Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 June	28 June >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonya Dyakova[edit]

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

PROD declined back in May and I'm finally getting around to coming back to it.

Original PROD reason: utterly promotional, heavily worked on by unrestrained COI/autobio account. Random non-notable industry awards do not confer encyclopedic notability. One source found, and it's an interview, which are commonly held to be less indicative of notability. With nothing else to support it, we cannot retain this article.

With regards to the industry awards, I'll quote 9H48F from the article's talk page, responding to RebeccaGreen's PROD removal: While the organizations that have given Dyakova awards are notable, the awards themselves are not particularly notable. Since the awards are not notable, they do not indicate notability in the same way that receiving a notable award does.

I double checked and still didn't find any reliable non-interview sources, including Google, GBooks, GNews, Questia, T&F, JSTOR, and Newspapers.com. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a search does not provide the SIGVOV necessary for any form of notability. The awards are industry type awards. What the article basically says is that she is a successful graphic designer who has worked for several notable firms and received industry awards for that work-- like thousands of other graphic designers. There is scant evidence of independent SIGCOV recognition for her work.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have access to EBSCOhost via the Wikipedia Library, but I can't get the link in the references to work. Vexations (talk) 11:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vexations: I was able to access it through my log in at my library. It just mentions her in a credit for an image. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Checked for sources again after commenting on the talk page about the PROD removal, and feel they still stand. Her work is very nice and she appears successful, but there's nothing to indicate she's a notable graphic designer. 9H48F (talk) 14:29, 1 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) 00:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Academy for Service Technology[edit]

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

It exists, it's an academic non-profit, it has funding; what it doesn't seem to have is third-party coverage. I couldn't find anything to satisfy notability requirements for an organization. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:46, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found insignificant coverage only - passing mentions - nothing that approached WP:CORPDEPTH]. GirthSummit _(blether) 23:39, 3 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) 00:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Factory Berlin[edit]

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

Originally PROD'd by 2001:16b8:4922:c000:7c1a:b5bb:dc5b:5529 with the reason "marketing article for a commercial entity with little historical information about the site or relevant information about the company. at the least should be separated into a page about the company "factoty real estate" (or whatever it is called) and the historical building" FASTILY 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:47, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think the anon. user has a valid rationale for deleting this, and the article looks as if it will pass the notability guides. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree but the anon IP didn't bring it to Afd. Also Lugnuts, you haven't provided a valid rationale for !voting to keep. Have you checked the references? Can you find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are 65 references. Wow. You'd expect to find at least one that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I have checked over half and given up. Not a single reference comes close. They are all either based on company announcements (fails WP:ORGIND) or from unreliable sources such as facebook and youtube, or mentions-in-passing where the building (and not the company) is the focus of the reference. If someone can point out any references that meet the criteria as per WP:NCORP I'm happy to revisit and possible change my mind but for now, this fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The 'hub' is not notable. It appears to have just a couple of dozen companies, most of these startup companies will have just a few part time employees. I checked some of the refs randomly and they were PR bluster. The 'factory' was created just 5 years ago. This is paid or coi. Szzuk (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was thinking of listing it or deletion myself. All references are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 23:17, 4 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. Unanimity that the necessary independent reliable sources have not been identified to meet notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Fiction Writers Association[edit]

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

This is the kind of topic I hate to put up for deletion. But. Ignoring for the moment that this is half essay, half blurb collection, and would have to be completely rewritten and cut down by about 75% to become acceptable as an article: the coverage isn't there.

Just about any mention of this organization that I'm able to find is either a direct in-house production, written by one of the principals/founders, or a private blog post. In fact, the aspiring writer's blogosphere is where this could be said to live. Fair enough, but it's not really good enough for our sourcing requirements. If someone can turn up solid independent coverage, I'll be happy to see it, but I couldn't. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:19, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Like Elmidae, I wish this were a viable article but I can't find much coverage and in its present state the article would need to be fundamentally rewritten to be acceptable with respect to neutrality. Pichpich (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a small club, fails WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:04, 28 June 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. Unanimity that the subject fails our notability criteria. Just Chilling (talk) 20:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Holmes[edit]

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

Fails all criteria for WP:NAUTHOR and WP:NBIO. Rogermx (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find that she has published other works besides those listed here - poetry Familiar at first, then strange (2015) and Shubad's crown (2003), as well as poetry in an anthology with two other poets, Awake at the end (2008) - assuming that's the same Meredith Holmes. However, I can't find any reviews of any of her work, nor any coverage about her. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the sources are third party RS. --Kbabej (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found as little as did RebeccaGreen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothin even close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NAUTHOR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:06, 3 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 19:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phir Raula Pai Gaya[edit]

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

Film that was never released-I can't seem to find individual notability either about the production. Either delete or a redirect to Raula Pai Gaya which this is apparently a sequel to. Wgolf (talk) 19:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreleased and not passing WP:GNG it is not mentioned at the earlier film so I don't think a redirect is needed, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Movie is not released yet, not notable, Alex-h (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above and WP:HAMMER. We're not IMDB. Bearian (talk) 13:38, 2 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 19:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solitario (film)[edit]

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

Film that was apparently going to come out in 2015, though the article is from 2012. I can't find any info about it given the fact there is no year (I thought I did, but turned out to be a French film from 2013) Either this was made up (yes a long running hoax never found) or it never came out. (or it did but nothing about it) Wgolf (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To make it odder-there isn't even a article on the Italian wiki. Wgolf (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yasin Demirel does exist as a film director, but his IMDb profile doesn't list this at all — and neither of the two films it does list resemble what's described here either, so we can't just assume that it got retitled to something else. So this is most likely a film that was planned but then fell apart in the production pipeline, rather than a hoax per se — but even if that's true, we don't keep unsourced articles about unfinished films that have never actually been released to theatres. Bearcat (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons cited above. Doremo (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly nothing here of substance, and a lack of presence in reliable sources is basically the kiss of death. I'd say the lack of presence on the Italian Wikipedia is a bright red flag that it's not even notable enough there for someone to have written an article, if it does exist and isn't a hoax. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:48, 4 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 19:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ngain Nghon[edit]

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

Film I'm trying to find any info for. Which I have yet to outside of wiki mirrors. It apparently won some awards which I have yet to find though. The official website is dead meanwhile. Wgolf (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-wow that has to be the quickest I've seen the citation bot pick up a dead link, either way I can't verify if the site is about this film or not or about the company behind the film though. Wgolf (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is about the film, or rather has photos-though the site is apparently not the official one as it was a suspended account. Might be the closest to any sources though. (As I said I had a very difficult time finding them) Wgolf (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Doesn't satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:27, 3 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. And salt in light of the request and the lengthy deletion log. Closing two hours early as the consensus appears to be obvious. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PeanutButterGamer[edit]

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

Article on a "YouTube personality" that already was CSD'd 4 times (last in 2016, hence CSD declined this time round). Sourcing consists of YouTube, Twitter, Reddit, assorted forum posts, and a lovely promo interview by an "influencer marketing service" [1]. Required reliable and independent sourcing to clear WP:NBIO not in sight. - If deleted, I'd suggest SALTING, otherwise we'll be here again in six months. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources listed aren't reliable. Having 2 million subscribers on YouTube also isn't enough to justify an article. Invalid^OS (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If anything has changed, it’s not apparent in the current article. Fails the WP:GNG. Best case scenario is a WP:TNT. Sergecross73 msg me 01:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or make a protected redirect to JonTron#Normal Boots where he is mentioned as creating it with Jontron.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - Doesn't pass GNG, and I really don't think it will anytime soon. Hardly notable outside of having subscribers Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Lee. ZettaComposer (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. The sources are abysmal and obviously promotional. --Kbabej (talk) 20:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: I am not a YouTuber or gamer so I had to follow links in the article, that led to more links-- and on and on--, to find this almost broke subject depends on advertising to gain stature and income that is not a Wikipedia goal of advancing. His estimated net worth is $1.2 million dollars and he is in therapy. I think that amount of money would be good therapy. In the scheme of those that sources cover (among DanTDM–$18.5 million, Jeffree Star–$18 million, Markiplier–$17.5 million down to the lowly rich of Aaron Yonda– $6 million), it would not be some bias to expect better sources that the subject should earn without accolades from a Wikipedia article. Otr500 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - anybody can be, and is probably related to, a YouTube vlogger. We are not a directory of celebrities. Bearian (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. No need to keep this non-notable article. Masum Reza^📞 00:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nominator. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Salt it. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Please salt this article. I was considering nominating it myself and am glad that someone has done it. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:12, 4 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) 18:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Bhardwaj[edit]

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

Non notable software/business professional. References seems to be written in poor prose (Case in point (this - https://www.dailypioneer.com/2016/state-editions/meet-the-all-in-one.html) which reads like a 10 year old's work. Most of the references seem like paid for corporate inserts. The person is not to be confused with another CEO with the same name who has been getting a lot of press. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Jupitus Smart 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 18:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:MILL. Content and cites need too much work in copyediting to be bothered with a run of the mill business person, one of 100 million in India alone. Bearian (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - reads a lot like this was written by a WP:COI or WP:PAID editor - even the "controversy" is worded in such a way as to be incredibly positive. Even if this was salvageable, which I suspect it is not due to independent notability concerns, it would basically need a complete reset. Red Phoenix ^talk 15:04, 4 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. Seems like as the discussion moved on, the evidence for notability became clearer enough to establish a keep consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bek Coogan[edit]

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

This musician appears to have received next to no personal coverage. Of all the sources provided, only one [2] can be considered independent (and that's about the orchestra in general); everything else is agency profiles, concert promotions, or passing mentions. Does not meet WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, although she is on the edge of being notable. I found and added a couple of reasonably good independent sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep for now~~ Keep; the article was created by a first-time user at an edit-a-thon I ran, based on whatever sources were available online at the time, and the user has not yet edited again – I'll suggest she improve it. The performer is notable, and will undoubtedly have offline profiles, music reviews, and other such reliable sources. Let's not delete the first effort of a new Wikipedian. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being nice is not a criteria for keep, sadly. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving it to draft in that case, as a middle ground? That affords the opportunity for further collaborative improvement without (possibly) clashing with mainspace requirements. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a ref and did a count. Aside from band promo and brief mentions, we currently we have two short profiles specifically of her (AudioCulture is extremely reputable, not "concert promotions"), lots of bio info in an NZ government-funded arts page (sure, some that has been supplied by her, but it's an official resource site not a vanity page, and it lists two other reliable independent sources), facts about her in three newspaper articles, and quotes from a (reliable, independent) edited book she was featured in. Also there's a video interview from (reliable, independent) TVNZ series The Gravy of her in the external links which could be added as a source if someone were to watch and cite it. That seems a lot closer to notability to me. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 23:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources, including another radio interview, an MA thesis, and news story. There seem to be plenty of RSs now. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or draftify) - This one is a close call but I will have to side with the nominator. Coogan's article may have been created by a new editor in good faith, but it looks like an attempted promotion because it merely repeats information from a parade of brief event announcements and professional directory entries. Some of Coogan's bands have received notice, but she is only ever listed as being present, and coverage of her art career is mostly routine announcements. It may be too soon for a Wikipedia article now but that could change if any of her endeavors achieve reliable and independent media coverage. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep subject is notable in several forms (ukulele, other music, drawing and comics) and appears in a number of RSs. MurielMary (talk) 08:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide specific examples from that "number of RSs". ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Words (book), AudioCulture, Pulp, Photofile – see article. Sufficient numbers of reliable sources clearly exist (WP:NEXIST) and don't all need to be cited. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep It doesn't look like a WP:BEFORE was done before nominating. Artist has been written about in many significant national publications. I've added to the lists of publications and further reading - these could be used for references when expanding the article. -- haminoon (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination was reasonable I think, but referencing and notability assertion have been improved since then. Even then, having worked on a lot of NZ articles, this was and is pretty good on the scale and significance of coverage available. No evidence of self-promotion or very tangential/listing coverage, and the references to band/group membership mostly seem to highlight Coogan's involvement as significant and notable. --Canley (talk) 02:19, 4 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. Sandstein 19:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Dallas Courthouse shooting[edit]

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

2019 Dallas Courthouse shooting and Earle Cabell Federal Building and Courthouse are both stubs, and the event will not likely be notable in 10 years. Jax 0677 (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to WP:SIGCOV of incel motivation.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event, noteworthy photos. A merge is a possibility (ongoing proposal), but not delete. @E.M.Gregory: many extremist views should probably be added to the article; incel motivation is not the only one. wumbolo ^^^ 00:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: do you still support a merge? Because you can't nominate an article for deletion if you propose a merge. wumbolo ^^^ 00:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - @Wumbolo:, I am not opposed to a merge, nor am I opposed to keeping the article history in tact, but I don't think that at this time, that this should be a standalone article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody hurt outside the shooter and a 'treated and released' injury to a bystander, and the security did the exact job they were supposed to. Without the motivation and subject history which is used to fill article space (and if this was at a state/municipal courthouse), we'd have just another local news story that likely would only get quick attention on Metroplex newscasts. Plus not a fan of giving permanent space to a subject that probably did it to get news mentions and an article here. Nate • (chatter) 01:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The # of people shot is not an WP:NCRIME criterion. "impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage" are "as well whether the coverage is routine." While it was too WP:RAPID for either the creation or deletion of this page, the AfD is here. We cannot know what the "duration" of coverage will be. But the motivation of the shooter meets WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep enough information here that a merge would be awkward for the shorter courthouse article. Passes GNG. Rab V (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Attempted terroristic attack that significantly disrupted a metropolitian area coupled with the analysis and suspected motivations raises this to the point of a soft keep in my book. I do not agree with merging it into the courthouse article,and believe that a spin out/"See also" would be the best treatment. Hasteur (talk) 23:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this will probably be kept due to the high ratio of "keepers" over "deleters" but how does this meet WP:NEVENT ie. "it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time."? doesn't WP:NOTNEWS apply? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that we already have WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH and there has even been a bit of WP:LASTING on military bases with new orders about how to screen for this sort of individual (covered on page.) Only time will tell in re: WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but this attempted mass murder in a federal courthouse certainly does not fall under WP:NOTNEWS.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it just seems that some parts of wikipedia appear to be treated as a pseudo-news service ie. this shooting took place on 17 june, article created on the 18th, how can an assessment be made that this is encyclopedic so soon after it happened? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only a tiny fraction of U.S. shootings generate articles on Wikipedia, most - and the statistics are staggering - are NOTNEWS. This one has generated non-local and INDEPTH coverage because of the shooter's motivations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, as someone who lives in a quiet place, overlooked the incredible amount of gun related shootings in the US. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Good references as well.BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once notable always notable meets WP:GNG. Good references suggest WP:SNOW Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 3 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. I'm closing this as no consensus as this is fast turning into a mess. There are a number of keep votes but they concern themselves mainly with whether the league is professional or not. That is not relevant, NSEASONS only says club seasons for top professional leagues can normally be created because they usually satisfy GNG. Furthermore it also says that articles should be mainly sourced prose and in most instances here they are not. However, some work has been done on some articles which indicates GNG, which complicates matters, although number are just stat dumps with a couple of references. Finally, the nominators decision to try to withdraw the nomination very late on further complicates things.

This closure should not be taken as affirmation that any of these articles are notable, more that a decision on such a large number is now very hard to make. I would recommend any editor who still questions the notability of any of these articles to renominate individually and for editors in those discussions to focus on GNG, not simply whether the league is professional or not. Fenix down (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 FK Željezničar season[edit]

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

The article fails WP:GNG as the league wasn't an professional league until 2016-17. I will also be nominating these articles for the same reason.

2009–10 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010–11 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011–12 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 FK Željezničar season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013–14 FK Željezničar season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013–14 FK Borac Banja Luka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013–14 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015–16 FK Sarajevo season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 FK Borac Banja Luka season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 HŠK Zrinjski Mostar season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015–16 FK Željezničar season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HawkAussie (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator as the leagues seem to be professional and will probably not break GNG. I reckon the best reasoning is to withdraw this nomination. HawkAussie (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is a not a stats collection. Through I am open to merger to a single article that could pass notability, if someone can make such a case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FK Željezničar Sarajevo per WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. I don't see the lack of professional status as being particularly germane here. While NSEASONS does suggest that teams in top professional leagues qualify for individual season articles, it doesn't require professionalism. Instead, it has a fairly lengthy section considering notability for a specific subset of non-professional sport (i.e., US college sport) which concludes that there are certain circumstances in which they can be notable. In this particular case, we have a national championship winning season in both the country's and the world's most popular sport, with a league that was ranked higher by UEFA than some fully professional leagues. Lack of professionalism should not be a factor here. However, the article in its current state is nothing but stats and records, which certainly is a factor. This should be redirected to the parent article for now, but without prejudice on recreation if anyone cares to research and write a proper prose version of the article. Lowercaserho (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - per NOTSTATS and NSEASONS. No need to redirect. Giant Snowman 09:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all The nomination itself has a fatal flaw - WP:GNG has absolutely nothing to do with the professionalism of the league, which is a rough guideline from WP:SEASONS, which also allows for top level articles. The Željezničar articles would be fine if they had properly referenced prose. I've added a very brief bit of sourced prose to the 2011–12 season, which they won the Bosnian double and which clearly passes WP:GNG. There was a college seasons article I nominated for failing WP:NOTSTATS which was kept since the season ultimately passed WP:GNG I'm trying to find. I think it's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1979–80 Notre Dame Fighting Irish men's basketball team. Basically, I'm a weak keep for most of these, even though all of them currently fail WP:NOTSTATS, based on that policy. SportingFlyer T·C 17:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, do not delete any - These seasons were all seasons in top-flight of Bosnian football, and deleting them would go against WP:GNG, as technically, these were all significant seasons in these clubs' history. Technically speaking, most seasons of any sports team (notably those where they finish mediocre in all competitions) would fail WP:NOSTATS, however, nobody is going to delete them as they all have some significance to the team's history. The argument that these seasons weren't "professional" is flawed as the Top 4 teams automatically qualified for European competition, meaning that UEFA recognized the winners as the domestic champions and allowed them (and the 3 teams that finished below them) to compete in arguably, the most professional soccer competition in the world. I also agree with SportingFlyer that the arguments presented as to why the articles should be deleted are flawed. Many other teams like FC Barcelona, Arsenal F.C., and FC Bayern Munich have articles about nearly every season that they have ever played, and some of those articles about a specific season would fail WP:NOSTATS. So instead, I recommend that we fix the glaring issues in these articles, so that they aren't considered "delete-worthy" again. KingSkyLord (talk) 01:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think these AfDs may need to be broken down into smaller batches. For example, I suspect the main nomination, 2011–12 FK Željezničar season, may likely pass WP:GNG given that the team won the domestic double and competed in the Europa League. The lack of prose is not a reason for deletion given that Deletion is not cleanup. Kosack (talk) 05:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 10:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nomination appears incorrect - it's not difficult to quickly find significant Bosnian media coverage for some of these seasons - even some English coverage such as this. While the WP:NSEASONS guideline may not be met, it's not relevant given that WP:GNG is easily met. Articles should be improved and expanded, not deleted. Nfitz (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - most likely we are all aware that Wikipedia isn't for collecting and archiving statistical data, but to simply reiterate that certainly isn't much of an argument here. I am not sure how exactly we are suppose to be aware or how we "know" that Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina became "professional" only since 2016? That's absolutely incorrect! I had dispute several years ago over issue of this particular league professional status with some user (with admin's prerogatives) claiming how league wasn't professional, although I don't remember his exact arguments mine were quite simple - beside the fact that Yugoslavian First League became fully pro in the 1960s, and that all successor leagues (Slovenia, Serbia (w/t Montenegro at the time), Macedonia, Croatia, and Bosnia) changed absolutely nothing in regulating of their own respective competitions, I was able, and I still am, to find online various written official documents, academic research and legal papers, or simply online text documents discussing regulation of professionalism in Croatia, Serbia and most importantly Bosnia. Now, I really hope that we already moved beyond doubts on professional status of all leagues successors of former Yugoslav First League since that time, and that we learned that Premier League of Bosnia, just like top flights in all these other countries of former Yugoslavia, is professional since 1960s.^[1]^[2] So my only problem, though easily solvable, would be lack of prose in some of the articles that I checked, and (maybe) need for (perpetual) improvement of refed sources, but notability shouldn't be questioned just because some don't like it, or aren't interested, or consider country's competition unimportant and too obscure from his/her perspective. We should keep Seasons and tagged them if needed properly for improvement.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Iveta, Vladimir (27 August 2018). "LEGAL STRUCTURE OF FOOTBALL CLUBS IN YUGOSLAVIA AND CROATIA WITH EMPHASIS ON THE EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERS" (html, pdf). Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci (in Croatian). 39 (2): 1039–1067. doi:10.30925/zpfsr.39.2.12. ISSN 1330-349X. Retrieved 15 June 2019.
^ Kovačić, Davor (28 June 2016). "Nogometni profesionalci u udruženom radu" (html, pdf). Časopis za suvremenu povijest (in Croatian). 48 (1): 67–95. ISSN 0590-9597. Retrieved 15 June 2019.

Keep all Because some of this articles was already nominated for deletion, about 5 years ago. Bosna Sarajevo (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - per above, especially per KingSkyLord. These are professional teams now anyways. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting this even though I feel the stronger arguments are for delete. The arguments for keep are lengthy but ultimately not closely linked to guidelines. Rather than focussing on whether or not the league is professional or not, I would encourage editors to cite specific sources that show both GNG and that sourced prose can be added to these articles per NSEASONS as the current NOTSTATS concerns are valid. Had there not been such a large number of articles up for deletion, I would have closed this now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been slow going, not least because I haven't been on Wikipedia as much, but there's plenty of Bosnian language content to update these articles with once the archives of some of these websites are found. Maybe not all of these seasons are notable, but I'm starting to WP:HEY the "parent" article, and it should clearly pass WP:GNG. Also, I'm convinced not every Bosnian Premier League team's season would be notable on WP:GNG grounds, but Željezničar at the very least is well covered. SportingFlyer T·C 03:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are claims in the some of the delete comments that WP:NSEASONS isn't met. However this is not true. This also came up in the previous 2014 AFD. NSEASONS says Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues. And these articles are (I think) all for the top level professional soccer - Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The claim in the nomination statement by User:HawkAussie that the league wasn't an professional league until 2016-17 is not correct, and in contrast to the AFD discussion in 2014. The league may have not been fully professional until 2016, but it was professional - and that's what NSEASONS is referring to. Nfitz (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct - when it comes to 'professional' at WP:NSEASONS, it actually means (like our player notability requirements) "fully-professional". Giant Snowman 13:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digging through various archives and previous discussions, I don't see any conclusion that the "professional" in NSEASONS means fully-professional. This has come up before, such as in the previous AFD, where even you didn't refute this for the month after the same claim was made. I do see historic discussion about whether top professional applies to the semi-pro 5th level of English football - but that focused more on "top" than "professional". Attempts have been made to make it fully-professional, but have been reverted in the past. In particular, the current wording dates back to 2010, before which it was only top leagues - looking at the accompanying discussion, there doesn't seem to be any consensus that it's fully-professional.

Beyond that, let's go back to the reason to have standards such as WP:NSEASONS, which is primarily, so we don't waste lots of time debating the notability of topics that invariably are notable, with GNG sources available. As noted in the previous comments, six additional GNG sources have now been added to 2011–12 FK Željezničar season, significantly improving the article. Articles should be improved, as GNG sources are not difficult to find - which shouldn't be a surprise for teams that played at the top level, were historically fully-professional, and are currently fully-professional. Nfitz (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Bosnian league is a direct successor of the Yugoslav first league where for example FK Zeljeznicar reached semi finals of UEFA Cup 1986 season. Bosnian league is a professional league and is a member of UEFA. BiHVolim (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:56, 27 June 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. I've seen better arguments, but WP:G5 applies. Sandstein 19:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seham Khaled[edit]

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

Fails GNG. Not a notable singer and doesn’t meet the wikipedia criteria.Fatzaof (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has been created by FaridAbas, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TheViber1/Archive, in violation of their block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable singer! Charmk (talk) 11:27, 4 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 19:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Common Good (non-profit)[edit]

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

This article has had a notability tag for over seven years, and even now most Google results are either primary sources, job boards, or not related to this organization. The article was also created by a single-purpose account. I think it's safe to say this is a WP:NORG failure. Aspening (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it should not be deleted. This article discusses an existing non-profit in NYC that is still active and has secondary sources pointing to their work, I just had to research into it. The organization has honored many important political figures who attend their events, and clearly has been poorly managed on the social media/online front. There are several organizations of a similar name but research and press coverage shows that although small, the organization is certainly in effect and still hosting notable events. See some of the secondary sources I found: ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeenafrances (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) — Zeenafrances (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Zeenafrances (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

The sources provided here are all either passing mentions or not substantial coverage. Per the general notability guideline, trivial mentions do not qualify as significant coverage. Also, just because an organization is "active" doesn't mean that they are notable. I would also like to note that this user has only ever edited about this organization. Aspening (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this page should be deleted. After reading the page and doing some outside research I have added in necessary citations. It took minimal work to verify the information provided on the page. There is a variety of sources as well, covering different events, people, and years. It seems like a legitimate organization and I see no reason to delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilyakaye (talk • contribs) 16:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC) — Lilyakaye (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Note to closing admin: Lilyakaye (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

Delete I cannot find significant coverage to support WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Note to Lilyakaye, the standard on wikipedia is notability, not legitimacy or existance. Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete. If it's notable, it's just barely so. This was the closest thing I could find to WP:SIGCOV, but it's pretty low on substance. Given that this seems to be exclusively the work of undisclosed COI editors, I'm inclined to blow it up. Colin M (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://pagesix.com/2019/03/03/harvard-law-professor-says-trump-wont-be-indicted/
^ https://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/for-the-common-good/
^ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/24/david-hogg-parkland-shooting-gun-control-activism
^ https://pagesix.com/2018/05/23/parkland-activists-make-the-rounds-in-nyc/
^ http://www.avenuemagazine.com/bi-curious-patricia-duffs-pow-wows-take-pols-past-party-ties/?cat_id=9914
^ https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2017/05/womens-march-creator-from-hana-now-ready-to-talk-story/
^ https://www.invitednyc.com/home/2017/5/23/the-common-good-forum-bridging-the-bipartisian-divide
^ https://observer.com/2012/05/mark-ruffalo-goes-green-for-the-common-good/
^ https://www.thenation.com/article/katrina-vanden-heuvel-election-insurrection-midterms-2010/

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I understand the argument that this meme is noteworthy, but for Wikipedia's purposes WP:GNG has to be satisfied before a topic can be covered, and there does not appear to be consensus in favour of this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:42, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry v.s. Larry[edit]

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

Non notable meme where the only references are to one persons YouTube channel and are not independent of the subject. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Barry Vs Larry is a unique, notable meme, because it is the only parody of Pewdiepie Vs T-series that gained massive popularity (barry and larry have a total of 651,000 subscribers), and has much more interesting qualities than most memes (creation, vitality, the communities that it has formed, it's long lasting relevance, the future of both channels, etc). The article contains a video by JackSucksAtLife, who is an independent youtuber. It also contains a video by ilyx, who is also an independent youtuber. Cat 5297 16:37 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as no notable sources cover the subject. WildChild300^Talk 21:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as above Berek (talk) 08:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage in independent, reliable sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability given lack of coverage in significant detail by reliable independent secondary sources (aka fails GNG). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Complete failure of the notability guide. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:11, 4 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. Despite the walls of text, there are only two "keep" advocates: Charmk, who wrote the walls of text, and thereby made me invent the AfD closing principle that the weight of an argument is inversely proportional to the length at which it is expressed. And Ak7324835, who is a WP:SPA with ten edits. Sandstein 19:49, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ring (programming language)[edit]

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

WP:N from the talk page, and also WP:TOOSOON. Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (software) and wider WP:N policy, passing mentions outside primary sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, The article is updated to establish notability using secondary resources (6 articles in printed journals in Youm7 and Al Riyadh Newspapers), 3 articles in printed magazines (Computer Total, BIMArabia and Muslim Researchers), and reviewed articles in CodeProject. Also a lot of resources could be added, I'm working on improving the article. Charmk (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No significant coverage from third-party sources and also no indication of meeting NSOFT. --94rain ^Talk 11:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, The article is updated to establish notability using secondary resources, also a lot of third-party sources are added. Charmk (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which source? I see plenty of them are en.wikibooks/rosettacode/GitHub/Quora/reddit/Sourceforge/Steam/Youtube/Wordpress. They are not reliable. The below discussion is too long and I do not have sufficient time to look through it.--94rain ^Talk 11:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Summary Article Topic : A programming language called Ring and related projects (Supernova and PWCT).

The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. This language is developed by Ring Team : Fayed, Mariani, Zsolt, Rosado & Esteban (To know the primary resources). Some of references that I discovered and added to the article.

Reference	Author	Publisher	Type	Scope	Year
[4]	Omnia	Youm7 (Printed Journal)	Secondary source	PWCT, Supernova	2011
[5]	Hany Salah	Youm7 (Printed Journal)	Secondary source	Ring, PWCT	2016
[6]	Mones Hawas	Youm7 (Printed Journal)	Secondary source	PWCT, Ring	2016
[7]	Mones Hawas	Youm7 (Printed Journal)	Secondary source	PWCT, Ring	2018
[8]	Omar Selim	BIMArabia (Printed Magazine)	Secondary source	Ring	2018
[9]	MR Team	Muslim Researchers (Magazine)	Secondary source	Ring, PWCT	2016
[10]	AL-AALEM Team	AL-AALEMMagazine, Issue No. 116, Pages 26-27.	Secondary source	PWCT	2008
[11]	Computer Total Team	Computer!Totaal (Printed Magazine)	Secondary source	PWCT	2018
[12]	AMBASTHA S	EFY_Group (Printed Magazine) - October 2014 - Article + DVD	Secondary source	PWCT	2014
[13]	Hend Al-Khalifa	Al_Riyadh_(newspaper) (Printed Journal)	Secondary source	PWCT	2008
[14]	Khaled Almesahuge	Al_Riyadh_(newspaper) (Printed Journal)	Secondary source	PWCT	2010
[15]	Naglaa Elsayed	Al_Gomhuria (Printed Journal - Offline Source)	Secondary source	PWCT	2009
[16]	Rubin Liu	Code Project (Reviewed Technical Article)	Secondary source	Ring	2017
[17]	Majdi Sobain	Code Project (Reviewed Technical Article)	Secondary source	Ring	2016
[18]	Ciklum Team	Ciklum	Secondary source	Ring	2017
[19]	TIOBE Index Team (Top 50 in Feb. 2018)	TIOBE_index	Secondary source	Ring	2018
[20]	Fayed, Al-Qurishi, Alamri, Aldariseh	Association_for_Computing_Machinery	Primary source	PWCT, Ring	2017
[21]	Fayed	King_Saud_University	Primary source	PWCT, Ring	2017
[22]	Ring Team (The Language Reference, 2111 pages)	Ring Team	Primary source	Ring	2019

Also the article could be improved to add more content and references. Charmk (talk) 16:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the sake of steelmanning, I'll point out that this article in Youm7 could be argued to constitute WP:SIGCOV. But I'm still inclined to delete for a few reasons: a) WP:GNG says that "multiple sources are generally expected", and I can't find any other reliable secondary sources covering this topic b) I don't think this Youm7 article/interview is particularly reliable for establishing the notability of the programming language itself. It's as much about the interviewee (Fayed) as the language. And if this were a notable programming language, I would expect coverage in RS that cover technology/computer science. c) The interview (in Jan 2016) talks about the language as something newly announced which is about to be published. So WP:SUSTAINED and WP:CRYSTALBALL come into play. Update Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated has shrewdly observed below that the author of the Youm7 articles (Hany Salah) is listed as a member of Ring's 'marketing' team. I withdraw my steelman - there's nothing approaching reliable, independent coverage of this language out there. Colin M (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The references are updated, includes two articles published in Youm7 and written by another author (Mones Hawas - Not listed in Ring Team) also Criticism section is added. Charmk (talk) 17:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I appreciate that, but the existence of the article by Salah (whose conflict of interest doesn't seem to be disclosed in the article) makes me suspicious of Youm7 as a whole as a reliable, independent source for this topic. Colin M (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand your feelings, but Salah wrote only one article about Ring in 2016 (Youm7 Egyptian Reports Department) and it looks like they updated the Ring Team page 2 to demonstrates that there is no conflict of interest. Since this update could be done based on reading this discussion, I think it will be fair to still consider Salah article as primary source, but consider the 2 other articles by Mones Hawas in Youm7 (Science and Technology Department - In 2018) that I discovered and added to the article as secondary resources. Also the article topic establish notability using other resources. Charmk (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 printed journals, reviewed articles and usage by some companies (enough to establish notability and a lot of references could be added). Also listed in top 100 programming languages by TIOBE Index and it was in top 50 in 2018. Yes popularity is not notability but both of them is good indicator. Charmk (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That ranking uses a dubious methodology based on WP:GOOGLEHITS. "Ring" is a common word that's more likely to produce false positive matches (even when combined with the word "programming") than say, Common Lisp, Erlang, PowerShell, etc. For example, most of the Bing results for "ring programming" after the first couple pages are false positives (e.g. [23] [24] [25] [26]) Colin M (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I listed enough resources that establish notability, for popularity (which is another topic) and the rank in TIOBE Index, Yes some search results doesn't belong to the language but there are many resources related to the language across many websites and people at TIOBE used to adjust the result. A little search about the language lead to Hundreds of samples in RosettaCode A book in Wikibooks, thousands of YouTube videos and blogs by many authors, for example 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10, TIOBE uses these results from many search engines to determine top languages. Ring article in Wikipedia is written in many languages by different authors in different countries 1 2 3 4 which is another indicator too. Also I discovered complete translation to the language website and documentation in Japanese 1 2. Charmk (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has anything notable actually been made using it? Do any notable computer scientists, or businesses, actually use it? There's no response from the Hacker News community. Reddit is completely unfavourable! (Those are the only ones I could find with any comments.) Quora is also completely unfavourable! (Those are the only ones I could find with more answers than just the language creator.) -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven't checked any of the years for the Stack Overflow Annual Developer Survey, but I doubt it's included. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - With respect, I listed enough resources that establish notability, popularity and evaluation is another topic but I will answer. listing some resources that provide negative feedback about a programming language reflects popularity and we can do this for any notable programming language, Also we can find positive feedback : Matz (Creator of Ruby language) spreads the word about Ring and he is very known programmer and language designer. A conference paper (Published by ACM) from computer science researchers talking about using Ring to develop a new software 123 4, other links with positive feedback about Ring thousands of messages in Ring Group Ring Book 1 2 3 4 5. Charmk (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your sources include the language creator as an (co)author. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I doubt Matz even so much as looked at it either; "oh look, someone made a programming language based on my own programming language; what a great way to promote my own programming language by merely posting a link, with nothing else to say for it, while advertising the influential status of my own programming language". If he had anything positive to say, then he would have included it; if you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all. His favourite languages are Perl, Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ada, and Lisp. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Any source including the team is WP:PS. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        In the beginning, I listed enough resources that establish notability through reliable and secondary resources (printed journals, reviewed articles and companies using the language). You are talking about another topics (popularity & developer feedback). for popularity I listed many resources about the language like thousands of movies and blogs by many authors, and for developers feedback. You can add this section (Criticism) to the article using neutral point of view. Charmk (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Referring to your original list at 16:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC): #1 is WP:PS; Hany Salah is Marketing. #3 Gold Magic 800 isn't notable. #5 is WP:PS; Majdi Sobain is a Senior Tester. #6 is unfavourable towards all of those languages; moreso towards Ring. #7 says "Ring itself is an unpopular language that does not offer much for non-programmers. It might be hard to get a community started in this. However if the overall Emotiq projects draws enough attention, this could snowball into Emotiq making Ring well known along with it — exactly what happened with Ruby and Rails."; which is WP:TOOSOON since they immediately recommend Emotiq make their own DSL instead in the following paragraph. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 14:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are enough 1 2 3 4 and the authors are not listed in Ring Team, Also listing 180 members in Ring Team doesn't change their secondary resources about the language to primary resources, because it's clear that Ring 1.0 is developed and published by Fayed alone in 2016 then their names are added after they provided what we can consider as secondary resources (articles, applications, etc) as we notice from the Role column in Ring Team and GitHub contributors. so other references 1 2 are secondary references too, all of this establish notability while being listed in top 100 programming languages by TIOBE Index and it was in top 50 in 2018 indicates popularity which is good too. Charmk (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So there's only 180 total users of the language of all time? And some unknown quantity of them are no longer producing relevant content? But remain listed as such? So the current total users of the language is less than 180? -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - listing some people providing some content (articles, applications, videos, etc) about a programming language doesn't mean that they are the only users! A lot of people use many software without writing about it (if it's good software that works and comes with good documentation). Again you are talking about popularity which is another topic. (Also some secondary sources indicates popularity). Charmk (talk) 16:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        The only way they even got on TIOBE in the first place was because they had a Wikipedia page! As per the second entry in their Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). I think this is your one true reason for voting to keep this around; without it, there is no TIOBE, which negatively influences the marketing of the language. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        GitHub only has 159 users, and only 5÷(32+) repositories have stars; the most of which is 2. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Again you are discussing popularity (not notability), it's not easy to know how many users of a free open source software like Ring, but some links provides some information over 40,000 downloads but GitHub doesn't provide download statistics. Charmk (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Downloads does not indicate continued usage; besides Ring, the other TIOBE languages are actually used in the industry. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia-TIOBE connection makes this WP:PROMO. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, this discussion is about the content and references, Remember that Wikipedia is not a democracy; even when polls appear to be "votes", most decisions on Wikipedia are made on the basis of consensus, not on vote-counting or majority rule. In summary, polling is not a substitute for discussion Charmk (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This discussion is about WP:N, and WP:TOOSOON; where I have established that any WP:N comes from WP:PROMO marketing schemes. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 17:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - With respect, I listed enough references that establish notability (2 printed journals, 2 reviewed articles, and usage by companies). This is enough for me for this discussion. Charmk (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is unsatisfiable for the consensus of this discussion. You argue they are not WP:PS, even though they are authored by current team members; where is the history for that team page on SourceForge to back your claims? The industry usage is unfavourable; usage by Emotiq is condemned by the source (Emotiq never actually used this Ring; it was their own Ring the whole time! This also proves that authors of sources that aren't notable don't even know what they're sourcing about! Since it's probably just a niche fad, and nobody will notice.), and Gold Magic 800 is a primary source that is not a notable game (Steam (software)#Curation says As these processes allow developers to publish games on Steam with minimal oversight from Valve, journalists have criticized Valve for lacking curation policies that make it difficult to find quality games among poorly produced games, aka "shovelware".). There's a low number of verifiable users, and more WP:RS from Egypt is expected from such brobdingnagian download rates. This language isn't even notably bad! There are far worse languages! And the article doesn't even reflect the truth of the language; nobody even wants to use it unless they're in the team! "Oh look, I can list that on my job applications!!! :D" I mean how many graphic designers does it take to make a programming language look worth using? And what does "Vision Achiever" even mean? Is this a religion, or just a programming language? -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks, The references are updated, includes two articles published in Youm7 and written by another author (Mones Hawas - Not listed in Ring Team). Charmk (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        They went from 0 graphic designers, to 8 graphic designers; all in the span of 2 months! And the logo never changed after that! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        In GitHub they have this folder. Charmk (talk) 17:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The newly created Popularity section shouldn't mention TIOBE, since Wikipedia is a dependency; the Ring marketing team is good at SEO optimisation, but not anything else really. The rest isn't WP:NEUTRAL! Medium says "Ring itself is an unpopular language that does not offer much for non-programmers.". Ciklum says "many developers perceive Ring as being too similar to other programming languages already in existence; in other words, it doesn’t offer anything innovative.". This language may be WP:N for being the most ambitious job exploitation (I'm aware of), but the article should reflect the below average quality of the language. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporal Interval	Download Quantity	Ring Version(s)
2016-01-25	1,870	1.0
2016-01-25+to+2017-01-25	17,688	1.0, 1.1, 1.2
2017-01-25+to+2018-01-25	13,443	1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7
2018-01-25+to+2019-01-25	8,885	1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10
2019-01-25+to+2019-06-11*	2,662	1.10
2019-06-11	13	1.10

This is sufficient evidence of a declining popularity; there's probably a lot of Egyptian click bait for this language. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article topic cover the Ring programming language and related projects (Supernova and PWCT), and you listed a table about Ring downloads from Sourceforge, I will share this table about PWCT downloads, but remember that in this discussion about notability, we don't care much about downloads, I just included this information for you to know more about the article topic since you are very active in this discussion. Ring source code and visual source is distributed with PWCT.

Temporal Interval	Download Quantity	Version
[27]	14,097	1.7
[28]	96,490	1.8
[29]	261,343	1.9
[30]	21,322,969	All versions + Samples + Tutorials

Charmk (talk) 00:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "This language may be WP:N " Yes, This language is WP:N according to Wikipedia notability guidelines Charmk (talk) 04:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - For the reason I gave, or are you quoting out of context? -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - For another reason, At first let me tell you that the reason you said "the most ambitious job exploitation (I'm aware of)" is just an indicator that reflects your opinion about the hard word involved in developing this language, The same as your table about downloads, is just another indicator. In Wikipedia we follow guidelines. In my opinion : This language is WP:N according to Wikipedia notability guidelines. Summary Article Topic : A programming language called Ring and related projects (Supernova and PWCT). The topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. I provided some references (more references could be added) as a prove that the article topic is notable. This is enough to establish notability, but since Your comments reflects that you are interested with the language quality (since you said: "the article should reflect the below average quality of the language") I could say It's the first language (I'm aware of) that are distributed with Visual Programming implementation of the Compiler and the Virtual Machine. Also it's the first language (I'm aware of) that provide new ideas for developing natural languages, Also it could be used in prototyping applications, but this is outside the scope of this discussion. Also see the Critics section that I added to the article. I tried to improve it based on your useful feedback.Along the time we could improve this Wikipedia Article with more content and resources. Charmk (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- "there's probably a lot of Egyptian click bait for this language" No, A lot of Egyptian developers known about this language and were waiting for it's release date that is announced to be in 2016.01.25 (In the same day as the Egyptian Revolution), Articles about the language before the first release includes [31] [32], Before these news Fayed, used the Social Media to promote the language to his followers (over 30,000 followers). This is a Facebook post about the language before the first release [33] and this is another one in the release day [34], This explain the interest from many Egyptian programmers.Charmk (talk) 03:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the table to include the version of the language during each temporal interval, which further diminishes the popularity of the language. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I updated the article (Popularity, Criticism and References) sections based on your comments, Thanks for this valuable analysis. Charmk (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a tree language, it would probably be notable for being the first of its' kind, but tree languages are purely theoretical, and I'm not sure about the (over)ambitious predictions made regarding their future; the first two could be like Turing-completeness (a certain amount of supercritical complexity may be problematic for tree notation), the third one is very challenging (legacy code makes the industry less likely to change languages; changing languages means replacing programmers, and code base, which is expensive), and the last one is confusing (I thought tree languages are high level abstract languages, but they don't go into specifics of levelness, nor abstraction;, and perhaps this is an opportunity to unify all programmers as predicted). -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the information, I think this could be related to the new features provided by the language to support declarative programming. Charmk (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the Ring Team page - 2019.06.16 in the Ring website, the page contains 5 members in Ring Team (Fayed, Mariani, Zsolt, Rosado & Esteban), Any reference in this Wikipedia article includes any of these 5 names is a primary source. The other names in the Ring Team page got (Thanks) from Ring Team for providing good secondary resources about the language or for submitting bug reports. Charmk (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I cannot believe they actually updated the page just for this; it's lucky I archived it. Besides the WP:REFBOMB, the page is far from WP:NEUTRAL. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's clear that they fixed their mistake of listing all names in one group to avoid misunderstanding. Open Source projects works that way (Someone start a project, many people help, others use it and report bugs, and others discover it and spread the word). This update demonstrates that they learned the lesson. Charmk (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can update the article and add flags about the references or anything useful for improving the article. Charmk (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I willn't do WP:BATTLE since it is clear you want to turn a blind eye to all I have brought to the table; the largest is my table above that is clear indication of the lack of any WP:N. Find an example of any big name FLOSS project that lists promoters as part of their team; this is unheard of! -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - I understand your feelings, but it looks like that those volunteers did a mistake that lead to misunderstanding and they fixed it. Charmk (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your table about Downloads is related to "Popularity" which is another topic (Also covered in this Wikipedia Article), This project is not only a Sourceforge project, it's also GitHub project, and this Wikipedia article indicates the integration between Ring and PWCT (Over 21,000,000 downloads), but here in Wikipedia we don't care much about downloads, it's just an indicator to the popularity. Charmk (talk) 22:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The addition of sources makes a more persuasive argument for 'Keep.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak7324835 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Your contributions are so suspicious, and you deleted your talk page which is relevant here. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is updated to establish notability using printed journals, magazines and reviewed articles. I will not repeat them again. The table in the top list some of these resources. Also, the article topic (Ring and related projects : Supernova and PWCT) are open source project and from [35] we notice "The way the app is distributed. It is reasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open-source software, if significance can be shown.". So we have more options too. Charmk (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your effort in improving this article. But please do not rush to close the discussion, which would hinder the generation of clearer consensus. I've striken my previous vote for deletion, but I still hesitate whether to vote for keep before further identifying those sources and knowing others' opinions. Let's be patient and see how it goes. By the way, please do not cite too many primary sources ( en.wikibooks/rosettacode/GitHub/Quora/reddit/Sourceforge/Steam/Youtube/Wordpress). --94rain ^Talk 01:56, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you very much, I will not cite too many primary sources again. Charmk (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting is not an opportunity to !vote again. If you want to amend your earlier 'keep' recommendation you can edit your comment and strikethrough the previous text. Colin M (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you very much Charmk (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is almost impossible to evaluate due to the huge walls of text. Could those who want to keep this article perhaps just list the three best sources on which their argument for notability is based? After all, three good independent references to reliable sources is all we need.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary Article Topic : A programming language called Ring and related projects (Supernova and PWCT).

Index	Publisher	References	Type	Comment
1	Association_for_Computing_Machinery, King_Saud_University, etc	[36][37][38][39]	Primary sources	Free Open Source Language Reference (2111 pages) Master Thesis (120 pages) Research Paper
2	Code Project, Ciklum, TIOBE_index, etc (Reviewed Technical Articles)	[40][41][42][43][44][45]	Secondary sources	Technical Information Evolution (From release to release) Popularity Critics
3	Computer!Totaal, EFY_Group (October 2014 - Article + DVD), BIMArabia, etc (Printed Magazines)	[46][47][48][49][50][51]	Secondary sources	Ring and related projects (Supernova, PWCT) as development tools related to Natural Language Programming and Visual Programming Languages.
4	Youm7, Al_Gomhuria, Al_Riyadh_(newspaper), etc (Printed Journals)	[52][53][54][55][56][57][58]	Secondary sources	Ring and related projects (Supernova, PWCT)

Charmk (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It feels like there are editors of the Ring article doing whatever they can to make Ring appear significant, and the burden is on the readers to sort it all out. Dgpop (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand your feelings, but in Wikipedia we follow guidelines, the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Maybe it's the language barriers because some of these resources are written in Arabic.Charmk (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The main issue here is, your walls of text don´t demonstrate notability, quite the opposite (ref bombing). If you could select only 3 best sources (not more!!!), so we can review them, that would certainly help. Pavlor (talk) 05:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you very much, The article topic is about Ring and related projects (Supernova, PWCT). An article about this topic requires more references to cover each section (Ring, Supernova, PWCT). I could pick three good references about PWCT from research papers and printed magazines : [59][60][61]. and I could pick these good references about Ring : [62][63][64][65][66]. All of these references together demonstrates the notability of the article topic, but please don't ignore the table above which contains more references too. I tried to be positive and updated the article and added the references, I invested a lot of time and I started to fell that I'm tired and I think this is enough for me at least for now, In my opinion, Keeping the article is the right decision according to Wikipedia guidelines, but I will let the others decide what is good for this article and for Wikipedia. Thanks Charmk (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. Please select only 3 best sources about Ring. Thanks. Pavlor (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        I did, references from the same publisher are counted as (one reference), So I picked only 3 references for PWCT and the same for Ring, and together they are the article topic (Ring and related projects (Supernova, PWCT)). The references that I picked are enough for notability, and we have more references in the table above (if we need). Thank you very much Charmk (talk) 07:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Your five refs about Ring: Code Project accepts user submited content - not a RS; general reliability of youm7 was disputed above by Colin M and I share his feeling; BIMArabia seems to publish anything you throw at them, but I can´t base my judgement on Google translate. Certainly not stellar sourcing in your selection. I´m leaning to delete. Pavlor (talk) 08:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Articles in CodeProject are reviewed articles, CodeProject Editors review each article before publication. Charmk (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The Youm7 articles indicates that Ring and PWCT are related projects and this Wikipedia article cover both of them, Also there are 4 articles in Youm7 by 3 different authors in different years (2011, 2016, 2018), not only one author (Ignoring these articles based on feelings is not fair). The BIMArabia article is 3 pages (printed magazine), Also the other resources about PWCT like [67][68][69] are enough for notability. (And there are more resources in the table). Charmk (talk) 08:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Your approach certainly is not helping. I will give you one last chance: Select one (ONLY ONE = 1) source about Ring (not anything else) you think is best (eg. magazine with editorial staff, respected publisher, independent on the article subject, broad coverage of the article subject). I will review this source and decide for myself. Note more than one reliable source are required to satisfy GNG, but one really good source is enough for me to reconsider my choice. Your turn. Pavlor (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Why you are talking to me in this way? I am not an employee under your control!, Also I don't care at all about your opinion which is based on feelings and ignoring references listed above (You don't like to invest your time, and my time is valuable too), I just shared my opinion about this topic, updated the article, listed references, I did what I think is useful for Wikipedia, and this is enough for me. Thanks Charmk (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10 righteous people could save one city, 1 single source could save this article. If there is not at least one good source to discuss, then there is no policy based reason to keep this article. Pavlor (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- There are resources listed in the table above, but you are ignoring them because You want to vote without investing time to evaluate resources (which is not recommended), (You ignored 4 articles in Youm7 based on feelings ! NOT FAIR). Also you ignored articles in printed magazine because you don't know Arabic Charmk (talk) 09:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with listing 23 sources instead of 3 (as you did in the 'summary' table above), is that if someone spends some time scrutinizing one of those sources and comes back with reasons it's not reliable, you can just say "well there are still 22 other sources!". Editors at AfD are generally not going to have the time/patience to carefully consider more than 2 or 3 sources. Colin M (talk) 14:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you very much, The real problem in this discussion is ignoring references that establish notability based on feelings! There are 4 Youm7 articles [70][71][72][73] by 3 different authors published in (2011, 2016, 2018) and ignoring these references that show significant coverage is not fair, Also an article in printed magazine [74] and reviewed technical articles (Editor review these articles before publication) [75][76] Also the article topic cover Ring and related projects (Supernova & PWCT) and there are many good references for PWCT in research papers and printed magazines like [77][78][79], all of these resources are enough for notability. Charmk (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Last Comment I feel that some people who voted for deleting this article are just ignoring the references that establish notability (This doesn't help Wikipedia), The article topic cover Ring and related projects (Supernova & PWCT), and I listed three good references for PWCT notability like [80][81][82] and they are ignoring them!, Also they ignore articles published in journal (Youm7) by 4 different authors based on feelings that doesn't make sense! And they ignore articles in printed magazines like [83] because they don't know Arabic! Those people, I respect them but I can't help them to see the reality! Thanks to all of them, but I hope that Wikipedia contributors learn to invest some more time in evaluation, and learn to not ignore references that they don't uderstand and learn to vote based on facts not feelings! Charmk (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in question is about Ring, not PWCT. If you wrote an article about PWCT, it would be much easier to demonstrate notability (not that sources you listed are great, but at least Al Allam magazine looks like in depth coverage - assuming there is no connection between author and software developers). Less is more in any AfD, insane refbombing is the best way to dissuade even ultra-inclusionist editors like myself. Pavlor (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - "If you wrote an article about PWCT, it would be much easier to demonstrate notability" :: Thanks, we already have this Wikipedia article, Ring and PWCT are closely related so we have this Wikipedia article for both of them merged together, Ring is developed using PWCT and it's visual source is distributed with PWCT, Also Ring is designed for developing PWCT 2.0 [[84]]. The first page in the PWCT Website talk about developing the Ring programming language using PWCT, and the first page in the Ring website talk about this too, and both of them are designed by Fayed and contributors [85][86] and Youm7 articles [87][88][89] talk about them together. Charmk (talk) 14:36, 3 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) 18:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miranda Borman[edit]

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

This is an article about a non-notable actress who appeared on Doctor Who in a very minor role when she was a child. It is not clear that the similarly named person in the sole poor quality source is even the same one. Regardless, does not meet basic notability standards. Option 16 (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a hair's breadth away from outright deleting this myself, it is so troublesome. Researching, I found no trustworthy source of any biographical material at all, and a Wikipedia administrator discovering in 2012, only a few months before this article was written, that xe had been approached by a hoaxer impersonating this subject as had other administrators. This leads to one of my more unusual rationales: per 23skidoo and Josiah Rowe, delete. Uncle G (talk) 08:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable one-off actress. Fails WP:BIO. ♟♙ (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, her IMDb profile lists a couple more roles than just Doctor Who itself — but they're both still one-off minor appearances, not major leading roles, so they still don't make a difference here. At any rate, the notability test for an actress is not just the ability to list one or more roles and offlink to an IMDb profile: it is the ability to show that she passes WP:GNG on reliable source media coverage about her performances: arts and entertainment reportage about her, reviews of the shows or films which single her performance out for dedicated attention, notable award nominations, etc. But there are no references being cited here at all, and having an IMDb page is not an automatic notability freebie in and of itself.
And even the content that's been stripped from the article doesn't make a difference, either: the Music Theatre Guild of Victoria award, for local community theatre productions in Melbourne, is not a notability-making award — that status goes to things like the Oscars, the BAFTAs, the Emmys and the Tonys, not just to every single local community theatre acting award that exists on earth, and the only source for it was the theatre's own self-published website about itself, rather than real media coverage about the awards. And no source present in the article even verified the assertion that the British Doctor Who actress and the Australian community theatre actress are even the same person in the first place: we don't just take article subjects' own word for this kind of thing, especially when there are open questions about whether the person soliciting an article about themselves is even really the article subject in the first place, if there are no published reliable sources to verify it.
Having a Wikipedia article is not an entitlement: getting in the door depends on the person's depth of sourceability, not just on being able to provide technical verification that they exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the purported subject has not given xyr word on this and that is not a verified Twitter account anyway nor is it connected to a Wikipedia account. I do not believe that the article subject(s) is(are) even involved here, as it seems neither do the Wikipedia administrators who were discussing this in 2012. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Paul Benjamin Austin, who created this article, has admitted to impersonating Miranda Borman. I assume this admission covers both the [[REDACTED - Oshwah] off-wiki impersonation] as well as the on-wiki creation and use of User:Miranda Borman. Option 16 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the issue here goes back to Wikipedia is not an IMDb mirror. Not every person who had credited roles in TV or film is notable. The actual guidelines is multiple significant roles in notable productions. However even this is supposed to reflect the fact that this is an easy proxy for "we can find significatn published coverage of them in 3rd party sources if we search" as Bearcat mentioned above. The unsourced attempts to link two very different careers with nothing showing it is the same person would fall flat, even if the local theatre award was nothing even close to showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 2 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 19:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RedSpotGames[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP because it hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Big effort here to make it notable, but it is not. What follows now is my WP:BEFORE of 2 AfDs, searches and references in the article.

1.[90]- Passing mention of their website
2.[91]- "It's coming to Europe from publisher Redspot Games" is not WP:SIGCOV. The rest of the article is directly about the game.
3.[92]- "If the kids at Redspotgames have their way, they'll keep publishing games for the venerable (and defunct) console -- that is, according to marketing and sales director Adrian Loudero" is all there is to it, plus it relies on a citation from what the member from this studio has said. Not independent.
4.[93]- Passing mention by a name drop.
5.[94]- Does not mention the subject.
6.[95]- "What began as an exercise in game coding has become a commercial release thanks to German publisher redspotgames" which is a passing mention.
7.[96]- "RedSpotGames seems to have missed the memo that the Dreamcast is dead, and will be announcing two new games for the system at the Games Convention in Leipzig." One sentence is not WP:SIGCOV.
8.[97]- "A new Dreamcast game has been revealed by German-based developer Redspot Games." Same as 7.
9.[98]- "Munich-based publisher Redspotgames (Solar Struggle for XBLA, Last Hope) has announced Sturmwind." WP:ROUTINE announcement of the game release, plus not WP:SIGCOV.
10.[99]- "Munich-based publisher Redspotgames released the first trailer for Sturmwind", same as above.
11.[100] Mentioned twice by name, but nothing about it itself.
12.[101] and [102] Unreliable blogs.
13.[103] and [104] Press releases, not independent of the subject.
14.[105], [106], [107]- Not related to the subject.
15.[108] and [109] Just an official website.
16.[110]- Retail store link for one of the games.
17.[111]-Unreliable blog plus the subject isn't mentioned.
18.[112]- Another unreliable blog, and a passing mention of the subject.
19.[113] Unreliable forum.
20.[114]. Probably the best of the bunch. "After releasing several titles on the now-defunct console over the past few years, the company apparently has plans to bring even more games to the Dreamcast. The company only sells a few thousand copies of its Dreamcast releases, according to Loudero. Since it can’t rely entirely on Dreamcast aficionados alone for its business, it has recently started developing WiiWare and Xbox Live Arcade titles." along with citations and such. May not meet WP:CORPDEPTH though, but it's close. It's not going in-depth regarding the company here.
21.[115]- "Redspotgames only sells a few thousand copies of their Dreamcast game releases, but at least someone is keeping the...dream alive.". Not WP:SIGCOV.
22.[116], [117]- Passing mention or not at all.
23.[118]- Passing mention.
24.[119]- Not mentioned.
25.[120] and [121] Founded by the same person who founded this subject plus unreliable plus passing mention.
26.[122] Official website Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When an article is mentioning them while discussing a game they are publishing is as notable as a publisher should get. As their entire function was publishing games. I think the article should be revised to reflect the company no longer exists and should acknowledge the legacy left behind. Their are also numerous German television appearances Max Scharl made that can be found on YouTube. Basically a lot of references exist out there. I have just grown out of archiving video game history phase of my life. Sharing this in a thread for videogame articles that need improvement would be a better way to go. I'll watch this discussion and maybe I can try to improve this article but I really feel someone else should have a go at it. It would be unfortunate if RSG's efforts are wiped out of existence.--Cube b3 (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big problem here called WP:NOTINHERITED, whereas notability is not inherited from things they are involved with it nor people who founded it. I wouldn't mind an article on Max Schnarl to reflect on RedSpot and websites he founded as well. But studio as a separate entity is not notable. I totally get your improvement idea though and I appreciate that view! Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through the WP Not Inherited. What I am saying is that a publisher is notable by how much they can do for the product, they are selling. When the publisher gets the spotlight, it is usually on something controversial such as the continued delays of Sturmwind and numerous people complaining about delayed shipment and orders broken during shipment. It was quite a racket back in the day, that would be ref #27 which in turn is referencing to customers bombarding RSG facebook page.

I am fascinated by your suggestion of a Max Scharl page because in many ways RSG was Max Scharl but we are still working with the same article.

Lastly, we also have a massive issue of references disappearing. Specifically in terms of Feet of Fury. Dreamcast-Petition had numerous scans about magazine articles from magazines such as German GamePro discussing their efforts to release the game. But they are gone now... If a company no longer exists their notability today creates a problem for notability yesterday. This is just me thinking about the Max Scharl article because he was doing other things before Dreamcast publication he was an editor in chief for some German gaming website... please do advise?--Cube b3 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam for a non notable business bombarded with passing mentions, PR and non reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added a reference from Kotaku: Ashcraft, Brian (8 August 2010). "Dreamcast Will Not Die". Kotaku. Retrieved 16 June 2019. https://kotaku.com/the-dreamcast-will-not-die-5621234. It is more than a passing reference and in this context the website is reliable. I also found another one via Kotaku https://kotaku.com/if-the-dreamcast-is-dead-dont-tell-these-guys-5801533.

Haven't added this into the article. But the reference is from Gamasutra: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/134745/keeping_the_dream_alive_the_men_.php?page=3. It is a 3 page article referencing the entire indie history of Dreamcast with a big focus on Redspotgames. The company no longer exists, but from 2003 - 2013. Redspotgames/Max Scharl did great work. If we find Sega and Dreamcast notable. Than it is a notable part of it's history. We have dozens of Japanese games and publishers on Wikipedia which are less notable than Redspotgames from a historical perspective.

Again, I am no longer in my twenty's or an avid gamer. I don't spend as much time on this platform, I would really appreciate a bit of co-operation and team work to improve this article, as I don't have the time to do it all by myself.--Cube b3 (talk) 04:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hey! I have fixed the indentations in your vote because it was unreadable, now it looks a lot better. I don't think RedSpotGames is notable here games history wise. From my understanding, they tried to to release games again for Dreamcast, had financial losses from that, tried to expand to other consoles, and when that also failed, they closed and filed for bankrupcy. Now my analysis of your references:

1. Quoting the article: "At the recent Gamescom convention in Cologne, Germany, developer RedSpotGames had Dreamcast demo kiosks placed proudly between the Xbox 360 and the Wii demo kiosks. RedSpotGames has published Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles, a puzzle game developed by a Costa Rica-based studio, in 2008 and Rush Rush Rally Racing, a top down racer, last fall." Two sentences are not WP:SIGCOV, as this article does not address the company "in detail". It is not just a passing mention, correct, but not something that can contribute towards WP:GNG.

2. The second Kotaku reference you found, I did too. For one, it is quoting the Gamasutra reference that you posted. And for two, "But Redspotgames continued to support Dreamcast after Sega no longer did. In 2007, Germany's Redspotgames released its first DC game, shoot 'em up Last Hope." Literally the same case as with the first Kotaku source. There is also a quotation from Max Schnarl, but that is not WP:INDEPENDENT as "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a given Wikipedia topic". Max Schnarl certainly does.

3. OK, this is good. By miles the best and the only source out of 30+ I checked out regarding this subject that I find it passing WP:CORPDEPTH. But it needs more than just that one WP:SIGCOV source. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Reply Thank you for your input. I have not added the Gamasutra ref to the article yet, you can look at this one reference as one reliable references validating all the other references. I am joking. What about Max Scharl's two televised appearances. They weren't commercials.

On your summary - This is how I'd summarize my article.

A German Sega journalist starts a petition site for more games on Dreamcast. Convinces American and Japanese devs to release more games that he distributed in Germany and beyond via Lik-Sang. The petition site evolves into a fan site and then spawns an indie publisher. Profitability isn't really a variable, as it is done for sentimental reasons as acknowledged in the gamasutra article. However, it is also shared that all published games sold more than preceding ones. Furthermore, the wiiware port of Rush Rush Rally Racing debuted on number 1 on Wiiware charts. I can find that reference. The game was also a sponsor of racing events (I am not into formula 1 but I assume that's notable as the driver was serving as brand ambassador similar to Danica Patrick for GoDaddy). The company ran into manufacturing problems and went radio silent. Two years later Sturmwind was controversially released as the shipping was horribly slow and collector boxes were being damaged in shipping (I don't think I have added those references)... and then the company just went dark.

I've not even been able to reach Max since 2011, however, I contacted and spoke with all the developers who were partnered with RSG. So I do have some insights as to what happened behind the scene. This article is also tagged as being written by someone with a close link to the subject. But all the sentences have external references, as no notable site covered it so the story is kind of left incomplete outside the one reference that Hucast helped distribute the game.

Your original suggestion was to make a Max Scharl article instead, but we are dealing with the same reference problems. Back in the day, I had made articles for Goat Store Publishing, NG DEV TEAM and Hucast Games. All indie publishers from my day. Hucast games even though they went on to develop for PS4 has been radio silent for years and their domain name has expired (again)...

There is a history here, and a story that I found cool enough and worthy of Wikipedia. It was basically the independent Dreamcast diaries. If you are familiar with the machine, the console since release due to being able to boot from CD-R was a huge milestone for all forms of independent development. It's legacy is huge but without a reliable institution like Wikipedia the history will cease to exist. Back in the day we had websites, magazines. Most of the publications that cared about those things no longer exist. I apologize for the tangent. I hope we can continue this discussion and reach an amicable solution. Thank you for reading.--Cube b3 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Back in the day if an article was nominated for deletion I would go to Dreamcast-Scene or DC Emulation and share that so I could get assistance from the community to help with the article and the discussion but that is canvassing and apparently wrong. I would like to think that I have learned, but truthfully those sites are now dead. I never understood why people who care about a subject, can't write about the subject. I mean this is a hobby right? So I'd write about stuff I can actually enjoy and take pride in...--Cube b3 (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game developer failing WP:GNG (WP:NCORP) with no multiple (reliable independent) in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. To avoid repeating, I defer to Jovanmilic97 for their (excellent) source review. In short, the article is WP:REFBOMBed with sources that do not satisfy WP:GNG, except arguably the Gamasutra WP:INTERVIEW. A few of the others provide some good sourceable material, but are not in-depth sources about the subject itself for GNG. Having developed notable video games or worked on a notable console is WP:NOTINHERITED. Previous AfDs and above !keep seems to hinge on NOTINHERITED and an interpretation of what "notable" means in a way that is not how it is used on Wikipedia. Other arguments like WP:INTERESTING and WP:USEFUL aren't even close to GNG requirements. Reliable sources simply haven't done any significant coverage of the company itself, only passing mentions. May be some of the sourced Dreamcast-related content can be merged to Dreamcast#Decline or legacy or some such. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Gamasutra reference hasn't been added yet. It also has no new information. It basically a more reliable source reaffirming the other references. As you can see I've been trying to discuss alternatives with Jovanmilic. I don't think this fits into decline, a case for legacy could be made. We used to have a weird entry called List of commercially released independently developed Dreamcast games. It has now been merged with homebrew, which these games aren't because Redspotgames, NG DEV TEAM, Hucast, and Goat Store Publishing were releasing indie games. It does fit into legacy for sure, but the content is to much to be crammed into a section. It needs it's own page. Maybe Dreamcast Indie Games, Dreamcast Indie Developers... It would offer a nice redirect to all my deleted pages. That said, I really felt once Redspotgames made it on national TV notability had been forever established... It wasn't a commercial, the publisher was given a platform. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-XRNuVFKiE and it happened again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUMmcNacUkw--Cube b3 (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is that it wasn't the publisher that was the subject of those interviews, but Sturmwind was (which is obviously notable). Again, WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, I would really ask you to not WP:BLUDGEON (as you are the creator of this article) this AfD. I appreciate that you are passionate for this, but there is no need for so much text that could have been condensed into few sentences. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please review the transcript of the televised interview, an English translation is in the video description. The main subject was not Sturmwind, it was being an underdog in the world of publishing.--Cube b3 (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:INTERVIEW. They aren't considered secondary sources (since the whole thing comes from the people connected to it. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but context matters. The reference in line is used to establish notability that the publisher was invited on a German TV show to unveil Sturmwind but in addition to that, they had a discussion about the publisher in contrast to Apple. I also realized that the second televised feature isn't in the article and this one is much longer as they have a pre-recorded feature on Dreamcast games and the redspotgames work before going live and playing Sturmwind with Max. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUMmcNacUkw--Cube b3 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the excellent analysis provided by Jovanmilic97. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability (largely failing a combination of WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH). Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a publisher for notable games, but no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject and we need this for a Wikipedia article. Charmk (talk) 11:34, 4 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. No consensus to delete, but the content is indeed largely unreferenced, making it fail WP:V. If this does not change, a renomination may well succeed in deleting the content. Sandstein 19:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pride of Performance Awards (1958–1959)[edit]

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

Mostly original research, see WP:OR. There is no WP:RS which could verify these entries, no official site either. It is better navigable by using its complementary category, . Störm (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

Störm (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all A category is not a substitute for a list. For a highly important level of national award like this, we should have a list of individuals who received the said award. It would be better to add references for individuals onto the article, however that is something to discuss on the talk page, and also something that is contingent on voluntary editing. It doesn't in any way or form demote the notability of the said award, or the individuals who were recipients of the award, or the list itself. Mar4d (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all lists We, as editors, have been adding references next to the award-winners names on these lists. Personally I have been trying to focus on these lists and add references whenever I can. Occasionally, some of those links go dead on me and I continuously try to replace them over the past four years at least. Let's join in the effort to do it. Most of the above-mentioned lists already have anywhere from 5 to 27 references. I took the time to look at all of them today before writing my comment. Only 1 list for 1958 - 59 has two references but, at the same time, this list is only for a couple of years also. If allowed some time, we can build them up further. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i can't see the rationale behind having these "10 year" articles, the main article, Pride of Performance, isnt overly large (one reason for WP:SPLIT), their duration appears arbitrary - are there any sources that have this division (why not 20 or 25 years)? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The nominator seems very confused. They have claimed that, somehow, no reliable sources exist to verify who received a notable national award, yet don't seem to realize that this would mean the information is unverifiable because they simultaneously say it's fine as a category. @Störm: Please explain why you think "There is no WP:RS which could verify these entries". postdlf (talk) 14:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, that most of the entries are unverifiable. Better is to merge and remove unverifiable entries that would be one or two article max. Störm (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that most of the entries are unverifiable? postdlf (talk) 18:35, 3 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. Sandstein 19:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Chams[edit]

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

Previously nominated and deleted. The BLP seems closely associated with the subject of article based on the contributions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I added two references about the director getting the author of an unfavourable film review arrested. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For a film director, I think it's TOOSOON. Agree with the passing nature of limited mentions that there are. One or two RS at that, rest are non-reliable, non-independent or self-published. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Director has directed multiple movies and has been featured widely. Director strongly follows the criteria of WP:Director to be on Wikipedia and is notable. Owlf 00:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject doesn't meet a single criterion listed on the guidelines section you linked. What specifically did you have in mind? Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool First of all read WP:Director and has widely featured on National media which follows WP:RS and the director who has already directed around 7-8 movies is WP:TOOSOON on Wikipedia? Lol Owlf 05:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally he has produced 7 movies and directed 9 movies which got good hype on Nepalese Film Industry and you can find many Nepalese national sources and i have added few english sources. So don't come here without reviewing well on google. Owlf 05:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Must you attack me instead of sticking with the actual subject of the discussion though? How do you know I haven't actually done the "... reviewing well on google" part? Back to the subject, please note that WP:DIRECTOR doesn't say notability equals having directed at least X movies. And, wikipedia doesn't have a "hype" quantifier. So, again, I ask you, which criterion specifically does he meet? Feel free to ignore me altogether if you are not going to be civil though. Usedtobecool ^TALK 06:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who's attacking you here? I am here from Nepalese wikipedia discussion list? What's your issue? And read WP:TOOSOON nicely and fyi: you came here to discuss with me , not me lol. Get a life Owlf 12:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At this time I don't see notability. Existence of work isn't notability. Note(worthiness) has to be taken. Trillfendi (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How you can't see notability? When the director has been featured widely and check those Nepali news coverages? Owlf 06:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, i can find a lot sources on google about the director, he has also done a few feature films :-) 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @LucasB1991:, would you care to share some of those with us so everyone can see and analyse them too? I personally don't doubt that there are a lot of recent news mentions of him. The very reason anyone got interested in this article in the first place would have been because the subject was involved in a recent controversy. My assessment was that a one-time event wasn't enough to satisfy GNG and there wasn't enough coverage of him in reliable secondary sources to establish notability as a film director. I am open to changing my mind though. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 05:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear from my comment above (before the relisting), I meant ~~Delete~~. I am still on delete. No new evidence has been presented by keep "votes". Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 06:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of independent sustained WP:SIGCOV. The sources in the article do not get him over this notability bar, nor do the phantom sources LucasB1991 talked about but didn't show. That's basically trying to keep the article on WP:CRYSTALBALL grounds. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello, i cannot be on the wiki every day because of work but i did find sources i will post them here :-). [123] [124] [125] [126]. Maybe adding them would help? I am not from Nepal so maybe someone from Nepal can comment better :-). 🌝Lucas🌞B🌎1991 (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the director of at least two notable films that have received coverage and reviews e.g. [127][128][129][130][131][132] and received nominations and awards - [133][134][135], he should qualify under WP:DIRECTOR. Hzh (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per HzH and Lucas B1991 who have supplied references that show that the director and his films have coverage in reliable sources and so the article deserves to be kept and improved, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(asking out of curiosity, not trying to be adversarial) Atlantic306 It is true that at least two of his films have been covered in RS as per links mentioned above by the two users. The earlier film has at least one reliable source each for Europe tour and nominations at National film Awards. The latter film has a ton of controversy coverage for getting the reviewer arrested (which our subject directly/single-handedly made possible) and at least one review in RS. Now, I am wondering:

Is there an unwritten (or written that I might have missed) consensus that "two films covered in RS is enough to establish notability of a director as far as AfD is concerned"?
What if there is very little (if at all) actual biographical material actually covered in those RSs to write a biography with here? I have WP:PSEUDOBIOGRAPHY concerns. And thought that whenever biographical information that passes the inclusion test isn't available in RS, it could be considered that it's TOOSOON. I am strongly leaning towards Keep either way here since we do have enough for a 2-3 sentence stub from RS. Just needed to ask in case you have the time to answer.Thanks! Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 16:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes in WP:DIRECTOR he passes criteria 4 (only one criteria needed): The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. He passes (c) as his works have received significant critical attention, note that it is passing any of a b c or d not all of them although that would obviously be best, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 2 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 19:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sobi2[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Sobi2

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

Still Not Notable. Clnreee (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems notable and also provide enough resources.--SebastianQuilo (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on why you think this article "seems notable"? No one has provided any references that show significant mentions in independent third-party sources. This is a clear delete. Clnreee (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. Was created and built up by a series of WP:SPA's, so there is a very high likelihood this article has serious COI issues and should be swiftly uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:24, 27 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Arvinder[edit]

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

Non notable studio musician/arranger. Has worked with a lot of artists but notability is not inherited from them. Lots of credits but primarily as a session player, none saying notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - for now. Sources do indicate work with notable music and music singles. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Work with notable music and music singles" is very vague. Which part of it helps with wp:gng? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is referenced with non-trivial coverage and the subject has achieved notability in his field. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 13:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this coverage you speak of? How has he achieved notability in his field? duffbeerforme (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:21, 27 June 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. Sandstein 19:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Turnbull[edit]

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

no indication of notability The Banner talk 12:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if a person makes it into their dictionary of national biography don’t we presume that they are notable? Mccapra (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The indication of notability is clear - with an entry in a dictionary of national biography, she meets WP:ANYBIO. It would be goid to find more sources and info to add to the article, but there's no reason to delete it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To be true, it is a complete mystery why she was added to the dictionary in the first place. Both dictionary and article fail to make clear her notability. The Banner talk 13:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO#3. There may be offline sources (i.e. newspapers) due to her death in the 1980s. I've expanded the stub. Thsmi002 (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since notability is clear. Mccapra (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography entry regarding her is true, she was somewhat of a local celebrity at the time of her death. This I see as being an adequate case for the subject meeting WP:GNG at the very least, as the dictionary entry indicates WP:SIGCOV is met.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. While the NZDNB is usually a reliable indicator of notability, it does contain a few "representative entries" of people who were not notable, and this may be one of those. Being a local celebrity due to being a centenarian does not seem like sufficient justification for an article on Wikipedia.-gadfium 01:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Schwede66 and Coolabahapple below.-gadfium 05:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Dictionary of New Zealand Biography#Representative entries. Gadfium is correct; this is one of the handful of representative entries, as further explained on that page. Schwede 66 04:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously passes WP:GNG. Sheldybett (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dictionary of New Zealand Biography#Representative entries appears to be a sensible thing to do, if/when further sources are uncovered to show that she is notable (at the moment article does not show this) then can be broken out to a standalone. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability - needs reliable sources, since sources are uncovered to show that she is notable. --MA Javadi (talk) 18:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't see where the notability is. It certainly isn't in being a centenarian. Trillfendi (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I guess I skew inclusionist. Sourced, and basically notable. The Frizzer interview/bio is quoted by others too here and here. Hydromania (talk) 07:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Several of the "keep" !votes are rather weak, policy-wise. "Obviously passes GNG" or "notability is clear" (WP:ITSNOTABLE) are arguments that closing admins routinely ignore.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entry in the DNZB obviously passes WP:ANYBIO. The policies WP:ATD; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE also indicate that deletion would not be appropriate. Andrew D. (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So it is the source itself that makes her notable, not the content? The Banner talk 22:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue here is the proposal that the article should be "deleted" – restricted so that only admins can read it. The fact that the subject is held in sufficiently high regard that she appears in her country's primary record of biography tells us that the proposal is ridiculous. It violates several policies and so should be dismissed. Andrew D. (talk) 23:08, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So those of us who know something about this particular dictionary and have pointed to the "representative entries" don't know what they are talking about. Is that what you are saying? Schwede 66 00:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The representative entries argument is not a valid reason to delete. Notability does not represent a level of fame or achivement; it merely indicates that the topic or person has been noticed –– that there are respectable sources covering them. The subject here has been noticed in this way and so, as a matter of definition, they are notable, as Wikipedia defines the concept. Insofar as the DNZB included such people to provide good diversity then that goal aligns well with Wikipedia's and with modern ideas of social history covering common folk as well as great men. Andrew D. (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effectively that would make every soldier mentioned in dispatches notable, as the soldier has been noticed. It would also mean that every restaurant in a Michelin Guide is notable, as it is noticed. etc. etc. Evert kid mentioned in newspapers for winning medals at youth games would be notable, as he or she is noticed. To my opinion, that would severely damage the encyclopedia due to flooding with non-notable items. The Banner talk 08:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having lots of articles is not a problem; that's policy. Imposing arbitrary limits based on personal opinions would be a problem because it would be contrary to policies such as WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. If the editors of the DNZB or Michelin Guide consider a topic worthy of coverage then I am content to trust their judgement. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was one who said "notability is clear" - because she has an entry in a dictionary of national biography, and therefore meets WP:ANYBIO. Mccapra's Keep !vote followed their Comment "if a person makes it into their dictionary of national biography don’t we presume that they are notable?", so it's clear they were also citing WP:ANYBIO. My Keep !vote stands. Firstly, I don't think we should second-guess dictionaries of national biography as to the reason why a person was included. Secondly, it is not true that no secondary sources exist: the entry for Elizabeth Turnbull lists 3, 'First party'. Taieri Herald. 7 May 1985: 1; Ramsay, C. 'A living history book'. Taieri Herald. 2 April 1985: 30--31; Stewart, P. J. Patterns on the plain. Dunedin, 1975. The first two are accessible online at PapersPast, the 3rd is not. If someone could access a hard copy, we could add that source to the article. Also, it seems that the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography has made an effort to be "more representative of population covered, boosting the numbers of women, Māori, and other minority groups". They have thus provided Wikipedia with a reliable source of coverage about topics and subjects which would otherwise not received balanced coverage within Wikipedia (WP:SBEXT). RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my ‘keep’ !vote also stands, following the reasoning of RebeccaGreen and Andrew D. Mccapra (talk) 14:58, 29 June 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. G5: creation by a banned or blocked user Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agrahyah Technologies[edit]

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

The sources are passing mentions and there is no evidence of independent notability. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:36, 27 June 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. Fails to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage (not just passing mentions) in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 14:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProofWiki[edit]

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

No sourcing in WP:RS, fails WP:RS. Störm (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have found another independent source for the lede. The remaining text is the manifesto, for which the present sourcing is acceptable per the policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; since I am the Benevolent Creator For Life, and must therefore defend my righteous honour in the face of vandalous adversity! WP:N is not being challenged! What happened to ^{[citation needed]}? What is sigbovik with the egregia cum laude first reference? The last reference is okay too; even though I wasn't the one who found it. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just primary sources, No significant coverage from third-party sources. Charmk (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources:

Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 6167 (p. 133, and where ever the reference on 469 is from)
CICM 2010: Intelligent Computer Mathematics (p. 456)
Volume 767 of the CEUR Workshop Proceedings (p. 54-62)
Enabling Collaboration on Semiformal Mathematical Knowledge by Semantic Web Integration (p. 18)
Gaussianos (translation)
Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 7362 (p. 177, 179)
What is the Most Important Theorem?
Intelligent Computer Mathematics: LNAI 7961 (p. 165)
Sum of Sequence of Squares – ProofWiki
Naver (translation)
AITP 2018: The Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Theorem Proving (p. 63-65)
AITP 2018: Playing with Autoformalization over Mizar and ProofWiki (p. 1-21)
ICMS 2018: First Experiments with Neural Translation of Informal Mathematics to Formal (p. 3, 4, 10)
??? (Google cann't translate this.)
ProofWiki is listed on Terence Taos' website.
ProofWiki is listed on Daniel Tubbenhauers' website.

A section on its' inclusion in the Mizar system could be included.

-- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, https://0xffff.one/d/263 is a forum post. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/ and http://www.dtubbenhauer.com/ are blogs. I wouldn't count those as RS. Also, the current article reads like an advert. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess they do have ads; I've never checked before. Terence Tao is WP:RS. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, but the blog did not talk about ProofWiki specifically. WP:NWEB says that the page should discuss the subject specifically not merely linking to it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NWEB only says "Wikipedia is not a web directory, in that it is not a site that specializes in linking to other web sites and categorizing those links. Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Articles which merely include an external link and a brief description of its contents may be deleted.". No where does it describe what you have. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should also describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be kept significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources, since editors can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See the Current events portal for examples."

"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations[4] except for media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site[5] or trivial coverage, such as: a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site, newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, and content descriptions in directories or online stores.

The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]"--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should be able to agree that this article does not fail WP:RS. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep and improve using the references listed in this discussion by Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated Charmk (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources linked talks about ProofWiki specifically. To me, they seem like passing mentions. --Charmk (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProofWiki looks to be a Wiki site for math proofs, just like any fandom Wikia sites. However, we don't see an article for every Wikia site out there.--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd, 5th, and 10th, links in the sources list are only about ProofWiki. The 11th, and 12th, links in the sources list are about the relationship between Mizar, and ProofWiki. Since ProofWiki is titled in each of them, I'm surprised at your inability to recognise them! ProofWiki isn't Wikia either, it says MediaWiki on the article page; are you sure you're discussing the right page? In the right place? -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ProofWiki may just be a wiki site for math proofs, but OEIS is just a database of integer sequences. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, OEIS is also just a wiki. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The OEIS is certainly not a Wiki. Moreover, this kind of argument, even if it were based in fact (which it is not), is not helpful for determining whether an article should be kept or not. --JBL (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=0Iq6BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA177&lpg=PA177&dq=%22proofwiki%22&source=bl&ots=_vYIpoJ6uA&sig=ACfU3U2Mx-iOdK3hyqXY8702YzzBeo62tA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjlfTXveDiAhWJeisKHQpTAdo4HhDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=%22proofwiki%22&f=false passing mention
https://tiggienoggie.wordpress.com/2015/12/30/sum-of-sequence-of-squares-proofwiki/ blog post that links to ProofWiki but not discussing about ProofWiki
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ko&u=http://m.blog.naver.com/greengb/220570463674&prev=search blog post
http://aitp-conference.org/2018/aitp18-proceedings.pdf#page=63 ehhh... it discusses about ProofWiki but it seem to be about translating ProofWiki to Mizar
https://0xffff.one/d/263 blog post
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-767/paper-10.pdf compare and contrast different math type. Seem primary source to me, not secondary.
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=https://www.gaussianos.com/proofwiki-el-wiki-de-las-demostraciones-matematicas/&prev=search blog post about ProofWiki
http://grid01.ciirc.cvut.cz/~mptp/neural1.pdf Brief compare contrast proofwiki to Mizar

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tyw7: The sources about translating ProofWiki into Mizar should be relevant since we discuss this in text. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiman2718, but I don't see it supporting the wiki notability. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because does not have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Clnreee (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm inclined to view this as notable. I don't understand why this page 63 is being rejected as evidence of notability above. SJK (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV of itself. Sources provided are just passing mentions and do not show that this is notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, ergo, not notable. Particularly, no substantial mentions in periodicals or sites dedicated to mathematics education or web cultures, which is where I would expect to find evidence of a maths website's notability. @SJK: That conference paper is the closest we get to an indication of notability here, but more than a singular source of that standard would be necessary to meet GNG in my view. Triptothecottage (talk) 09:57, 2 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) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asha News[edit]

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

Delete as WP:HOAX. Well, there is no Asha News TV channel and "Asha News" almost surely does not exist as a news organization. The website is simply a mock-up likely based on some older version of Aaj Tak's wesbite, and probably created to illustrate the web-development skills of Piushtrivedi, who created this article, and several others, about "news organizations" that he supposedly runs. Note that the only cited source smsnews.live is another website developed by "Sai Web Solutions" also run by the same person. Look also at these previous AFDs and at the user's deleted contributions especially this version of his userpage.
This is G3/G11 speedy-able but I am filing this AFD to record the evidence because the user is known to recreate deleted articles and likely has used sock/meatpuppets such as Matangidarshan (talk · contribs). Abecedare (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 09:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:ORGDEPTH and per the research by Abecedare. MarnetteD|Talk 00:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable organizations and companies. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--Nahal^(T) 10:40, 30 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United People[edit]

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

A microparty with no representation. Over-reliance on primary sources, suggesting a lack of independent notability. Similar grounds to that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Housing Rights and Reform Alliance. -- Iveagh Gardens (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of meeting GNG or NORG. Triptothecottage (talk) 07:24, 3 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. Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XTM International[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP because most of the sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unless these offline sources are REALLY great then this article is built on nothing. Article appears to have been written by a single-purpose account.

Analysis of sources: Not significant: 1, 2, 17, 19

Not independent: 5, 6, 7, 8 10, 14

Link doesn't work: 3, 4, 9, 11

Not mentioned at all: 15

Can't analyze: 12, 13, 16 shoy (reactions) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Also tried WP:BEFORE and found nothing but press releases. shoy (reactions) 14:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. shoy (reactions) 14:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP due to lacking independent sustained WP:SIGCOV. The sources in the article and on the web do nothing to push this company over any notability bar and the WP:SPA that created this article as their one edit very likely had a COI, which means this article should be swiftly uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some links need to be updated. The article is 100% factual, I can prepare an updated version ( links/review ) it before taking any decision. Would that be ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CB-Artist (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the article is simple and factual, now it is corrected with new and updated links - I am open to suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CB-Artist (talk • contribs) 15:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:53, 30 June 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 Withdrawn. RL0919 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TeeKay-421[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. No signicant coverage in reliable sources. Rogermx (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rogermx: can you give a rundown about what doesn't satisfy you with the keep artugments in the two previous nominations? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- To be totally honest, I did not realize that the article had gone through deletion discussions already. I apologize for my lack of due dilligence. I still do not believe this article is notable, but if it has been thoroughly litigated already, I withdraw my nomination. Rogermx (talk) 13:31, 27 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KitSplit[edit]

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

Fails basic notability. WP:TOOSOON Brian-armstrong (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not only do I believe the company fails to meet notability guidelines, but the article was obviously created as a PR piece. The best sources I can find are the Forbes article listed in the references and this other Forbes article, both of which seem to use KitSplit exclusively as a reference, as well as this article from Digital Trends, which also banks almost exclusively on the company's statements as a reference. If not deleted for notability guidelines, the article should be WP:TNT'd due to the blatant astroturfing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:55, 27 June 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) 07:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our Summer Promise[edit]

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

Notability? Nothing comes up online when I look this up. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:28, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the "plot" section is complete gibberish. TheAwesome Hwyh 01:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of incomprehensible text in that section: "He became a university student while sending a futile everyday.", "When she appeared as she was, her time began to move again." I honestly can't tell what that text is trying to say? TheAwesome Hwyh 01:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article is just a terrible translation of the plot; unless there is evidence of sufficient notability, an English article is not helpful. (WP is not a language teaching resource). Imaginatorium (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would like to note that poor English or even gibberish in the body of the article is not necessarily reason for deletion of the article. If it is a notable subject, the English can certainly be improved. ...That said, this book seems entirely non-notable. I have tried searching the English title, the Japanese title, the transliterated title, and the ISBN, and have come up with absolutely nothing besides booksellers and someone's blog. Gilded Snail (talk) 11:38, 28 June 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.

[hrcak.srce.hr-iveta-1] Iveta, Vladimir (27 August 2018). "LEGAL STRUCTURE OF FOOTBALL CLUBS IN YUGOSLAVIA AND CROATIA WITH EMPHASIS ON THE EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERS" (html, pdf). Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta Sveučilišta u Rijeci (in Croatian). 39 (2): 1039–1067. doi:10.30925/zpfsr.39.2.12. ISSN 1330-349X. Retrieved 15 June 2019.

[hrcak.srce.hr-kovacic-2] Kovačić, Davor (28 June 2016). "Nogometni profesionalci u udruženom radu" (html, pdf). Časopis za suvremenu povijest (in Croatian). 48 (1): 67–95. ISSN 0590-9597. Retrieved 15 June 2019.

[3] ttps://pagesix.com/2019/03/03/harvard-law-professor-says-trump-wont-be-indicted/

[4] ttps://www.newyorksocialdiary.com/for-the-common-good/

[5] ttps://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/24/david-hogg-parkland-shooting-gun-control-activism

[6] ttps://pagesix.com/2018/05/23/parkland-activists-make-the-rounds-in-nyc/

[7] ttp://www.avenuemagazine.com/bi-curious-patricia-duffs-pow-wows-take-pols-past-party-ties/?cat_id=9914

[8] ttps://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2017/05/womens-march-creator-from-hana-now-ready-to-talk-story/

[9] ttps://www.invitednyc.com/home/2017/5/23/the-common-good-forum-bridging-the-bipartisian-divide

[10] ttps://observer.com/2012/05/mark-ruffalo-goes-green-for-the-common-good/

[11] ttps://www.thenation.com/article/katrina-vanden-heuvel-election-insurrection-midterms-2010/

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]