low-calibre sources, it looks puffed up. We deal all the time with notable artists, and they do not show generally at the California Arts Club. They show at major museums regularly, and in notable galleries. All in all, there are one or two items above that are passable, but it's not enough. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Theredproject: for his input on this. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I listed this at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Visual_arts#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oceana_Rain_Stuart. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:ThatMontrealIP, I humbly disagree with your assertion that the organizations holding these exhibitions are not prestigious or well-known. There is a revival of figurative and representational art that is taking place via these organizations and others. As listed in my post above, this artist's work has been jury selected by these organizations. Some notes on each:

about the organizations where she exhibits; click to show

- California Art Club: Highly respected and one of the most active arts organizations in California (founded in 1909), promoting representational art in all forms. Their juried exhibitions (in part by curators of the museums venues) are held at significant museums across the state (e.g. Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History). They select notable artists nationwide, and attract significant public viewership and known art patrons and collectors. Ms. Stuart is also a jury-elected member at CAC.
- National Arts Club: Founded in 1898 to "stimulate, foster, and promote public interest in the arts and to educate the American people in the fine arts". A survey of the former membership on WP indicates noteworthy artist representation. The 121st Catharine Lorillard Wolfe Art Club juried exhibition was held there as a benefit to the Metropolitan Museum, where a member of their Board of Trustees was co-master-of-ceremonies.
- Salmagundi Club: A fine arts center founded in 1871, and another active supporter of the fine arts, also with notable membership, per WP.
- MEAM is a highly prestigious museum in Barcelona, with a focus on contemporary figurative art. They hold an exhibition annually, Figurativas, that is highly competitive, with broad, notable international participation on the jury (e.g. Odd Nerdrum). They are also affiliated with the Spanish Artelibre Gallery, which also represents Ms. Stuart [18].
- Art Renewal Center is an organization specializing in and promoting contemporary realism and the 21st century representational art movement. Their annual ARC Salon competition is "the largest and most prestigious competition in the world for realist artists painting, sculpting and drawing today". Finalists and winners are considered to be at the pinnacle of this artform. Their board reflects serious depth and credibility.
- Portrait Society of America: Founded in 1998. Formed as an "educational organization dedicated to furthering the traditions of fine art portraiture and figurative art through programs and publications."
Jury selection, achieved over a broad list of reputable organizations (as this artist has done), is an indication of notability built on artistic merit. This process should tend to remove bias that might otherwise be present under a single exhibition or a single organization.
Addressing the rationale for having at one point added numerous links to this article: in my WP inexperience, it wasn't clear how to substantiate notability in the face of assertions to the contrary. My response was to add content to counter those claims. If this was the wrong approach, I stand corrected. My aim was not "puffery", as asserted above.
Bottom line, this forum is meant to determine whether this artist meets the WP notability criteria. I posit that the criteria listed in WP:ARTIST are excellent guides, but not 100% objective. My opinion is that the artist satisfies 4c ("The person's works have (c) won significant critical attention"), Her work is also in the permanent collection in the Museo Arte Contemporanea Sicilia in Catania, Sicily.

What is the WP process for breaking this deadlock? If we don't get additional input by Sunday (7 days), how will this be resolved? According to WP policy, this is not a vote but seeks "rough consensus". If I am the sole proponent of keeping the article, is "rough consensus" achieved? Also, from WP, deletion should be considered an option of last resort ("If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page"), with improvement a preferred option ("When in doubt, don't delete"). I would appreciate guidance here on process, and am looking forward to coming to a resolution. Thank you kindly for your attention. Respectfully, Pdtompkins (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)— Pdtompkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We ask COI editors to refrain from being disruptive, which is what you are doing when you paste huge walls of text into discussions by well-intentioned neutral editors who do not have a conflict of interest. In the interests of keeping this a neutral discussion, I am going to collapse your walls of text above. If people want to read them, they can click "show".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Press coverage from WSAW TV news of the Wausau competition [19]. Media discuss the level of competition involved. The artist's work is prominently featured (female bust).
Touristic coverage of Museo Arte Contemporanea Sicilia (MacS) [20]. Artist's work briefly featured at 1:48.

Pdtompkins (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pdtompkins: you ask "If I am the sole proponent of keeping the article, is "rough consensus" achieved?" The answer is "Yes". If all involved impartial editors have argued for deletion, then deletion wins. But if you can improve the article, by citing (in the article, not here) better independent evidence of notability, please go ahead and do that. Maproom (talk) 22:52, 13 July 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) 20:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Piggott[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Spent his whole career in the UK leagues and was never a First-All Star in the EIHL. Tay87 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't appear to have enough recognition. Barca (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's not notable subject.Forest90 (talk) 11:10, 13 July 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. nn-bio, likely nn-autobio — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhijnan Roychowdhury[edit]

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

Prod was removed by a possible sock of the article creator who has a conflict of interest. I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that independent of the subject per WP:GNG and there is no evidence of satisfying WP:NAUTHOR. The current sources are just name checks and contain no significant coverage of him. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 18:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GSS, I've tagged this for speedy deletion as G12, therefore speedy delete. StudiesWorld (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: Promotionality, notability, sockpuppet violations, WP:TOOSOON, they all fly. ThatLawStudent (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are some sources I listed which show coverage of him and his books. http://digitalwriterslab.in/author.php, http://www.abasar.net/Book_reviewyoungadults.html, https://ekapornika.blogspot.com/2017/09/blog-post_26.html I'm not sure what else qualifies as coverage. I also have no undisclosed pay COI as I was simply asked by him and his readers to write this article. Abhyuday10 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 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) 20:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rana Abrar[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Was proviously nominated and deleted in 2018. Lapablo (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom – I don't see one single source with any of the sort of in-depth coverage of this person that would (a) show that we need an article on him and (b) allow us to write one. Disclosure: I declined a G4 request here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE: I agree with the WP:TOOSOON on this one. Zero films released yet. ThatLawStudent (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking out a !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO and a sheer lack of reliable sources. I also looked at both the claimed films. Dajjal: The Slayer and His Followers is overstuffed with dead links, trailers, blatant PROMO, film promo blogs, and social media. Not clear to me that there is any reliable journalism or RS reviews on the film. Ditto for The Evil Marriage with the caveat that I am certain that none of the sources used is a WP:RS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Yeo[edit]

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

A local councillor and failed parliamentary candidate does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Not enough significant, independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeo hasn't received WP:SUSTAINED coverage. A significant majority of the media coverage is limited to a short period of time and a single event. Ralbegen (talk) 10:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being a member of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party is probably enough for notability, but she has also served as its chair and as president of a fairly major trade union. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of these roles offer inherent notability.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Chair of the Labour NEC is not a trivial post. Moreover there is more than adequate media coverage over the years. Atchom (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the preamble to WP:N states "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In this case I think that the significant posts that this person has held means that in any real-world sense she is notable and, if necessary, she should be one of the "occasional exceptions". Just Chilling (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'KEEP': this isn't promoting anyone, it's just the facts. would give benefit of doubt on GNG. ThatLawStudent (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking out a !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think she meets notability as chair of the Labour Party NEC and her defection to UKIP certainly attracted a lot of media coverage and comment. Dunarc (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Necrothesp and Dunarc. Bondegezou (talk) 12:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she clearly held notable posts and has coverage. William2001^(talk) 17:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Necrothesp, meets notability requirements for her significant roles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Necrothesp. Clear notability supported by sources already on page.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep, it's notable subject and also well sourced, too.Forest90 (talk) 11:11, 13 July 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. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gobby[edit]

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

Still not notable. References from previous AFD still not sufficient for notability. Clnreee (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Clnreee (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not pitching in this time - but if the authors can't be bothered to actually make use of the sources put forward as demonstrating notability, this subject ain't going anywhere. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep: While its obvious some to the [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] were at [Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gobby (2nd nomination)] I'm a little slow ... I'd also add [26]. I've also note some cite embellishment on the article and added another (I'd have probably used Elmidae ref's when I tweaked it had I spotted them first!. We meet WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE. Everything here shows signs of AfD exhaustion. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Addotta[edit]

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

Not seeing anything that satisfies WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of online sources is a reflection of the fact he was more of a 1970's and 80's era guy, but subject is notable as he passes WP:ENT per numerous appearances on Johnny Carson's Tonight Show, Mike Douglas Show, Dick Clark, etc., as well as a modest stint as one of the celebrities on Hollywood Squares. Article should be expanded beyond stub if someone ever digs up something among pre-internet print coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are likely out there; just not digitized yet. TeriEmbrey (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Seems to have enough WP:SIGCOV poking through on the web to indicate that a lot more would be found if we dig into non-web sources. Also probably meets WP:ENT unless the already-found sources are lying: Multiple appearances on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson is the sign of a notable performer, presuming he was introduced by name. Already found an article from 1986, one from 1993, and an article and 2 podcast interviews from 2018:
1. Callan, John (1986-07-14). "Kip Addotta Sings About Veggies, but He's Just Arugula Guy". People. Vol. 26, no. 2. Time, Inc. Retrieved 2019-07-14.
2. VanerKnyff, Rick (1993-08-05). "COMEDY : Favorites From His 'Toy Chest'". Los Angeles Times (online ed.). Retrieved 2019-07-14.
3. Thomas, Bryan (2018-08-01). ""Life in the Slaw Lane": Comedian Kip Addotta talks about veggies but he's just arugula guy". Night Flight. Retrieved 2019-07-14. — also mentions the "two-page profile from July 14, 1986" in People magazine (above), and says: During his peak in the mid-Seventies, Kip Addotta made regular appearances on “The Tonight Show,” “The Merv Griffin Show,” “The Mike Douglas Show,” Don Kirschner’s “Rock Concert” and “The Midnight Special,” and lots of other TV shows, including four years as one of the challengers on the syndicated series “Make Me Laugh.” Addotta appeared so frequently on “The Tonight Show” that he’d often fly by private jet to Burbank
4. Mr. Media Interviews by Bob Andelman, #831: Kip Addotta, comedian, author, "Kip Addotta: Confessions of a Comedian" — not sure if this is a major source, but it's an interview and on Apple Podcasts; during the time when Addotta was promoting his autobiography
5. CooperTalk Episode 691: Kip Addotta — an 2018 podcast interview, also when Addotta was making the rounds promoting his autobiography

--Closeapple (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A bit more coverage. 1 - Ferguson, Lisa (18 July 2003), "Comedy's downfall no laughing matter for Addotta", Las Vegas Sun. 2 - Cohen, Amanda (8 April 1995), "Being funny is enough", Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Coverage is over a long time period. Career was big before interweb so likely more offline coverage exists. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 14 July 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 Fear the Walking Dead characters#Troy Otto. Sandstein 08:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Otto[edit]

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

Virtually no real world notability. Should be a redirect, but some editors insist on turning it into a non-notable article. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:26, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, redirect or delete : As non-notable. If there is a list someone will, and likely should, try to create an article, but the many fictional characters that are not actually notable, have very large almost always unsourced plots (many examples: Nick Clark (character)), and usually only a couple of sources period, is an indication stand alone status is not warranted. Otr500 (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since the rumors came out about him returning to the show, there's been plenty of media coverage about him. There's also a petition dedicated to him. Seems notable to me. The Optimistic One (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, none of which is actual significant coverage showing real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not the material here for an WP:OUTUNIVERSE encyclopaedia article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Fear_the_Walking_Dead_characters#Troy_Otto. As mentioned, there are no real sources that discuss this character in any way outside of plot summary, except for the brief surge of incorrect information that he would be in an upcoming season, which turned out to be ultimately false. As the character is already present in the List of Fear the Walking Dead characters article, and is a plausible search term, a Redirect to his section there would make more sense than a deletion. Rorshacma (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 23:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Leipzig[edit]

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

the sources cited in the article are generally about the projects Adam Leipzig worked on. At least one editor of this article, user:Todhardin, is a close associate: he contributes to the blog that Adam Leipzig started^[1] The other accounts that have edited the article have him as their sole topic of interest. 1Veertje (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.culturalweekly.com/author/tod/

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: Ugg... I think he meets GNG but it gets real cringy promotional at the end. ThatLawStudent (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This could go either way but ultimately, I agree with ThatLawStudent. In fact, couldn't have said it better myself! MaskedSinger (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's after I removed the worse bits. I suspect he thinks his farts smell like roses because an equation he came up with that happens to validate any salary for media executives is a theory and a blog post about a vague prediction warrents a hypothesis to be named after him. 1Veertje (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Being an executive in a movie studio that puts out product makes one notable why? Some cite links either don't work or don't mention the subject, and writing a column or two for The New York Times doesn't cut it. StonyBrook (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article was indeed created by an inexperienced COI/SPA. But the thing is,this movie producer/promoter/corporate exec is notable. I have added a little sourcing to the page, which needs work. But this passes WP:CREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting the CREATIVE part, I see only promotion, making things happen behind the scenes and some public speaking. But I see you've added some paper sources. StonyBrook (talk) 14:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well, not exactly paper. I use online archives, in this case Proquest newspapers, because it is really hard for editors attempting a good faith BEFORE to access the impact that a 2005 film had. PAYWALLS. ugh. I know. But we're talking about stuff like the Los Angeles Times giving Leipzig and his new genre INDEPTH coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. I have now clarified that. The Washington Post, New York Times and other INDEPTH coverage credits him with creating a new genre of film by reinventing nature documentaries, i.e. that his redesign of a run-of-the mill French nature documentary with dramatic music, and a great voice over gave the MILL nature flick drama and narrative drive, turning ho-hum-wanna-learn-about-birds into the prize winning blockbuster March of the Penguins. Creating a new genre (which is also charaterized by the fact that it refrains from showing much "nature red and tooth and claw" footage) is a CREATIVE act.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - assuming good faith, this appears to be more than an ordinary producer. Bearian (talk) 19:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

most of the sources talk about the projects that he supervised, not him. Most of this work is not something you would link to him if you were to write an article as an outsider. Starting over would be more efficient than editing out the enormous bias in this article. 1Veertje (talk) 07:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the additional references added to the article since nomination that show significant coverage in reliable sources such as The New York Times, Washington Post and so on, so WP:Basic is passed. Regarding promo content that can be edited out and watched for by neutral editors, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 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) 01:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Givenchy[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper, just 7 mentions on Google News. Fails WP:NMG. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 7 July 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) 20:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vira Konstantynova[edit]

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

Non-notable Ukrainian politician, fails WP:BIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interviews can't be used to establish notability per WP:IS. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: To be fair I think she just thought she could make a page like on linkedin. wasn't maliciousThatLawStudent (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination fails WP:BIO. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Search doesn't reveal anything meaningful in reliable sources. SilkTork (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and it also lacks notability. Barca (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and failing WP:BIO. William2001^(talk) 17:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE HOW VAIN DOES A POL HAVE TO BE TO PUT UP A PAGE SOURCED EXCLUSIVELY TO STUFF SHE WROTE?A.Jacobin (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate your zeal, but please take a look at WP:SHOUT. Not a huge deal, but it's something. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 19:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Hills[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this golf course designer. Refs are mentions,"Designed by Arthur Hills" and one CV. Nothing independent and reliable that discusses him. Reads more like an advert for his business. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 14:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as a landscape architect, he fails WP:PROF, and as a business person, he fails WP:CORP. His courses are generally ordinary and not notable. The sourcing is weak. Bearian (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep well known golf course architect. The nominator should have done a thorough WP:BEFORE. WP:NEXIST See non trivial coverage, here Cincinati Enquirer, Golf Advisor, and non-trivial here, Also in Golf Channel and many more. It is clear that this subject is a leader in his field which passes WP:ANYBIO. The more than passing mention, non-trivial secondary source coverage is abundant. Ohio golf, World Property Journal Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per Lightburst. Seems to be a top golf course designer and the citations already on the page demonstrate his notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A burst of light has been shined upon the truth, coverage enough to easily pass the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 03:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Talented and prolific golf course designer. Easily passes notability guidelines. A no-brainer keep in my opinion. ♥Golf (talk)
Keep The article needs considerable improvement, not least better sourcing. But I found it relatively easy to find articles about Hills himself, not just his courses. Here's a good example from the Dayton Daily News which discusses and interviews Hills. To me, he is clearly notable. Railfan23 (talk) 06:07, 11 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kike Gómez[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NFOOTY. Yet to appear in a professional league or an international game. Not meeting WP:GNG either. Hitro talk 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I understand saying that it fails in WP:NFOOTY but their are references for this player playing which looks like it might pass WP:GNG. But in the end I am leaning towards delete. HawkAussie (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who fails NFOOTBALL, and doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The article in Europa Sur is SIGCOV, but I can't find another source to pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibussimulator[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NVG. Fewer than 100 results from a Google search, no significant discussion or reviews from well-known reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 14:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A) Please don't cite an essay for notability of video games. B) See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMSI 2. --Izno (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you search it as "omsi the bus simulator", you get more than a million results. "Omnibussimulator" is used for article title uniqueness as it is the name used in the authors' market. Official English name is "The Bus Simulator", but there are so many bus simulators out there. This article was mostly translated from German Wikipedia. Erkin Alp Güney 15:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: Maybe fix the name, but the video game existed and was notable. There's nothing promoting anyone here, there's no reason to delete it. ThatLawStudent (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— ThatLawStudent (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Cheerio042 (talk · contribs).

Delete I don't see notability here. There is an article about the game on Rock, Paper, Shotgun [27], but nothing much else. I am mostly getting results for Oregon Museum of Science and Industry. Also, I would advise ThatLawStudent to read WP:GNG as to what has to be met which this subject fails (lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources). Plus not being promotional is not the reason to keep it as well. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jovanmilic97 Yes I'm aware of the guidelines, but you're not ever going to find all the sources and in this case I don't even speak german. So I mean look at it, all these add ons from different companies, you gotta give them the benefit of the doubt that it was notable. So next I look to see if anyone is benefiting, ya know is it promotional, are the references padding someones SEO, all that. This is a videogame from 2011, so no one is benefitting. So I'd say keeping it would benefit this work as it's a valid piece of info that's probably notable. ThatLawStudent (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that per WP:NRV "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. German Wiki has a review: [28]; 4players.de looks like a magazine, so I would say it's likely reliable. ~~There is a review from multiplayer.it [29], which looks good, but VG/RS never established reliability of the source one way or another.~~ According to GR, there is a PC Gamer UK review, which I can't seem to locate in the Nov 2011 issue. I want to say more sources exist, but are not cited yet. In any case, the article is not based on these anyway, so it would be a full rewrite anyway, so deleting is not an issue. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hellknowz, the Multiplayer.it is about OMSI 2, not OMSI 1, just as a notice. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsie. Stricken. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shadow keep Existence of so many addons, in addition to those reviews (addons also have reviews, most done in feature-length videos, some independent, some by casual players) do make a game notable. It does not make the addons themselves, though. Erkin Alp Güney 16:26, 14 July 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) 20:52, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eta Uso Jr.[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Sources cited are not about him in a significant way, except for the student magazine article. I am unable to find other sources where he is the main subject of the article.

Page was also previously deleted in 2016 under AfD as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eta Uso. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author also created the deleted 2016 version and curiously they never edited anything else except to recreate the page this year. This is basically covert promotion weaved with a lot of weasel words, unreliable sources and questionable students magazine. No any independent claim of notability.– Ammarpad (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of enough reliable source media coverage to clear WP:GNG, but "subject of enough reliable source media coverage to clear GNG" is not what the sources here are demonstrating. There are nine footnotes here, but one of them is a reduplication of one of the others, so there are really only eight sources — but one just leads to an "access denied" lockout, leaving me unable to verify anything about it at all; two are directly affiliated primary sources published by his own alma mater, not independent coverage that would help to establish notability; two are glancing namechecks of his existence as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else, not coverage which has him as its subject; and three are bylined pieces of his own writing about other subjects, not coverage which has him as its subject. As always, the notability test is not just the ability to verify that he exists — he is not a notable journalist just because his own journalism metaverifies its own existence — but none of these sources establish that he's notable at all. There's also a likely conflict of interest of some sort, if the creator's only contributions to Wikipedia have been multiple attempts to make this article happen — there's no hard evidence as to whether the creator is Eta Uso himself or a friend or colleague or family member of his, but those would all still be conflicts of interest anyway. Bearcat (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There may be a wikipedia language area where he might be notable, but not english. ThatLawStudent (talk) 20:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Although this comment has already been struck, I just want to respond to it anyway so that the fallacy doesn't spread: Wikipedia does not judge notability based on the language of the sources. If a reference is to a genuinely reliable source, then it counts toward notability regardless of whether it's written in English, French, German, Urdu, Swahili or Farsi. The problem here is a lack of reliable or notability-supporting sources, not a lack of English-language footnotes. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does meet criteria of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as a recreation of a page previously deleted at an AfD discussion. PUFF page with no proof of meeting WP:GNG. Sionk (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG and WP:BIO, as well as being slightly promotional. William2001^(talk) 17:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. There's not a single decent source, required per WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 8 July 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) 01:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Chase[edit]

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

Was deprodded without improvement, with the rationale "has sufficient films". However, he has only directed a single notable film, which does not meet WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough significant independent coverage of the subject to merit being considered notable. Listing short films, and articles about films, are not significant coverage of this subject, especially when others are attributed and not this person. It seems this person has not received any significant awards in the film industry. Fails GNG, FILMAKER, and ANYBIO. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:15, 7 July 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) 01:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil's Daughter (2019 film)[edit]

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

Recently released film. Insufficient sourcing available on searches in English, Persian, and Hindi (although as a non-native speaker of the latter two languages, I am reliant on Google translate). Any references to the film I can find (on imdb etc.) do not indicate that it would meet any of the criteria of the specific notability guideline for films. Jack Frost (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - have to agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:15, 7 July 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. If there are BLP or NPOV problems, they should be discussed and addressed through editing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trump derangement syndrome[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Trump derangement syndrome

Articles for deletion/Trump Derangement Syndrome

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

Appears to be a opinion article and non encyclopedic and also might be a BLP violation and also a NOTOPINION violation Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abote2 (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article appears to be well-sourced with multiple reliable, verifiable source that establish notability. I don't think this violates WP:NOTOPINION at all; the term itself is a loaded one, for sure, but I think the article describes it accurately and without violating WP:NPOV. In fact, it appears the article describes how the term has been used and defined by both sides of the political aisle, both by pro-Trump writers to critics of Trump, and by anti-Trump commentators who say it is used by the GOP to discredit criticisms of Trump's actions. Given the subject matter, I think this is a very balanced and well-written article, and a clear Keep vote for me. — Hun ter Ka hn 12:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously notable term that has received ample media coverage. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable term with easy compliance with WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a ridiculous term, which is very clearly used in an effort to shut down any criticism of Trump by challenging the critic's sanity in an ad hominem attack without actually engaging the actual substance of the criticism — but it's clearly a notable term nonetheless, and this is a very well-balanced and well-referenced article about it. Our WP:NPOV rules govern the way we write about our article topics, and do not concern themselves with assessments of whether the subject is itself an inherently "neutral" or "biased" thing — NOTOPINION means that we aren't allowed to express our own political opinions in our own editorial voice, and does not mean that we're not allowed to write neutral and well-sourced and balanced articles about the notable opinions of other people. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this article was nominated for deletion in May 2018, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trump Derangement Syndrome. The system didn't pick up the previous nomination because the capitalization was different then. The result of that discussion was no consensus. --MelanieN alt (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If its notable but don't like how it's written, then why not rewrite it? Deletion is the only solution? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The topic is ridiculous and the article is a patrolling nightmare. On the other hand, the proposed deletion reasons appear invalid. More importantly, it's (unfortunately) notable enough to have an article. —Paleo Neonate – 18:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fully expect numeration in DSM6. ThatLawStudent (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The issues brought up by the person that suggested the deletion make no sense. It's not opinion. It's statements of various people using the terms from a wide variety of backgrounds and sources. It's just more activism and an attempt to suppress speech. Sad! JimmyPiersall (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is definitely a thing, just like Bush derangement syndrome and Obama derangement syndrome.[30] StonyBrook (talk) 04:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although these don't have articles. Well, a merge discussion about this article may eventually happen too despite the AfD... —Paleo Neonate – 07:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Obviously meets WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple reliable sources that significantly cover this, so definitely meets WP:GNG. Disagree with WP:NOTOPINION as this article is not merely expressing disapproval of Trump, but rather explaining this term. William2001^(talk) 17:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I disagree with the concept, but it has been covered widely and deeply. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. No basis in policy to delete. There may be an over-reliance on opinion content, but the article cites a number of reliable sources. Clearly notable. R2 (bleep) 23:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Goodness, whether it's the Los Angeles Times, Psychology Today, or even CNN, this is a discussed topic/malady that has plenty of sources and people afflicted. I just have to open my unfiltered facebook page to see it in action. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems well-covered as a meme or slur, not an actual psychological thing. As long as the focus remains on the former, it is a good article to have. Pendragon0 (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not nearly notable enough50.202.229.150 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Excepting the IP !vote above, this is obviously a speedy keep. Regardless of consensus, the material is encyclopedic, well-sourced, and it’s inherent notability renders WP:Neologism moot. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep Just to pile on... article is clearly very well sourced and meets notability requirements.LM2000 (talk) 09:45, 13 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Belitski[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only 3 games played in the AHL and at least 90 is required for a goaltender so fails #2. Never played in the DEL so fails #3 and no preeminent honours to show for so fails #4 alongside it. Tay87 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was fine under the standards of 2010, when it was created — but our notability standards for hockey players were too loose a decade ago and have been considerably tightened up, and this guy doesn't clear the new higher bar anymore. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 10 July 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 per WP:CSD#G7 (author-requested deletion) by Goodnightmush. The deletion statement notes that WP:REFUND is available on request, but if that happens I hope Slatersteven would be notified so that the AfD can be started again. —David Eppstein (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arghya Bose[edit]

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

It was not notable when it was CSD'd and I am seeing no change. Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:46, 7 July 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Walia[edit]

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

Very clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability test for a mayor is not just the ability to offer technical verification that he exists, by citing a directory entry and the routinely expected reportage of municipal election results — no matter how big the place he's mayor of may be, the notability test for all mayors is always still the ability to write and reliably source some genuinely substantive content about their political impact as mayor. Even in North America, a mayor would still not get an automatic presumption of notability just because a one-line statement that he exists, the end, could technically be referenced to routine verification of the vote totals: the notability test would still hinge on how much substance we could write about his mayoralty. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:22, 7 July 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) 01:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dip Chand Bahman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no RS for Dip Chand Bahman, created by Sock. Meeanaya (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 100% agree with nom MaskedSinger (talk) 17:23, 7 July 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) 01:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dough Related Productions[edit]

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

not my field, but it would serm to me that they have not done enough significant work to be notability DGG ( talk ) 07:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Just to make a note, I created this article. so obviously this goes as a comment because of bias! Having a look at the overall category of Australian hip hop record labels. they are either poorly cited or have no citations at all. defiantly one notable artist on the label also the co founder. Multiple other artists with articles one from the ARIA Charts also they are not just national but international. fits the bill for notability imo. More than happy to have further discussion. Also just a quick edit and also source for "poorly cited labels" Hydrofunk Records is an example. On further reading there are other labels after having a quick check. If this article is deemed to be deleted it would be a great help to move it to a draft so I can continue to develop it. | Passportgang (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable vanity label for non notable artist. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Label does not inherit notability from an artist appearing on the ARIA charts (a claim not backed up). Claims multiple other artists with pages but article only lists one, the founder who shall be going to afd. Label is not notable because other bad articles exist. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "ARIA charts (a claim not backed up)" Did you check that citation? There is no claim on the article of "appearing on the ARIA charts" There is a claim of "being an official ARIA Club Chart DJ" with a citation directly from ARIA. Passportgang (talk) 06:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to the article on the charts themselves, implying the artist on those charts. And that artist does not have an article here. You claim "official ARIA Club Chart DJ". No such thing. Regardless neither would make this label notable. Yes I see that bias you speak of above. According to your user page you first started editing as User:Doughrelated (WP:SPAMNAME). You really should declare conflicts of interest when part of the label itself as that username strongly suggests. Also you should only edit with one account. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - signed one artist who has a an article, which article was created by same editor. Not notable as a corporation, not notable as a record label (publisher of recorded art) and not notable per GNG. Regarding Hydrofunk Records, please see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, and that label has several artists with articles, which is an indication (but not proof) of notability for a record label. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Douglas[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE-- major critical studies, no works in museums. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, base on the artnet profile, this review in CURA magazine, this French-Language review in Artpress, this interview in Hero-magazine with Hans Ulbricht-Obrist (one of the world's top art curators), this short "artists to Watch" piece in W Magazine and this piece in Interview Magazine. It's not a huge amount of coverage, but it does allow me to easily parse who she is and why she is notable. Meets GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 12:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Notable as an artist but not notable enough for a deeper discussion of the meaning behind her artwork. Would shorten to 1-2 sentence stub or just wait for her to break through. ThatLawStudent (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saying not notable enough for a deeper discussion of the meaning behind her artwork does not relate to the deletion policy. If the sources are there, is she not notable?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm pretty sure I can find more sources. BTW, Anne Imhof really needs some work and how is it that we don't have an article on Monika Baer? Vexations (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations, we do now. Feel free to add to Monika Baer.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG, as ThatMontrealIP has said it above, and although some editors may say that her collaboration with Anne Imhof doesn't really count as Imhof is the primary artist and there have been a number of artists involved with her works this piece discussing Sex at the Art Institute of Chicago shows otherwise ie. "Since 2012, Imhof has worked with a core group of collaborators, in particular Eliza Douglas, whose contributions to Sex have been integral to the conceptual and aesthetic development of the work." Coolabahapple (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this subject passes our general notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hylos[edit]

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

This appears to be a non notable prototype content management system. All the sources I can see are papers by the project participants. It does not seem to have been discussed by third parties in reliable sources. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Tend to agree with nom that while there are plenty of articles on the topic (this seems to be a discipline where you are expected to publish 12 times a year...), about 90% seem to be by the project principals - Engelhardt, Schmidt, Lehmann. I'm not going to check through the affiliations of everyone else, but the impression of pushing an in-house product is strong; nothing wrong with that but it's not the wider uptake or coverage we require. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:19, 11 July 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) 01:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9mm Sunrise[edit]

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

After 13 years this article still has no references and absolutely no indication of notability. Seems to be little more than a home-made movie that never got any significant distribution or made any media impact. Railfan23 (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Railfan23 (talk) 06:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG per nom. Cool name though ThatLawStudent (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Striking !vote by a sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 9 July 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. Copy-paste nomination by User:Charmk in revenge for his article being deleted. WP:POINT applies. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 06:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 06:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 7 July 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 Metairie, Louisiana. It's up to editors whether to merge anything that can be sourced from history. Sandstein 08:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Metairie[edit]

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

Buildings mostly are not notable nor that tall. Nothing to indicate that the group as a whole received significant reliable source coverage as required by WP:LISTN Rusf10 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These buildings are largely not notable, nor that tall, with a fairly low cutoff here compared to other article. Not every city with a few buildings that aren't even Skyscrapers needs a tallest buildings list. The tallest are already in List of tallest buildings in Louisiana so a redirect there would work. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Metairie. Not much here. Four of the buildings have their own article; eleven don't. Sourcing is spare in this one. WP:Preserve supports merging rather than deleting. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge Only four of them have their own article, so a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Louisiana makes sense. Or merge it to Metairie. Either place is a valid redirect. Dream Focus 15:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- only three of these buildings have articles, one is a redirect.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Metairie.Djflem (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Re-opening and relisting after a "merge" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per Dream Focus. Actually only two of them have articles specifically about the building, with "East Jefferson General Hospital Tower I" being about a multisite multibuilding organization not the building itself (which is not even mentioned in the organization's article). DMacks (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks:What would you like to merge? Everything is sourced to an unreliable source (Emporis.com).--Rusf10 (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the sources themselves. Neutral facts like like building-height of exceptionally tall buildings can probably be sourced to local documents. But since only the top three on this page are within the top 50 of the state, there's not even anything to add there. Emporis being a poor but only source is a widespread situation among Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States pages (not that I think it's a good or supportable situation, just observing). DMacks (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There is no reliably-sourced content to merge. The only source, Emporis, is user-generated. –dlthewave ☎ 12:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - don't have to throw baby out with bath water, especially from a tall building MaskedSinger (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only source being used is Emporis, which is not a reliable source. I was not able to find any other reliable sources, and it seems that no one else in this discussion was successful at locating any either. Thus, merging improperly sourced information to other articles does not seem appropriate. I would not be too opposed to a Redirect to some of the various potential targets mentioned above, such as List of tallest buildings in Louisiana, however as I don't consider this to be an especially plausible search term, its not a position I would personally endorse. Rorshacma (talk) 20:08, 10 July 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. Nomination withdrawn since notability is established. Tone 08:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian Good Toy Award[edit]

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

I’ve searched in English and for ‘Naziv Dobra’ but don’t turn up any sources apart from the single one cited in the article. If this is all there is, it’s not notable. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the cited reference is of high quality (one of the most respectable daily newspapers in the country using material from the Slovenian Press Agency). The proposer's search simply missed the real coverage because the award's name is "Dobra igrača", not "Naziv Dobra". With the former string, you get tons of results, such as:
- Rules for assigning the "Good Toy" title in the Slovenia's Official Gazette
- 'Dobrih igrač' je več kot 500; 24ur.com
- Ali kupujete igrače z oznako Dobra igrača?; Siol
- Igra - IgraČe. Museum of Architecture and Design (a bit less prominent mention).
- etc... — Yerpo ^Eh? 06:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Thanks for finding these. On this basis I’d like to withdraw my nomination. Mccapra (talk) 07:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PureVPN[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Not an award winning product, fails WP:NPRODUCT.

Reviewed by tech magazines which is their job afterall, not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Owned by Pakistani company which is using it for promotion on WP. Also to add, there was a tilt in previous discussion toward deletion too. Störm (talk) 04:11, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ... the Owned by Pakistani company as part of the nom. reason means I will not be supporting it. Article was substantially improved in the previous during the previous recent AfD and passes and difficult to see how that is being used for promotion given its current content.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while the article has issues (like at times being unclear if it is about the service or the company), AfD is not cleanup. Sources like this fleshed-out article in PC Magazine [31] are clear indications the topic meets WP:GNG and WP:NSOFTWARE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Reviewed by tech magazines which is their job afterall" is a very WP:POINT claim here. The fact the product was covered in such means it was notable enough to be noticed by those. Such as TechRadar [32], PC World [33], Business.com [34], Tom's Guide [35], IGN [36], PCMag [37], Mashable [38] (almost all of these bring cited in the article), and others I could possibly find if I looked more indepth. There is also coverage of it doing something for someone like on Forbes [39] and International Business Times [40]. Passes WP:GNG clearly. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Satisfied by Jovanmilic97 (talk) facts. - MA Javadi (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Poladian, Charles (2018-09-06). "PureVPN review: Even limited Netflix access can't save this buggy VPN". Mashable. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
  The article contains a list of criticisms about PureVPN in sections titled "Waiting for a connection", "Not so fast", "Netflix works (sort of)", and "privacy concerns".
2. Eddy, Max (2017-10-11). "Did PureVPN Cross a Line When It Disclosed User Information? When a VPN hands over user data on a creep, there's a freak out". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
  This article contains commentary about whether PureVPN crossed the line when it gave user data to the FBI. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage notes that "deep coverage" provides "commentary" of the company.
3. Nadel, Brian (2017-10-10). "PureVPN Review: Looks Good, Acts Bad". Tom's Guide. Purch Group. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
  The article contains a negative review of PureVPN, noting:
  Of the VPN services we've reviewed, PureVPN has the largest choice of connection locations, but it doesn't always deliver the data. Despite having widely distributed servers and excellent software, PureVPN delivered far from top-rank performance, and a recently disclosed criminal case makes us wonder how willing PureVPN is to protect customer privacy. Overall, we prefer Private Internet Access.
4. Paul, Ian (2017-08-25). "PureVPN review: It works well if you don't mind virtual server locations. PureVPN is a Hong Kong-based VPN that's recently been criticized for using virtual server locations". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-04-22. Retrieved 2019-04-22.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow PureVPN to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous AfD, the article was rewritten to remove the promotional material and to add critical coverage.
Cunard (talk) 05:58, 10 July 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) 01:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Investors[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources consist of passing mentions, a CEO biography, routine announcements pertaining to new employees, and a Bloomberg chart. No significant independent coverage in reliable sources. The introduction indicates this is an advertisement Steve Quinn (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Featured in articles in The New York Times, New York Post, and coverage in many other sources for mergers, business dev. There is independent, reliable coverage and intro changed to take out advert language. Daniel Reid (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment coverage of mergers, business dev. and so on is routine information promogulated by the company and its designated employees - this is not independently sourced coverage. It is the company tooting its own horn - fails corpdepth. Also, the coverage in the New York Times and the New York Post are not featured articles but more business announcements generated by the company (a partnership between this company and some other company).

In the New York Times, coverage is in the Deal Book section (and not the news section) which is designed to disseminate company information. None of this is independent coverage as required by GNG, NCORP, and CORPDEPTH. According to policy, Wikipedia is not a platform for advertising or promotion, and is not a directory for businesses. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The most significant coverage I could find (in the NYT and NY Post) focus on the founder, and per WP:INHERITORG, the "corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." Fails to meet WP:NCORP. Pegnawl (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom and other comments above. I am unable to locate a source that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources available in a search are glancing or routine mentions.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:39, 14 July 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) 12:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association[edit]

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

This page is an advertisement. No independent coverage in reliable sources is available. CEO biography is not independent coverage of the company. Probably way TOOSOON. Fails WP:ORG and GNG. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Created in March. Surprised its still here! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a WP:NCORP failure. Perhaps the long, unwieldy name is hindering my BEFORE search, but looking online turns up no quality sources.--SamHolt6 (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:25, 8 July 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. Michig (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cults (website)[edit]

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

Fails NCORP and GNG. Sources consist of routine business announcements in publications that specialize in these, passing mentions with other 3-D businesses, announcement pages by the company itself, and an information chart. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article because it fails GNG and no reliable and secondary sources covered the subject, too.Forest90 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, there doesn't appear to be any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:11, 8 July 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) 01:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eileen Wu[edit]

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

No significant coverage exists for this Channel One News news anchor. I remember watching Channel One News when I was in school and it was a short news program that was only shown in schools. In my case, it was during homeroom. SL93 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill reporter, ironically poorly sourced article, in violation of WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find good sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:33, 14 July 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) 00:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Davidson (Ontario politician)[edit]

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

The subject is known as a Commissioner of Planning and Development for North York and an unsuccessful candidate for North York's Board of Control. All of the sourcing in the article is local coverage (from the Globe and Mail and there does not appear to be any recent online coverage of the subject). As a candidate, the subject would fail WP:NPOL and I am not convinced the subject meets the notability requirements of an international encyclopedia. Enos733 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No sustainable coverage. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:NPOL as well as all notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just to be clear, some aspects of the nominator's reasoning aren't actually applicable to this. We do not have any requirement that a person who held political office in the 1970s and 1980s still has to show up in web-accessible media coverage dated within the 2010s — as long as the cited sources provide sufficient evidence that the person clears our notability standards, we are allowed to base an article on archived print-only coverage that existed only within the person's own time, and do not need to show that their coverage kept going into the Google era. And The Globe and Mail is also not a "local" newspaper in the sense that normally applies to articles about local political officials — it's a national newspaper that concentrates primarily on national news. It does happen to be based in Toronto by virtue of Toronto being Canada's largest city and the home of most of its national media operations, but it is not a publisher of purely local-interest Toronto news in the "house fire on Pape Avenue kills family of five" sense.
The actual problem here, rather, is simply that this was written 13 years ago, at a time when our notability standards for local political figures were much less well-developed than they are now, and those standards have since been considerably tightened up. As WP:NPOL now stands, neither being commissioner of planning and development in a suburban town nor being an unsuccessful candidate for the town's board of control constitute an automatic pass of NPOL #2 — and he was not charged with or convicted of a crime, so this falls afoul of WP:PERP (another rule which didn't exist yet in 2006), and literally just makes him a WP:BLP1E rather than a person who would pass the ten-year test as a subject of enduring internationalized public interest. So this was a good faith creation under the rules that pertained in 2006, but he doesn't have a strong enough notability claim to be retained under the rules that apply in 2019.
We don't just automatically keep an article about everybody who technically surpasses an arbitrary number of footnotes: GNG is also a question of evaluating the context of what a person is getting coverage for, but receiving nationalized coverage in the context of an untried and unconvicted corruption allegation is not a context that clinches the permanent encyclopedic notability of a person who would otherwise fail NPOL. If he'd been found guilty, it would be a different story. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 12+ year old page. I'd like to hear what the creator has to say. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The creator's not around on a regular basis anymore. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.culturalweekly.com/author/tod/

[1]