Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 March	28 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism and Islam[edit]

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

Anything relevant from this article should be integrated in capitalism and history of capitalism, found it weird history of capitalism to have no mention of topic at all and it should, it is much more visible page and not as peculiar, little people will search for this page. Plus it warrants no page of it's own because it only part of larger topic Sourcerery (talk)

Keep. If I correctly understand the not very clearly expressed reason given for deletion, it is that few people (not small people) will see this article, and therefore mention of the subject should be made on the other pages mentioned. That can be done, but doing so does not in any way require this article to be deleted. This is a rather specific niche topic, which does not merit extensive coverage in those more general articles, but a brief mention there linking to this article for further detail makes more sense than wholesale deletion. Also, the fact that few people are likely to see the article is not a reason for deletion: it does no harm to keep it for the benefit of those few who do see it. (Nevertheless, since the issue of the number of people seeing the articles has been raised, I have checked, and in the last 30 days there have been just over 1,000 views of Capitalism and Islam, compared with a little over 22,000 for History of capitalism. For such a very much more specific and limited subtopic, that does not seem to me to be an unreasonably small a number of views.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since writing the post above, I have discovered that the notion that we should delete an article because few people will read it is listed at Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, under the heading Pageview stats. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Point I was making is WP:N thought that was clear by suggestion to have it all in capitalism and history of capitalism Sourcerery (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as I see no objective reason this article should be deleted. Subjective reasons for deletion are a bad idea to use. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 23:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep لا يوجد سبب موضوعي للحذف. ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English translation: Is not objective reason to delete. ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC) — ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. GAB^gab 20:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP please. I see it is notable for me! And it has very important information,and facst.20:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)ﷴﷺﷴﷺﷴﷺ (talk)

I'm not sure I see a valid deletion rationale here. GMG ^talk 21:21, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep on WP:SKCRIT #1 grounds - no valid reason for deletion has been proposed. If that doesn't work, the topic clearly passes WP:GNG through the scholarly articles cited. SportingFlyer T·C 05:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason given for deletion (in all honesty I should close this as a speedy keep). Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:35, 3 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Raj Ramayya[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician with no properly substantiated or reliably sourced claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. This is actually so egregiously bad that literally the only reason I'm not speedying it as a blatant advertisement is that it's been around for over a decade -- but in that entire time, the only "reference" that has ever been added at all is a directly affiliated WordPress blog, not a reliable or notability-supporting source. Three other sources were offered in the first discussion, back in 2010, as "proof" of his notability — but two of those three other sources are dead links whose former content is entirely unverifiable, a third is a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article that isn't about him, and the blog is the only one that actually made it into the article at all. A WordPress blog is not a reliable source for the purposes of establishing the notability of a musician, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt his referencing from having to be much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per all of the above.TH1980 (talk) 01:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above , no reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, and no WP:RS QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 17:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Philosophy of mathematics#Social constructivism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern mathematics[edit]

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

To the extent the article is accurate and unbiased (which is very small), it is not a notable philosophy of mathematics. Note on category choice: I cannot tell whether a legitimate article on postmodernism in mathematics would be "Science and Technology", "Society Topics", or possibly "Fiction". (Much of what is accepted by post-modern journals is fiction.) (changed !vote below) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per my comments on the talk page of this article, and the tag {{POV}} that I have added. D.Lazard (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article is almost entirely based on the work of two authors: Paul Ernest and Mohammad Moslehian. This does not really seem to be a major school of thought. WP:NFRINGE probably applies as there isn't much independent coverage of the subject. Also does not seem to pass WP:GNG. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. If there are two authors then that's already enough to satisfy WP:GNG and it's not difficult to find more substantial sources such as Mathematics: The Loss of Certainty. It may be that's there a better place or title for such analysis of the state of (post) modern mathematics such as Philosophy_of_mathematics#Social_constructivism but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG, per the article and sources already there. Zero compliance with WP:Before. Google books and Google scholar are replete with sources. WP:Not paper applies. There is lots of room for these theories and analytical tools. At bottom, this is a content dispute, and not a good reason to WP:AFD. WP:Like or WP:Don't like are not arguments that deserve any weight. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@7&6=thirteen: I took a quick look through the first couple pages of each set of search results, and most of what I see isn't using the term in a way that's related to the subject of the article. I'm not automatically saying there's not enough out there, but just going, "Oh look...search hits!" isn't really enough here. I think in order to make a case for keeping, you need to actually find a chunk of these that are actually related to the topic of the article, and to satisfy WP:NFRINGE, you need to find other sources that discuss this as a field besides just a relative handful of adherents. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The case to be made here is the case for deletion – that is the motion before us. The evidence of the sources is that the topic is sufficiently notable that there are sensible alternatives to deletion and it is our policy to prefer these. Talk of fringe is ridiculous because that's for silly stuff like Paul is dead. The source I presented is a serious book - notable enough to have an article of its own. Andrew D. (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG Agree with 7&6 comments above. Lubbad85 (talk) 14:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My review of sources reveals, among other things, that there are lots of sources that disagree with the analytical and philsophical model encompassed by Postmodern mathematics. I think they should be further fleshed out in our article.

But their very existence establishes:

the subject is notable but controversial;
this is a content dispute; and
belies that this a ground for WP:AFD.

So the article should be kept. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the content of the article appears in sources, WP:COMMONSENSE excludes to keep in Wikipedia an article that presents as "figures" of the subject people who have nothing to do with postmodernism, such as Wittgenstein, Popper and Wilkinson. Also, the article presents Popper's criterion of falsifiability as a concept of postmodern mathematics, when it is a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience, which immediately implies that mathematics is a science, while postmodern mathematics is a pseudoscience. Are you serious when asserting that such fallacies must be kept? D.Lazard (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, calling Popperian falsificationism "postmodern" is just strange. I get the feeling that this article is at the end of a long chain of oversimplifications. XOR'easter (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philosophy of mathematics, which is not a great article, but which is better, since it isn't full of WP:OR and excessively broad claims about what postmodernists as a whole believe. The mere existence of sources on a topic does not mean that a given article on that topic is worth keeping, and the problems with this one are too deep to be fixable through ordinary editing. Instead, it would require a top-down rewrite. XOR'easter (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion to redirect to Philosophy of mathematics (a nice but very long article) would only make that article much longer. Moreover, it ignores the existence of other parallel articles, e.g. Quasi-empiricism in mathematics. Sometimes forks make the articles more digestible. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would not make philosophy of mathematics longer. I did not suggest a merge, because I do not think this article has content worth merging; as I said, I believe that it would require rewriting from scratch to be acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:For the three !votes saying that the article meets WP:GNG due to the two authors' works already in the article, aren't those sources not independent (which GNG requires)? If two people invent a theory, their own articles about the theory do not count as independent reliable sources on their theory. — MarkH21 (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reference 5, which is cited more than any other, is a broken link to a paper in a journal that appears to be Paul Ernest's personal project, and whose website is down. I think it may also be incorrectly attributed; elsewhere it is listed as a single-author publication by Izmirli alone. All sorts of red flags are going up regarding the sourcing of this page. XOR'easter (talk) 18:32, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest is just a current researcher of this topic but there are plenty of others who have written about this before. For example, here's a book of 200 pages from 2001: Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodern Thought. That's from the OUP and so is quite respectable. Q.E.D. Andrew D. (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, "The mere existence of sources on a topic does not mean that a given article on that topic is worth keeping, and the problems with this one are too deep to be fixable through ordinary editing." So, Q.E. not D. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That book's description says that it "traces the root of postmodern theory to a debate on the foundations of mathematics, early in the 20th century then compares developments in mathematics to what took place in the arts and humanities". This is about how postmodernism arose from a debate about the foundations of mathematics (i.e. Postmodernism#History), not this "postmodern mathematics" construed as postmodernism applied to the philosophy of mathematics. — MarkH21 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does seem to be doing a different thing than this article is trying to do. XOR'easter (talk) 21:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, change to Redirect (nothing accurate and reliably sourced to merge) to Philosophy of mathematics. Deletion is still possible, as it's more "uncertainty as a mathematical philosophy" (I originally wrote "uncertainty in mathematics", but that would be also a potentially different article) than something called "postmodern mathematics", which I'm not sure exists and is sufficiently notable, even for a redirect. I'm more of a formalist in mathematics, myself, so I do not feel qualified to comment on whether there is a notable field of "postmodern mathematics". I can only assert that this article is not about "postmodern mathematics", and XOR'easter (talk · contribs) points out the main, potentially accurate, relevant reference is misattributed, and he cannot determine whether it is accurately used. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Changed my reasoning, but still redirect. Nothing here should be in an article on postmodern mathematics, so I'm neutral whether an optimal approach would be Delete and redirect or just redirect. If there is anything accurate here, an article on "uncertainty as a mathematical philosophy" might be recovered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redirect or delete and redirect This looks to be another Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of General Caste in Sikhism (2nd nomination) where the mathematics editors all say one thing, and the deletion-focused editors ("deletionists"?) tend to say something else. I don't know anything about this topic, but neither do Andrew or 7&6. Wikipedia will never get better if we allow articles on specialized topics to be controlled by "general interest" editors rather than the ones who actually know what they're talking about. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as a math editor, it is not clear to me that the article is/should be about mathematics per se, and therefore not clear to me that math-focused editors are the correct body of experts. (I do not plan to take a position on this AfD.) --JBL (talk) 01:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joel B. Lewis: I'm not sure what your point is. Your being a mathematics editor doesn't actually discredit my argument unless you are arguing to keep the article, since it's still the case that every mathematics editor who has taken a "side" in this discussion has said delete or redirect, and that all the editors who have said keep are general AFD contributors. I'm sure in the above-linked Sikhism case some random editors of Indian topics saw the discussion and decided not to comment because they didn't care either way, but that's basically beside the point. Is your point that the article is more about postmodernism than mathematics? That would be fine, except that no one here gives the impression that they came here from the philosophy deletion list. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the point he was making (correct me please if incorrect) and I agree, the article seems to be more about the philosophy of mathematics than mathematics. Opinions from editors from the philosophy wikiproject / delsort would certainly be useful here. — MarkH21 (talk) 06:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. --JBL (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes. Hopefully some will be forthcoming. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the article describes non-mainstream theories of mathematics, it's about uncertainty as a philosophy of mathematics. Is that part of postmodernism? I (and the sources) don't seem to think so. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Philosophy of mathematics#Social constructivism. The article is far too unclear and expository, and it is straightforward WP:SYNTH in its efforts to collect various ideas and thinkers into a group they never agreed to join. So, how can we better serve our readers? Thinking in terms of WP:NOPAGE and WP:ATD-R, redirecting to Philosophy of mathematics#Social constructivism keeps the title as a search term but puts the reader in a better position to understand two important pieces of context: 1) where some of the ideas discussed in the current article actually fit in the broader history of philosophy of mathematics, and 2) the distinction between constructivist epistemology (which seems to be the thing that the term "postmodern" is being used to avoid saying in this article) and constructivism as used in the philosophy of mathematics. Bakazaka (talk) 01:49, 3 April 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'll be creating a redirect to Taxonomy, though in my personal capacity and not as part of the close ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxologist[edit]

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

WP:DICDEF of a neologistic job title. This does not feature any meaningful context to make it an encyclopedia article rather than a dictionary definition, or any independent reliable source analysis about it as a thing -- virtually all of the footnotes here are blogs and public relations WP:SPIP from companies that do tax technology work, not independent reliable source media outlets. This is written and referenced differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it still doesn't represent a significant improvement over the first version. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's no more than a term invented by a tax and accounting firm for publicity purposes. Until the wider world has taken notice of the word that can be substantiated with sources outside of the tax industry, it should not have its own article per WP:NOTNEO. Taxology is actually another word for taxonomy - [1][2] used since the 19th century (a taxologist is therefore a taxonomist), it is therefore quite wrong to usurp the definition an older word still in use [3][4] without showing that the new definition has gain wider currency outside of these companies. Redirect to taxonomy is therefore another possibility. Hzh (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this, ok i do agree that this term was coined by a company. However, if you want to redirect the term, how about making it a section in the Taxonomy page, so that my efforts can also be saved because it has already been edited too much. ThanksTimHerzl (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and do not merge. It would be inappropriate to include an entry for it in Taxonomy, which contains a disambiguating list of various different types of taxonomies, as "Taxologist" (as defined by this article) is not a form of taxonomy. While I can empathize with being frustrated about losing work that you've done on Wikipedia, that in itself is not a reason to preserve information about non-notable subjects. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Quin[edit]

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

Hooray, it's another Ziggy 2milli undeclared paid production of a non-notable "entrepreneur" advertorial!

Source rundown:

promotional feature
primary, self-promotion
primary, self-promotion
primary, self-promotion
promotional interview
same content as source #1
promotional interview

- i.e., no trace of substantial, third-party, unconnected coverage.

I am getting increasingly annoyed that we have to deal with each of these promo blurbs individually as they pop up, instead of just showing the editor the door. Verily, current COI realpolitik sucketh :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ Delete the article and SALT the article on the mainspace. It's obvious what they are trying to attempt with the page move seen here. – The Grid (talk) 20:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly that's the rationale they have used for all their articles, even the one or two that stuck. But yeah, it's kind of on the nose. - Not sure what the combination of draftify and salting is supposed to accomplish; seems contradictory? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, fixed. – The Grid (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. The sources aren't RS, and don't meet GNG. I took a quick look at Ziggy 2milli's other articles, and they all follow this pattern. Unimportant entrepreneurs/etc who are using wikipedia for Promotion. "I want it to appear on google as a Wikipedia article because Alex Quin is notable" is pretty damning. Also, it has been a year Ziggy, maybe it is time to take down the " This user is new to Wikipedia." template, as that just looks like smokescreen at this point.--Theredproject (talk) 14:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just nom'd Shyon Keoppel for deletion. Someone might take a closer look at the other published articles, especially the ones with the clearly promo photographs declared as own work (I note that Ziggy's images are all nom'd for deletion on Commons for this reason):

I note that he also started the article for YNW Melly, who at the time was unlikely to be notable, though has subsequently become notable. Concurrently, the page has gone through an almost complete rewriting by over 100 users. The rest of these, are just Ziggy.--Theredproject (talk) 14:23, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opportunity I acknowledge the fact that I'm new to Wikipedia but you guys made similar mistakes when you were new too. You guys have been editing for long before you guys were made an admin. I just had to go through the reasons why the articles were nominated for deletion and also some Wikipedia guidelines for editing and I understand that most of the sources I used as references for the Article Alex Quin was not a secondary source but for the Article Shyon keoppel it has more than 5 secondary sources and Wikipedia requires at least 3 sources that talks clearly about what you're writing about. But I have one question for you must a person be notable in the world before he is considered notable? Because I know many public figures that are only notable in there country or nation but they still have a wiki page some times with 3 or 4 references but anytime I want to write about I will be tagged as either doing paid promotion or connected to the subject (Ziggy 2milli (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

You need sources that are: 1) independent 2) reliable Sources 3) that cover the subject in depth. Not just any sources.--Theredproject (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Ziggy 2milli how did you come to select this set of people to write about? And how did you happen to be with them to take these photographs which you have said you took with your cell phone, given you said you don't live in the US? --Theredproject (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most people am writing about are the people that I know there story because they are notable I do travel to USA for some of there talk shows and interviews I took pictures of them but I'm not really connected to them(Ziggy 2milli (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)). The article Shyon Keoppel has more than five or five independent reliable sources that covers it in depth(Ziggy 2milli (talk) 09:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Delete and SALT. Pretty blatant case of WP:PROMO and most likely a case of WP:COI. In general, its usually frowned upon to edit or create articles on subjects you have a personal connection to. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My dreams is to become a technical writer I'm not a good writer yet though I know I'm going to be the best so what makes you guys think anybody will hire or pay me to write an article for them. I'm just writing these articles because of the passion I have for writing and also trying to develop my skills so I think you guys should correct my mistakes not accusing me of paid promotion.(Ziggy 2milli (talk) 21:53, 29 March 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. Primefac (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time[edit]

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

Since List of association football players considered the greatest of all time has been deleted, this should go too. Besides, it has been well-established that there are only three real candidates (Gretzky, Howe and Orr). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Each list should be considered on its own merit, and this one is well sourced, easily meeting the requirements for WP:V and WP:RS, just like List of films considered the best. That this article contains only six names is non consequential to the deletion discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well sourced? The sole "reference" for Béliveau is Terry Dawes, a writer for "a monthly online magazine about Canadian technology stocks". For Sidney Crosby, we have Miika Arponen (whoever he is) and Crosby's own team (hardly neutral). Lemieux has a fan in Mark Barberio. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the article could not be improved. Remember, WP:DINC. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the exact same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of association football players considered the greatest of all time. This is another WP:SYNTH monstrosity. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - one possibility would be to take the two polls linked in "see also" and any other similar polls (if they exist) and make this list into a combination/overview of the polls, as those would seem to have some weight due to how they were compiled. Including players based on the seemingly throwaway opinions of single (in some cases random and non-notable) people has no merit, however, IMO. List of films considered the best is mentioned above, but the entries on that list are based on wide-ranging polls of critics or the public and it doesn't anywhere include (at a quick glance, I didn't read it all) any entries based solely on one individual person in an interview saying "I think this is the greatest film ever".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As it stands now, this is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR and not much of a list anyway. The sources are the particular ones that certain Wikipedia editors happened to find, but who is to say there isn't an expert somewhere who regards Maurice Richard as the greatest ever. The number of experts in the list is particularly concerning as there is no objective basis for it - again, it just number of experts that certain Wikipedia editors happened to find. There could be scope for an article about who has been considered the greatest of all time over time - and for right now I think the consensus as Clarityfiend states (and as the article actually supports) is that it would come from among Howe, Orr and Gretzky, but that is a sentence, not an article. Tracing the emergence of the consensus greatest of all time over time could be a reasonable article - when did Howe gain consensus over the prior player or players considered, what happened before that, when did Orr join Howe on that pedestal, at least potentially, and then when did Gretzky. But this isn't it. Rlendog (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a discussion at a bar not an article. If it were an analysis, like Klein and Reif do, of the most dominant players of their era, with supporting rationale, then you might have an actually sourced article that is not simply OR.18abruce (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Rlendog. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The nom hasn't presented a valid deletion ground, "a similar list was deleted" and "I disagree with the article's conclusions" being neither. Nonetheless, I've never cared for it (and trust me, when the first iteration of the article posited that Wendel Clark and Patrick Marleau were in the running, of whom it couldn't be rightly said that they were the best players on their team, contemporaneously ...), and likewise believe it a fairly trivial exercise in SYNTH and OR. 18abruce was dead on: this is a bar/forum discussion topic, not a sound basis for an article. Ravenswing 18:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough basis for keeping the article. Sdmarathe (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheEditster (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lists of "something something something considered something something something" dont work on Wikipedia because they invariably apply undue weight by listing every minority opinion, because consensus never weeds out fringe opinions in these types of list. However, per WP:UNDUE: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. The list in theory could work. but just never will on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 12:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:02, 3 April 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. Advert CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 20:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madela[edit]

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

Fails WP:NVG. No sources found with Google search. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly fails WP:NVG as basically no independent/published sources can be found. Meszzy² (talk) 19:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Quartly-Janeiro[edit]

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

Promotional article, probably by subject. Member RSA isnot notable--its a quite general society. DGG ( talk ) 18:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unremarkable person. A Google search brings up just under 7K hits and none of them point towards anything significant... just personal social media and such. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the claims about his political career could be verified then he'd probably meet WP:BIO, but none of the references cited mentions him, nor can I find a shred of evidence online to verify that he worked with any of the notable economists and politicians named. Flapjacktastic (talk) 11:35, 3 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:19, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zillion (online platform)[edit]

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

The only claim to notability for this online platform that can be somewhat verified from the sources is that it won the "Runet Prize" in 2013 (which, looking at what these guys tend to bestow awards on, hardly seems to be a big distinction). The rest looks like promotional interviews. I don't believe this meets website or company notability requirements at this point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. History section sounded a lot like promotion which falls under WP:G11. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm concerned about this page for a couple of reasons. Looking at the logs for the user who created it, they've created quite a handful of pages that have been deleted. Perhaps a SPI needs to be done. In any sense, back to this specific page at hand, it's one of the hundreds of millions of online platforms that doesn't even come close to scraping the basics of WP:N. Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:30, 3 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tushy[edit]

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

Not notable. Only incidental coverage in combination articles on unusual products & one article about an advertisement of theirs' in the Daily News DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NORG, small company that has not made much of a splash. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. TheEditster (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is more a puff piece than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 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 have ignored most of the bickering between UK Wiki User (possibly a sock) and the different IPs (possibly the subject himself). Randykitty (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Berrow[edit]

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

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

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

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

possibly non-notable media person. Couldn't find much on search -- a TON of listings in various listing sites, must have been an super organized search to find all of them, not sure I've seen most of them before. A lot of mentions in affiliate sites, a couple of mentions as the interviewer of other people. SPA creator and almost all edits by a series of IPs. ETA: Article history seems to show an AfD nom/removal of AfD notice edit war among IPs. valereee (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A discussion here has been taking place at AfD Talk which may be of interest here. Acabashi (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Acabashi, that's how I got to the article and ended up checking for sources --valereee (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete [this reassessment based on all sources offered, those subsequently found, and assessed on how these apply to relevant WP notability protocol. Acabashi (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)] ~~Qualified delete~~. Berrow has his own show, 'Weekend Fun' on Saturdays from 9am on Radio Lincolnshire. He does 'sit in' broadcasts on BBC Local Radio stations: chiefly for Northants and Essex, and occasionally for Nottingham, Oxford, York, and Cambridge. He has broadcast for 'BBC Local Radio' (could this be simulcast?). He, with a team, did 5 live's Science Podcast, 5 live's Science: The Future of Car Travel, and 5 live's Science: Biosecurity: see here. He has a Twitter, LinkedIn and web site [5], [6], [7], [8]... I've been told that stuff put on these accounts by that particular person is somewhat viable and allowable, see here. This may or may not be true but it's all self-referencing of course. As yet I can find nothing independently cited about Radio 3, Radio 4 Extra and World Service, and nothing on him being a musician.[reply]
If the unsupported text is removed, we will be left with a one line stub. On balance, therefore, my view is to delete, although I should think there are other such BLPs that have less to offer that have been kept... not a good argument I know. There is a paucity of independent reliable sources for Berrow. My worry is that I know a load of unsourced trivia will ride in on the back of this underwhelming article if kept... again not a good argument for delete. Acabashi (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: a BBC IP, stating that they are Chris Berrow, has provided links that they feel might be helpful: [9], [10], [11], (towards the bottom), p 119, [12], [13], [14]. Acabashi (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted in the other talk page) Chris, I'm sorry if this sounds rude, but there are so many people on Wiki who self-promote themselves. It does also seem strange how all the edits came from a BBC IP address and now you're editing this post from an IP address associated with the BBC. With all due respect, the links you provided above still puts the article in question. Many "minor" broadcasters appear in the Radio Times but they don't have articles as they're not notable enough. Similarly, a lot of community, uni and hospital radio stations attempt to break records but again, not all of them are included here? The link you provided for covering Johnny I'Anson is also not available, but again, many presenters have covered what you refer to as the "All-England Show". Upon doing research, bigger names have covered the show who don't have articles. I'm sure valereee (talk) and Acabashi (talk) will agree that there's still nothing to go by with what you have provided and the article is still in question.UK Wiki User (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The majority of people included in one of the links posted by "Chris" don't have articles, some of which probably warrant an article more than Chris?UK Wiki User (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UK Wiki User: (copy from AfD Talk). It's not wise to try to co-opt other users to a point of view in discussions. I have added my tuppence here, and will look at the links the BBC IP address provided, and modify, or not, my personal judgement. Acabashi (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK Wiki User, a word of advice: this is starting to feel personal. That will absolutely backfire on you. I'd advise you to stop commenting and let the process take its course. --valereee (talk) 12:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand why you think this is starting to feel personal, but I can honestly say it's not. Please advise how long this process takes as I feel nobody's getting anywhere fast. We are all entitled to our opinions. UK Wiki User (talk) 13:25, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD discussions usually last 1 week (so 5 more days from now), but can last longer if necessary to establish a consensus. Iffy★Chat -- 13:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Radio personalities are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, or just because they have social networking profiles — the notability test is the reception of reliable source coverage about them in sources other than their own employer. The sources shown above simply are not good enough: most of them are primary sources, not reliable or notability-supporting ones, and the very few that are reliable sources just glancingly namecheck his existence in the process of being about something other than him. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to make a radio personality notable. And at any rate, it's not Chris Berrow's prerogative to personally decide for himself that he gets to have a Wikipedia article — our inclusion standards and our rules about sourcing decide whether he gets a Wikipedia article or not, not his own. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn; we are not a site on which people are entitled to place themselves for publicity. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit of an "aggressive" and "personal" comment with an "excessive" use of quotations! I didn't make this Wikipedia page, and I certainly didn't add the Radio 3 and Radio 4 Extra information, if you look at the edit history most of the info was added by other people. I am only getting involved now after someone decided they wanted it deleted. Are you that same person? The name checks in the sources above are on a par with other continuity announcers that are deemed to be notable enough to have articles... and I don't really see how a link to my old student radio show is giving me any particular publicity. No one is going to say "ooh I better employ him for voiceover work because he used to present on student radio"? Chris Berrow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.161.131 (talk) 22:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I just add, considering you (Chris) said you weren't the one who made the edits and added info, the IP you have used to make this comment indicates it's the same IP that made many of the changes.UK Wiki User (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah it's the person with a personal vendetta - the BBC computers have similar IP addresses, I would venture that a colleague from Radio 3 or 4 Extra may have deemed that information to be pertinent, whereas from your activity and IP address, (and recent account creation alongside your comments above) suggest that you deleted many of the citations on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C626:AE00:61CE:9655:F9BD:DD86 (talk) 15:17, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting involved in a battle with you. No, it wasn't me who deleted the citations. You say you're not a Wiki user, you seem to know quite a lot of the Wiki terms. I signed up as I wanted to give my contributions to the discussions. Are you saying other people in the BBC were editing your WIki article in the early hours moments after you were tweeting at the same time? (See comment on talk page). UK Wiki User (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bit stalkerish? No I'm saying that the information and citations added after the article in the Radio Times were added by someone else, possibly colleagues... I have no idea. Many of which were deleted before this article was itself put up for deletion by a user with a clear personal issue, which you also seem to have - hence the paucity of sources. There are comments saying "no independently verifiable information about work on the World Service or Radio 3" from you. And yet if you really were a regular listener you would have heard some of the WS bulletins yesterday https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172w4f9ypsrd2v or Radio 3 newsreading last week https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0003dn6 - perhaps you aren't as regular a listener as you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.37 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a life so not listening 24/7. For information, I switch between local radio and Radio 3, Radio 4 and World Service. I don’t have a personal issue as I haven’t a clue who you are. As I said, let this run it’s course and stop being so precious over a self promoting article ‘eh?UK Wiki User (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The IP address you just used to comment has previously been used to edit your article. Interesting! UK Wiki User (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an unusual article to pick to have such a massive issue with if you "do have a life". If you listen to any of those stations then you will have a clue who I am :) try the links above to catch up if you've missed anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 (talk) 03:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t listen 24/7 and nor do I wish to listen back. You need to stop getting on your high horse about an article that many have said isn’t notable enough. Let the admins do their thing. Once again, commenting in the early hours from an IP that made several of the edits before. UK Wiki User (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know how many people are involved in this discussion but it’s sad if people are picking on one individual just because of his entry. If Chris is updating the page himself, so what. Whether there are references or not, he’s on the radio which surely is good enough for a Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.231.155 (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the fact of being on the radio is not automatically good enough for a Wikipedia article. The notability test for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether a person verifies as existing — that would basically get almost every person who exists at all into Wikipedia, because almost everybody is on Facebook or Twitter or LinkedIn or YouTube now. The notability test, the question of whether a person qualifies to have an article on here or not, hinges on the depth and volume and range of media coverage the person has or hasn't received for their work, and not on what the person (or their employer) self-publishes about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not significant coverage in the media by being on Radio 3, Radio 4 Extra and World Service? As well as multiple local radio stations? Also these sources are primarily about Chris, not just passing mentions: https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-03-03/twitch-plays-pokemon-million-people-played-one-character-16-day-videogame https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26373516 https://www.healthcarehomes.co.uk/2015/03/bbc-radio-cambridgeshire-talks-poetry-to-healthcare-homes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:102E:22F1:F8E7:28FF:F46E:7B20 (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being serious? So you think - not you Bearcat - that just because someone is on the radio they deserve an article? After looking at the edits, IP addresses and links posted, I, personally, believe this is self-promotion. UK Wiki User (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the BBC website counts as a trustworthy source? You can't discredit that... that's like not referencing Match of the Day for Gary Linekar... because that's his employer! What promotion is being gained? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC website can count as a source for content, however as a primary source it cannot count towards proving notability for inclusion. Meszzy² (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC website verifies that the fact is true. It does not constitute evidence that he's notable for the fact, because every radio personality who exists at all can always "cite" a staff profile on the website of their own employer. Notability on Wikipedia derives from sources that don't have a vested interest in the subject's career choosing to devote their editorial resources to producing journalism about the subject, not from the existence of staff profiles published by the person's own employer. And no, Gary Lineker's article isn't using the existence of a staff profile on Match of the Day's own website as his evidence of notability — his article cites 65 distinct footnotes, many of which actually represent exactly what I just told you we require: real journalism about him in media outlets he isn't directly employed by. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this journalism is broadcast on the radio and cannot be cited by Wikipedia without linking to every single episode page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:102E:22F1:F8E7:28FF:F46E:7B20 (talk) 00:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, answer this. Are there any programmes about YOU? Have you done something to warrant a page? What makes you think you should have a Wiki article justy because you’re on the radio? Be honest, I’m curious to know. 82.17.229.192 (talk) 06:36, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying are there any programmes ABOUT Simon Mayo... no, he's an interviewer, and yet he warrants inclusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The debate going on here seems to be more about who edited what and who listens to the radio station or not rather than whether or not the article meets wikipedia's policies on notability for inclusion, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about. It however does not seem to meet those policies. According to WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." First, the article has one source, which is primary and according to WP:BASIC primary sources "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." Now, earlier up in this discussion you can find links to 8 sources provided by Chris, however of the provided sources that are secondary, none actually have Chris as their subject, he is just trivially mentioned in them, and our policy on notability for people is quite clear in stating that trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Notability is not determined if you can get a name in an article written about something else, but rather if you are notable enough in the real world that independent sources will write about you. If we want to get more specific in terms of notability as a radio show host, we can check our policy WP:ENT and see again that this article fails it. Thus it is clear to be that this article does not meet our notability guidelines for inclusion and so I am in favour of deletion. Meszzy² (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you look at some of the sources that were originally deleted before the article was left with only one remaining source?

This is hilarious, it goes to show it’s self-promotion if you’re getting your knickers in a twist. Looking at the history, no - the references aren’t good enough.82.17.228.1 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across a number of Wiki articles today of people who have articles who don't have sufficient information to warrant the page. No wonder why Chris thinks it's OK for him to automatically think he deserves an account. These will be mentioned on their individual pages and flagged. 132.185.160.127 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris is a good broadcaster and if you're on Radio 4, you're classed as on-air talent. Why are we even having this debate if Radio 4 and World Service are national stations? They don't just put anyone on Radio 4. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.122 (talk) 08:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability standards don't have anything to do with whether the subject is "talented" or not — everybody who exists at all can claim to be talented at something, so if all somebody had to do to be on Wikipedia was to have talent we'd have to keep an article about every single person on earth. Our notability standards depend on the reception of reliable source media coverage about the person's achievements, not on what they or their employer say about themselves. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not very reasonable as his name is all over the BBC Schedule page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.228.1 (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's entirely reasonable. The notability test is never just that the person's existence can be verified in primary sources, like staff profiles on the websites of their own employers or social media accounts — inclusion on Wikipedia depends on unaffiliated sources choosing to devote their editorial resources to produce journalistic content about the person and their work. If all a person had to do to qualify for inclusion here was to have a staff profile on their own employer's website or a self-published website about themselves or a social media account, we'd have to keep an article about every single person who exists at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adding onto Bearcats answer to provide additional insight as to why we have such a policy, we require secondary sources because independent journalistic content written about a subject shows that there is public interest in knowing about and getting information about that subject. A primary source is not a sign of any public interest as its usually produced by the subject or their employer. For example, if you take some employee from a fairly large company, they may have a staff profile on the companies website with lots of information, but it doesn't mean that person is notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. Now, if that employee goes on to commit some big international crime, and gets written about in the news, news companies commit editorial resources as they know there is public interest in that employee and the public is actually interested in reading about them. This would thus prove public interest for a Wikipedia article. Meszzy² (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Just because I exist and work in property and deal with some well known people, so I qualify? No! So many radio presenters and broadcasters on here automatically think they qualify just because of their job. What has Chris done that means he can have a page? None of what he provided was notable! UK Wiki User (talk) 17:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UK Wiki User, to make it easier for other editors to tell which previous comment you're replying to, you can insert at the beginning of your post one colon more than the comment to which you're replying. In the above comment, it looks like you're agreeing with the "Chris is a good broadcaster" comment, which I don't think is what you've intended. If you click on 'edit source' you'll be able to see that I've started with two colons because I'm replying to your comment that started with a single colon, thereby indenting my comment one more space than your comment and showing others which comment I'm replying to. --valereee (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect - working in property is not something that is broadcast to the nation... if millions of people were listening to you deal with well known people then yes, you probably would warrant a page. But you don't. Phil Spencer who co-hosts Location Location Location has a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Spencer and all of his references aren't anything to do with independent articles written about him. He references his own book, and the channel 4 website. And yet his is notable because he presents a show. Surely Chris is the same? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.130 (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, as mentioned many times above, having a show that many people listen to and watch is not enough to warrant a page. We have extremely clear policies on the criteria for inclusion, which you can see at WP:BASIC. For a person to be notable enough for inclusion, they must have independent secondary sources, as this is an indicator of public interest thus proving notability. In your example Phil Spencer, there are independent secondary sources, for example reference #5 from the Telegraph about him. A popular show means a show is popular, it means nothing in terms of notability of the show's host. Often times a show will become big enough, people will become interested in the show's host and then secondary sources are created. A complete lack of secondary sources show that an individual is simply not notable for any news organization to write about them, and thus are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Meszzy² (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So is Phil going to be listed for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much longer will this go on?! This has been going over over 7 days. When will a decision be reached? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.34.33 (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was relisted on March 27th, so a decision won't be reached until April 3rd. Meszzy² (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s pathetic really, I don’t see the problem. Chris on a national radio station so should have an article. Chris has provided several links which are notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.34.33 (talk) 22:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, being on a radio station does not mean someone should have an article. A person must be notable to the public to have an article. Wikipedia determines notability by the presence of secondary sources. There seems to be no secondary sources about Chris, meaning he is not notable and fails our criteria for inclusion. Meszzy² (talk) 01:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you looked at any of the many secondary sources provided above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris why have you re-added all your information again when you’ve been told this isn’t sufficient enough? It’ll be deleted again! 109.151.34.33 (talk) 16:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You only get a name check in the links, nothing about you at all. Tell me, why do you think you’re special enough to have an article? Clearly you have it ready to copy and paste. You best create a wiki article for the other people in the articles you provided pronto. They obviously deserve one too. Especially the paramedic! Not that the link has anything to do with radio, apart from a “mention” of you working Christmas Day. 109.151.34.33 (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above “So, is phil going to be considered for deletion”. No, because he’s more notable than Chris. I think this comment proves it’s chris getting on his high horse, jealous possibly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.214.76 (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all the sources listed above in my original deletion statement. Phil's article has secondary sources about him, thus he meets our notability criteria. Meszzy² (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the (IP) blog-style personal sparring in this 'discussion' will not make a blind bit of difference whether or not the article is deleted. And whether or not other articles fail or do not fail notability matters not a jot for the decision on this particular article. That is the bare truth of the matter. If anyone feels this article might fulfill Wikipedia requirements, you have first to consult WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and explain, under a bulleted section headed with a bolded Keep, how the sources offered for the article comply with these Wikipedia criteria. Nothing else is relevant or important. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BBC article shows a good amount of coverage, coupled with numerous listings on BBC Schedules. 5 Live Science and documentary links are also significant. Some secondary sources including the Independent article and BBC Introducing article seem to supplement the main information - "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". Some information is independent and verifiable (Independent article). With reference to "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity — although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines." The profile of Radio 3, 4 Extra and World Service enhance the acceptability of the person for inclusion. Also "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." so the Independent article is valid. Father NN but could be considered for inclusion based on the volume of entries on IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Staff profiles on the self-published websites of a person's own employer do not "enhance the acceptability of the person for inclusion", and neither do sources in which a person is simply quoted as a giver of soundbite in an article about another subject. A source must be fully independent of him, not self-created by himself or his employers, to support notability — and while he doesn't have to be the sole subject of a source, the source does have to be to at least some extent about him, which is not the same thing as "featuring him giving soundbite in an article whose subject is something else entirely". He has to be the thing that is being discussed, not a person speaking in a discussion about something else, to be the "subject" of a source. All of this has already been explained above — and trust me that anonymous IPs who think they know our rules better than the people who actually contribute here on a regular basis are not taken seriously. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Radio 3, 4 Extra and WS have nothing to do with any staff profiles, merely a statement of fact that Chris broadcasts on those stations. Many of the sources (Independent article, PRI article, Introducing article) are to "some extent" about him. Maybe take it easy on the quotation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.160.125 (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, look at the contribution before your reply Bearcat. Lots of the previous edits have been done by that IP. Chris perhaps? When will a decision be reached? There’s no room for self promotion here! 82.132.233.126 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, you’re now even tweeting about this discussion. Proves it’s you. Oh, and you’re a gamer now? That link seems a bit self promotion too. Still not suitable. PATHETIC and self promotion. Loving Bearcat’s quotation marks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.233.126 (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above: do not comment on other's contributions in the way you have with Bearcat's above, which gives the impression of an attempt to co-opt a user. Keep strictly to the article, and whether or not it complies with WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 02:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have copyedited the article so the text only reflects the sources offered, with no judgement as to whether or not the text or refs are significant or trivia, so that others can better evaluate what the article amounts to. Acabashi (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a link to the Radio Times article here? https://twitter.com/DJChrisBerrow/status/920306899739955200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.158.36 (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still not good enough. They do this feature once a week, and the others don’t have articles. What makes you so special? 82.132.234.209 (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to just remind folks that is a discussion about whether or not this article is appropriate for deletion, and not about Chris Berrow himself or other editors. Please note that civility (WP:CIVIL) is an official Wikipedia policy - which to me doesn't seem to be fully followed here right now. Meszzy² (talk) 16:19, 4 April 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) 16:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Kumkum Bhagya[edit]

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

Unnecessary content fork previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards received by Karan Mehra (a number of content forks were discussed at this AfD).

The award content already exists at Kumkum Bhagya. Currently both the article and this List of awards article are heavily bloated with Zee Rishtey Awards. These are an in-house award similar to Star Parivaar, where the Zee television network lavishes praise on shows and people on its own network! This is the intellectual equivalent of bragging that your mom gave you the World's Most Handsome award. An RfC about Star Parivaar was held here and the prevailing sentiment was that Star Parivaar should not be included in articles because of its in-house nature. Shouldn't be any different for Zee Rishtey.

Thus, if we remove Zee Rishtey from consideration, I think we're left with a manageable award list that could easily be hosted at the main article, Kumkum Bhagya without the need for a fork. Additionally, there are formatting indulgences that make the size of the content look more massive than it really is, and there is also the matter of whether some of the minor awards on the page are worth including at all. At MOS:TV there aren't any very specific guidelines for TV article (or TV Biography) awards, but film guidelines discourage award mills, web-only entities, and seem to prefer that awards included should have notability demonstrated beforehand through the creation of articles on those awards. It would be nice to get some consistency across the projects. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Zee Rishtey Awards seem to be voted on by the general public and fans, so there might be some logic in including only wins in the article, as they could be indicative of the audience response. That said, I don't have any strong opinion about it. 2.51.186.246 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion (discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards received by Karan Mehra) and also A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic as the list is already present on main article. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no need of this article when important text already exists in main article. Abhi88iisc (talk) 17:12, 31 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Harris (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable musician, no significant coverage found, fails WP:GNG Mysticair667537 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 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 March 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In fairness, Eric Harris is a general enough name that the google test turns up multiple people, but the hits for the drummer/musician are minor and within the context of his membership in The Olivia Tremor Control. A redirect there would be appropriate if it’s deemed a wiki search for his name wouldn’t be confused with other Eric Harris’s. ShelbyMarion (talk) 01:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mere Oblivion[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Meticulo (talk) 13:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject of article is a short film (about seven minutes in length) and any notable details about it would be better included on the article page of the director, Burleigh Smith. Significant coverage seems lacking in the references cited, many of which either mention it only in passing, or appear to be blogs of unknown reliability. Meticulo (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for deletion because they are about short films by the same director and have similar problems with notability:

Then She Was Gone
The Things My Father Never Taught Me
Fixed (film)

Meticulo (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all~~Merge and redirect~~ all to Burleigh Smith#Filmography. Then She Was Gone, in particular, and Mere Oblivion I was hovering on weak keeps. They have won some awards. The other two I think are ~~definitely not~~ notable in their own right. But all four I think do deserve a due weight couple of paragraphs or three in the director's article, and are likly to be search terms for appropriately interested readers. Aoziwe (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep all, variously on the basis of awards and festival showings. I have always been on the side of keep content here, but on review I think they pass GNG, sustained interest, and non trivial coverage. Aoziwe (talk) 01:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by Aoziwe and past precedent. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these pages. Suggest you review them again because there are clearly a significant number of valid links to reputable sources, including The Sydney Morning Herald, the National Library of Australia, Screen Australia, ScreenWest, ABC Television, Tropfest, Empire magazine, Filmink magazine, among others. The blog links are used only to discuss the reception of the films. Further, these short films have been accepted into and screened at hundreds of film festivals worldwide, so notability is not an issue. The Things My Father Never Taught Me, for example, has screened at over 140 festivals, with dates and locations listed in the screening section of IMDb. All films have won a substantial number of awards. I suspect the matter may be personal for Meticulo, who has instigated a previous review of this director, without success. Respectfully request he refrain from such unhelpful editing. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to BenjaminHomerBoyd, I'd deny this nomination is overly personal in nature. I first read the Burleigh Smith article after finding this vandalism in the article about the Luna Leederville (which admittedly could be a prank by a former student of Smith's rather than an attempt at guerilla marketing). I had no previous knowledge of the director or his work. However, the article about him seemed highly promotional and so I requested a sock puppet investigation, which was unsuccessful. I suspect, based on the narrowly focused contributions of BenjaminHomerBoyd, that he is more personally invested in the matter than I am. Also, the accusation of "unhelpful editing" is a bit rich, given this. Meticulo (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In response to Meticulo, please address the significant number of valid links to reputable sources on these pages, the fact that these short films have been accepted into and screened at hundreds of film festivals worldwide and all films have won a substantial number of awards. One cannot make an objective judgement to delete any of these pages when taking these facts into account. Therefore, the matter must be an overly personal one for you and you must, in fairness, cease and desist your personal campaign against this director and his work and withdraw from this discussion. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm unclear, BenjaminHomerBoyd, whether you want me to address the sources or withdraw from this discussion. I'll choose the latter option for now, and leave it to others to discuss whether notability should be determined by the criteria upon which you insist, or those at Notability (films), or some combination of the two. Meticulo (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and do not merge. Coverage is severly lacking. Inclusion in lists, passing mentions, two sentence blurbs, not significant coverage. Non reliable blogs do not contribute to GNG. None of the award are major. Festival showing (not the ~~laughably ridiculous hyperbole~~ exaggerated claim of hundreds as claimed above) do not show sustained interest, they show sustained promotion in submitting to festivals, not the stuff of notability. Do not merge as the article on the director is already an advert, an overly self serving autobio it does not need any more PR merged into it. And that is what these articles are, PR from a promotional SPA with a clear, undeclared conflict of interest. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your films. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: What's laughable is your staggering bias against these films and your refusal to conduct the most basic of research to familiarise yourself with the exceptionally wide range of festival screenings these films have had. Feel free to follow this link to view the dates and locations of over 140 festival screenings for one of these films. Festival screenings Blog references in these articles are minimal so drop that argument. Selection for festivals is highly competitive, so notability of these films is demonstrated. The films have screened at various Academy Award-accredited festivals. Perhaps you have heard of the Oscars? Your obvious bias here is disconcerting and calls into question all your contributions to Wikipedia. Suggest you conduct further study into films and film festivals and you refrain from further disruptive contributions. Fightdapower (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (Striking blocked editor's personal attack. Lourdes 11:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC))[reply]

In response to Duffbeerforme, you still have not addressed the exceptionally wide range of festival screenings these films have had, including screenings at Academy Award-accredited festivals. You have derisively dismissed mention of these screenings as "laughably ridiculous hyperbole" but this link, and others, clearly list the date, location and festival by name. By labelling Fightdapower a troll, you are trying to avoid the argument at hand. Your unsupported assertions are not helpful to Wikipedia. You need to back up your argument here or reverse your position. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 02:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for that link. I've toned down my comment. That laundry list of self submitted showing (such as "student screening") still does not satisfy any of the notability guidelines, they are just an indication that he has submitted his (evidently quality) work to many festivals and a good number have decided to air it. There is a LOT of run of the mill festivals but they do not do much for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. What makes you conclude the films were self-submitted to the festivals? Typically, it is the producers' or distributor's job to arrange festival screenings. This individual is largely a writer-director. I'm also unsure what led you to decide these are "run of the mill" festivals. These festivals have been held for decades. Some of them are Academy Award-accredited. The festivals have patrons that include Clint Eastwood, Mike Leigh and the late Robin Williams. Three of the films have had screenings at Tropfest, reportedly the world's largest short film festival. The director even won a 12-month scholarship to study film in Rome at one of these festivals, an indication of the quality of these events. As for the "student screening" listing for Fixed, I believe this was because that particular film had a student contribution and it was shown to the student body. Hardly a reason to discount the tremendous number of prestigious festivals at which these films were shown. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 04:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice strawman there, I never said they were all run of the mill. Director, producer, writer, whoever who is involved with the film it's still self submitted. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am well-aware of what you typed, it can be read directly above. You typed, "There is (sic) a LOT of run of the mill festivals", and I am saying this is not the case. Further, by your definition, all films that screen at festivals must then be "self-submitted", making this argument invalid too. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all to Burleigh Smith#Filmography. Most content in these articles deserve a place on the film makers biography. These are not feature films, they are shorts. There are some notable awards and some are widely screened, but none of the short films are groundbreaking or iconic, and there is not sustained coverage. I believe there is past precedent for this course of action. Unoc (talk) 07:01, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add nehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mere_Oblivion&action=editw comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG Lubbad85 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep subject passed WP:GNG and the article is well sourced Gristleking (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)~~ Sockpuppet of a previous voter. —DoRD (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DoRD, I see you've struck Gristleking's vote on this page for voting previously. Has a formal sockpuppet investigation, with due process, been undertaken? If not, why not? Please indicate where this user voted previously on this page and under what name. If you are unable to do so, you must remove the strikethrough for this vote. Thank you. BenjaminHomerBoyd (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(This is a fork of a discussion on my talk.) Short version: I will discuss this with the AfD closer if necessary, but will not reverse my action based on demands from an interested !voter. —DoRD (talk) 11:43, 3 April 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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Adrain[edit]

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

Promotional biography of a non-notable businessman, written by an undisclosed paid editor on behalf of the subject. There's nothing of substance in the sources: just advertorials about his products (BedBunker) with only passing mentions of the subject himself. This was deleted over a year ago via PROD, but has been restored on the subject's request (see the talk page). – Joe (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete commissioned work excluded from Wikipedia by WP:NOTSPAM. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous promotion. By policy and design, Wikipedia is not a platform for (self-)promotion (see WP:NOTPROMO). Bakazaka (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. A merge can be done outside of the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alk-[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Page Alk- has stood for 13 years with no serious objections. Understanding these common components of names of organic chemicals is an important part of organic chemistry. See Template:Orgchemsuffixes.Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The argument for deletion is "Queried speedy delete". What does that mean? ChemNerd (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ChemNerd: Someone wanted to speedy-delete it, and someone else changed into an AfD (= articles for deletion), to get it discussed. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be merged into Hydrocarbon? I just feel that having these dictionary-type stubs isn't as helpful as including the etymology in the article about the topic itself --DannyS712 (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For once happily based on Other Stuff Exists. See that "Organic chemistry affixes" sidebar at the bottom? We want to have an article on each of these. Remaining at stub size for a long time is not a reason for deletion. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really what we want? What does WP:NOTDICT mean in practice, then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My take would be that if the item is an integral part of a limited series of articles of otherwise viable length, that would trump NOTDICT. (Having said that, some of the others are hard at the limit themselves (-ol), and at least one is an actual Wiktionary link... ) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen anything to persuade that all of those things including -Alk shouldn't just go to Wiktionary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I must say I'm wavering now, having checked out the lot. A bunch of section redirects to IUPAC_nomenclature_of_organic_chemistry might actually just do. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It looks like the source of these pages is a failed merger discussion at Talk:IUPAC_nomenclature_of_organic_chemistry#Merger_proposal. Personally I would have been inclined to merge or perhaps collect them into a single nomenclature page. The sentence in the existing article should be add to wikt:alk as that dictionary entry there is not a substitute for what is currently here. --mikeu ^talk 23:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I see no reason why this dictionary definition/etymology can't be covered at IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry. I'm not sure this is even an affix that would belong in that navbox – it's the root to which the -ane, -ene, and -yne suffixes are added, but it's not an affix itself. Reywas92^Talk 03:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia might not be a dictionary, but it does need to at least provide definitions for the technical terms that it uses throughout a topic area. We do need this content somewhere, and the only question is whether this content will be in a dedicated article (even if a perma stub), or within some other article. I don't think we really need an AfD for that: it can be left to be taken care of by the normal editorial practices of the people who look after this area. – Uanfala (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with the above comment. The information in this article and referenced by the infobox are relevant to students studying chemistry and therefore encyclopedic. It is more a question of where and how to organize this material so that it can be easily found and presented in a consistent and clear manner. For these reasons I can't support delete; a merge or reorganization is imho more appropriate. --mikeu ^talk 16:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 10:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP is not a dictionary. Maybe redirect to alk- on Wiktionary, as some of the other affixes in the template do. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep per my two comments above. --mikeu ^talk 00:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:13, 27 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parc Palais[edit]

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

Per WP:N. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro (talk) 06:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would say there would be many source in Chinese language. However, the common problem is, how significant those coverage in order to allow wiki editor to write a full length article. For "Parc Palais", most of the coverage seem about individual residential unit inside the building complex, so it seem fails GNG for the whole residential blocks as a whole. However, since there is a lot of these residential villages articles from Hong Kong, and their exposure on the media is quite different in length, may be it need a general guide formed by a consensus. I would say if their architectural feature was reported in some book or a lengthy article (e.g. Opus Hong Kong, Lai Tak Tsuen), then it pass GNG. Matthew hk (talk) 08:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be Delete for this article "Parc Palais". Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be the estate mentioned at King's Park, Hong Kong ("The site on which the hospital buildings once were was sold by 1999,[5] and is now a private housing estate,[6]") so maybe a redirect would be appropriate? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree such redirect. King's Park is an non-administrative area (a neighbourhood, but local never use this term). It is nightmare to read and maintain every "neighbourhood" article of Hong Kong, since the boundary is undefined, those articles contain content that probably not belongs to that neighbourhood, or wrote duplicate copy of articles (well there is way too many Yuen Long articles for example. It also quite a many Tai Po but partially fixed). Parc Palais, according to report, sometimes credited as part of King's Park, sometimes Ho Man Tin. I have to check the map, but Parc Palais may be belongs to Kowloon City District or Yau Tsim Mong District, the electoral district (they de jure administrative districts but de facto just for local councils that almost near to rubber stamp to advise the government, it never equal to the school districts , the police districts or the fire brigade districts or other internal districts of government department, as well as not equal to urban planning plans the OZPs). However, it seem odd to mention one and only one residential village in the District article, then it may need to expand to a full section to at least mention some "notable" (i.e. at least have some citation) one . Matthew hk (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are notable residential complexes, But I see no evidence that this particular residential complex is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:06, 3 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eilidh Rankin[edit]

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

Actress with so far just one role-where she appeared to get no awards for as well (voice role also). Either delete or a redirect to The Illusionist (2010 film) (which is the film she was in.) Wgolf (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to The Illusionist (2010 film) - Has not received the depth of coverage in independent, reliable sources to satisfy notability standards for a Wikipedia article. Unoc (talk) 09:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject clearly does not meet WP:NACTOR, having played only one role. I have found only two sources about her, one shortish, which do provide more information than is in the article, but don't amount to significant coverage in multiple sources, so she doesn't meet WP:GNG either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:24, 3 April 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beynon Sports Surfaces[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are not that many track surface manufacturers out there since there is just not much of a market for such niche demands, and this company is one of the few large providers. A Google search shows notable coverage. References look legit. I'd keep this one. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO sourced to blogs, press releases, and passing mentions. Article creator's activity focused entirely on adding material about this company and its products to the encyclopedia. By design and by policy, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Bakazaka (talk) 22:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PulseEffects[edit]

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

Non-notable software. The page creator tried to circumvent the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources by flooding the page with 27 links to GitHub and other software projects like FFmpeg or Calf Studio, but of course none of them addresses the notability issue. The only semi-notable source I could find is the brief article on Phoronix, but that's not nearly enough for establishing notability. J. M. (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not try to circumvent anything. I only added references because you propose the deletion for lack of reference. It's not flood, the application has many plugin and every plugin has a reference on the original developer page. Before there was no reference and that's not good, now the references are there and you complain what? The software is notable because it is the only software on Linux that gives the ability to use more audio effects with one app and gives the user the control on how to use them, how to customize them and choose what order to use them. It has been cited on Linux Format magazine in September 2017: see Coverdisc Hotpicks section. You can read it here and see the page here (chapter 50 LFX Hot Picks, subscribe to see full). Other articles on it: PulseEffects: A Nice System-Wide PulseAudio Equalizer Audio Effects App - Linux Uprising, PulseEffects is a Powerful GTK Audio Effects & Equalizer App for Linux - OMG Ubuntu, Enhancing audio in GNU/Linux with PulseEffects in Linux Mint 18.3 - ghacks.net, System-Wide PulseAudio Effects Software PulseEffects Update Includes Configurable Number Of Equalizer Bands - Linux Uprising. Digitalone (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed deletion and notability tags were added because of the lack of notability, not because of the lack of references. The extremely excessive flood of references (coupled with the removal of the tags) did not address the problem at all. References to other projects or to the GitHub project page are irrelevant for establishing notability.

"The software is notable because it is the only software on Linux that gives the ability to use more audio effects with one app"—as User:Piotrus already explained to you a couple of days ago, usefulness is irrelevant for notability on Wikipedia (and besides, it's not even true, there are many programs on Linux that can chain audio effects, but that's not the point here).

As for the links:

Linux Uprising—anonymous blog, not an acceptable source.
The Phoronix article—I already mentioned it. Not significant coverage.
The gHacks article: a short introduction, it is debatable whether that constitutes significant coverage. Furthermore, one of the notability criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (software) says: "It is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field. References that cite trivia do not fulfill this requirement." The article does not seem to meet this requirement (or any other criteria mentioned in the article).
The OMG! Ubuntu article—again, a short introduction written by an author who admits he doesn't really know much about the topic, and mostly just written because a "reader, tipped us to the app".
Linux Format—OK, maybe, but you need multiple significant sources for establishing notability. Wikipedia:Notability (software) also says: "It is the subject of multiple printed third-party manuals, instruction books, or reliable reviews, written by independent authors and published by independent publishers."

So all in all, it still doesn't look very convincing to me.—J. M. (talk) 22:23, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are other notable sources:

Linux Magazine (read page 2)
Punto Informatico
Linux Adictos
La Mirada Del Replicante
LiberatuRadio
Addictive Tips
Tux News

Digitalone (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another paper magazine wrote a review on PulseEffects: Linux Pro n.186 February 2018, Page 57. Digitalone (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've removed some references from the article (and may remove more yet), as they are less helpful rather than more helpful. I have looked at the first on the above list and wonder if anyone has any problems with that. for notability Its actually easier to give your 4 best sources and explain what there about than presenting 10 and asking reviewers to sort them out as most do not have time. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Comment: I think sufficient improvements have been made and additional references added.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I am not impressed. 2-paragraph review in Linux Magazine. Neither of the other sources appears notable/reliable, so I am not convinced they are independent and reliable. If anyone wants to explain what makes TuxNews or AddictiveTips good sources, reply here and ping me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Piotrus: The Linux Magazine source seems agreed sufficient as perhaps does the one mentioned in the nomination, however much it is not cared for. Use of Neither here implies only two of several sources presented were reviewed so things are a bit ambiguous. As you had previously PROD'd the article it is inconcievable you have only been waiting for the relist. The main article contributor seems very passionate about the article but does not seem to be aware of how to !vote at AfC. Anyway whats really wound me up is relisting before 168 hours are up. I may be pedantic .. and some may say display signs of the autistic spectrum by complaining about the 168 hours ... but I'll actually take advice you gave me previously with regards RL on this one and withdraw my keep !vote, remove from watchlist and leave the article/AfC to its fate. I will tag it for WP:RESCUE in case anyone wants to take it up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reviews on two paper magazines, Linux Magazine and Linux Format, plus other web reviews cited in the article. They are independent because they have an author, they are not involved with PulseEffects developer and does not come from an anonymous blog. Cited sources in the article are reliable (if you think they are not, explain why). Thus the article is notable. Digitalone (talk) 12:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage in Digitalone's linked magazines (Linux Format, Linux Magazine, and Linux Pro) satisfies WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 20:22, 3 April 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 by nominator. (non-admin close) SportingFlyer T·C 00:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabzak Pass[edit]

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

A better article in Spanish exists for translation, as shown in talk page. puggo (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bug2266: You don't need to delete the article in order to improve the article, you can simply edit the old article as it stands. I would recommend withdrawing this and just go ahead updating the current article with the Spanish translation. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment oh, wait, it's a disambiguation. Still, I don't think deletion's the proper thing to do here - can we verify both mountain passes? SportingFlyer T·C 18:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Yeah but my issue there is that it won't be logged under that article. I want all of them to be lumped together, but due to the language barriers I wanted to just take the middle road and translate the bigger one. puggo (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's one pass that's notable and another pass with the same name that just has the same name. I would go ahead and create the article on top of the current article and we can figure out the disambiguation later. There's nothing here that qualifies it for deletion on notability grounds, the Spanish language wikipedia page is crystal clear on notability (based on the sources.) SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. puggo (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bug2266: I fixed the translation too. Would you like to withdraw the deletion request? SportingFlyer T·C 00:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Yes please, and thank you for your help. puggo (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meiling Melançon[edit]

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

the article is poorly sourced and no additional sources of note can be found. Additionally, the person is not notable or remarkable in any way. She is little more than an extra in two films Coffee312 (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Long list of IMDb roles. Some of the films are notable and have their own articles. Does not appear to fail WP:NACTOR, although it the notability guidelines are not very specific and open to interpretation. — Stevey7788 (talk) 01:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 07:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:36, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:DIRECTOR and WP:NACTOR. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets WP:NACTOR #1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows" etc. I don't understand the nomination - the article lists far more than just two films, and she has a lead role in several blue-linked films. Given that she is notable according to a WP:SNG, more sources aren't needed to establish notability, but could almost certainly be found to verify her roles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 3 April 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sepang station[edit]

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

Seems to be WP:TOOSOON Kb03 (talk) 13:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitely WP:TOOSOON, and doesn't meet WP:STATION. Could have been redirected to Klang Valley Integrated Transit System. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Hoax or, at best, wishful thinking. Unreferenced. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:02, 27 March 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. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KL Subway Line[edit]

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

Nothing shows up after a quick search. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON Kb03 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. I rate this as hoax or, at best, wishful thinking. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lozansky[edit]

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

Not notable professional wrestler Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Non-notable wrestler, despite some WCW jobs Best Wishes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lee Vilenski. 70.69.5.25 (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Canadian professional wrestler. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:22, 3 April 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) 16:21, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peyman Saadat[edit]

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

Right now, the article is little more than a resume for this physician. He does have one article which got over 200 citations, but an H index of 8. Searches turn up dozens of press releases, and quite a few trivial mentions, usually about his role as the owner of an egg bank, but not enough in-depth coverage to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article is currently bombed with lots of citations for the unnecessarily detailed published works section; the parts about Saadat's actual life are lacking sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zynga. The target page does need some updating (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 03:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gram Games[edit]

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

Not really notable It has been deleted twice^[1], both for advertising. Remagoxer (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Since they are now owned by Zynga, it should redirect there. It isn't currently listed in the Zynga article as an "owned studio", but it should be. They were acquired in 2018.

^[2] ^[3] Psu256 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "All public logs", Wikipedia, retrieved 2019-03-27
^ https://seekingalpha.com/article/4179583-zynga-acquires-gram-games-hyper-casual-puzzle-games
^ https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/03/08/why-zynga-stock-jumped-165-in-february.aspx

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP on its own. It could arguably pass by sources on the acquisition (here's another: [15]), but they're more about the acquisition than the company itself (i.e. the "significant coverage" is not really about the company but the acquisition event). Would be better served as a redirect to Zynga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkH21 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E-Foundation for Cancer Research[edit]

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

No references at all. Link to its own website doesnt work. No useful content in the article apart from advertising. Doesnt even say where it is. Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The news search came up empty. Fails our notability guidelines. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article created as the first of two edits by Efoce, clearly promotional at outset. The purported domain appears to have been instead that of an Entrepreneurs Foundation of the Capital Region for a long time. While this page carries a bullet-point mention, it merely links to that unrelated defunct domain. Nothing found to verify previous existence, far less attained notability. Fails WP:NORG. AllyD (talk) 11:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:10, 27 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usha Mukherjee[edit]

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

All I can find in reliable sources are truly passing mentions (her name in a longer list of names), nothing indepth. Fails WP:BIO Fram (talk) 11:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I looked for native sources (which I can read) and found no explicit mention of the subject. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN activist from an organisation other than the dominant Congress and Muslim League. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. --Hiwilms (talk) 09:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Fram, No reliable sources --SalmanZ (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of this article does not appear to be individually notable, but the case she was part of, the Titagarh Conspiracy Case, does appear to be notable, with numerous sources describing it. If an article is written about that case, it might be appropriate to include this subject's name in it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't contain any reliable and independent sources. doesn't meet WP:BIO ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Consensus is to keep and rewrite/neutralize. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaria Ramelli[edit]

Not only is this article advertising, but the 128 IP editors (as well as an unknown sockpuppet account named "Swister Twister") are most likely paid editors, conflict of interest, or similar. Deleting mods, please act accordingly. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 11:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Seems to be an industry heavyweight, where the industry is academia. Pass WP:NPROF, WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. A solid long term cleanup effort is needed to bring the article up to standard. It is certainly highly promotional and beyond the pale. It is worth remembering that "Swister Twister" who was certainly a sockpuppet also did a tremendous amount of excellent work. I don't see any evidence that the article IP editors are all paid. Some perhaps but not all. I suspect if was fully paid up gig, it would have been a single editor. Hard to tell though. scope_creep^Talk 11:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was on automatic and started editing it. There is a core article waiting to come out, but it is some mess. It's a brochure, pushing her book on Brill. I'll wait until the Afd is fini. Who knows it might go. scope_creep^Talk 11:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article (as the subject meets WP:NPROF) but delete the content and start from scratch. A few days ago, this article was in a horrendous state, and while some of the worst content has been removed, it really needs to be rewritten in its entirety. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:24, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that idea. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 22:38, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Regardless of any paid interests (or not), if the article is completely rewritten to be WP:NPOV by unpaid Wikipedia editors instead of sounding like a flashy Curriculum vitae, it would be worth keeping due to the subject's academic qualifications. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got an idea[edit]

If I'm not mistaken, aren't there tools to see where IP addresses are located in? While I'm too lazy and busy to do so myself, perhaps a more seasoned editor with a little more spare time on their hands than me could have a look at the IPs, determine if they're the same person/people or not, and take according action. If the IPs all belong to a single company or organisation, then it would justify deletion. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 22:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Academic notability?[edit]

She seems somewhat notable. For what it's worth:

She has an authority record at the Library of Congress.
Perhaps worthwhile to search for holdings of her works at WorldCat?
Here is her GoodReads page. Quite a few books written or cowritten by her. 34 ratings as of now, but I wouldn't expect an academic to have many.

Thoughts? --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cordless Larry to delete the article first, then start from scratch, avoiding the issues that cause the current article to be poor. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 14:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting to delete the article, but its current content. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: Wouldn't that involve blanking the article though? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 12:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, we can just replace it with a stub. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will create a new article if it gets deleted. She is important enought for a full article. scope_creep^Talk 15:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Good topic, bad article. Delete the current article and restart. Are we all in agreement here; any objections? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 19:14, 1 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susman Godfrey[edit]

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

The topic of this article lacks notability. In addition the article reads like an advertisement or PR pamphlet (and appears to have been authored by a single-purpose editor). AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: It meets both WP:A7 and WP:G11 criteria. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Stephen Susman. There is at least one reliable source with in depth coverage from Forbes that was removed from a previous version but it is centered on Stephen Susman. Another article created by the WP:SPA author of this article. This article does not meet speedy deletion criteria, but in its current form is clearly promotional. I removed 7 inline external links to the corporate website from the body and infobox of the article. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I'd lean toward a speedy delete. Plus, the article has outright unsupportable statements; presumably they don't represent companies whose business it is to blaze trails in the wilderness, let alone representing the Portland Trailblazers, yet we're told that they're a trailblazing commercial litigation boutique. And how is this company a small store that sells stylish clothing, jewelry, or other usually luxury goods? Rather unlikely. Nyttend (talk) 00:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced BLP. Fails WP:BIO and WP:V. Possible redirect if there is supporting evidence. scope_creep^Talk 13:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be speedied. It is unsourced. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as advertising. GregJackP Boomer! 09:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising article only. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:05, 3 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arfa Khanum Sherwani[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. Most sources are unreliable. Others do not go beyond making a transitory reference to the subject. Fails WP:BIO, WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks notability. Amity Uni link is a PR piece. Coverage of the subject in the Indian Express and Newsminute link is a passing mention and the text is identical. The MyNation link is again a passing mention of the subject in the larger context. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Khan (Pakistani Anchor/Analyst Person)[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Steps were taken to locate sources WP:BEFORE this nomination, but were not successful. Saqib (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are not reliable nor independent and certainly nowhere near suitable enough for notability. Ajf773 (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cites YouTube which is not a reliable source, and the article reads like an advertisement. --___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:02, 27 March 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'm not creating the redirect since it's not clear to me from the discussion below that there is an agreed-upon target or that there is a desire to even keep the material, but that should not be construed as a reason not to create the redirect. No concern over the category listing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 8701[edit]

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

Routine engine failure and emergency landing (fairly common events in aviation). No casualties, no damage (other than the failed engine). Got a bit of news coverage due to the ongoing Boeing 737 MAX groundings (and related 737 crashes), even though technically it seems this is not actually related. Not independently notable and there is no reasonable reason to think this will have any continued coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N(E), engine failure without casualties or damage to aircraft is unlikely to have lasting significance. Will probably have to wait to see if WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE exists but this is unlikely especially since there is reportedly no link to the computer system issue. ~ KN2731 {t · c} 11:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWS. Might have a place as footnote in Boeing 737 MAX groundings, to show how jumpy people are over those planes, but not as an independent article. - GretLomborg (talk) 16:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per the reasons given in my own WP:PROD of the article (which was later removed). --HunterM267 ^talk 16:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Firslty, engine failures are common, yes this is a 737 MAX, but as A) the aircraft landed safely, B) no casualties, and C) incident to common. The page should be deleted, but should be noted in the incidents sub section on the 737 MAX page. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2019 (UTC) I’ll keep a copy of this incident in my sandbox in case anything new pops up. OrbitalEnd48401 (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom--Petebutt (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, trivial. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable event and WP:NOTNEWS. Ajf773 (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Procedural note This was identified in the AFD category for "organizations", rather than for "places and transportation" until this edit. It is certainly not about an organization. I am not going to assert that miss-listing it was an attempt to end-run around transportation-focused AFD editors, who will likely not have seen this. But to avoid the appearance of that, I think this should be relisted and held over until the usual AFD period (7 days?) is met, starting from now. --Doncram (talk) 04:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be precise the AFDC is "organization, corporation, or product". Then 737 MAX is a product (under some scrutiny). I did place this in the aviation delsort list (and it was added to the transport delsort subsequently). If you think AFDC "places and transportation" is a better fit, I am not opposed to a change.Icewhiz (talk) 06:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Strong against delete): I think this article could be redirected to Southwest Airlines#Accidents and incidents to save space for the Wikipedia database. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely delete based on not be somethign sustainable or lasting. We shouldn't have exhaustive lists for all incidents, let along pages for each.--CNMall41 (talk) 04:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable event. It was only an engine failure and the plane was able to land safely. --Hiwilms (talk) 06:16, 1 April 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) 15:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juzaerul Jasmi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. No evidence of playing for Kelantan in the Super League, currently the club is on the 2nd level (non-FPL). BlameRuiner (talk) 07:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't pass NFOOTY, can't find any coverage to satisfy GNG. Leviv ich 00:32, 31 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Hakimi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. No evidence of playing for Kelantan in the Super League, currently the club is on the 2nd level (non-FPL). BlameRuiner (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GretLomborg (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doesn't pass NFooty, can't find any coverage to satisfy GNG. Leviv ich 00:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 April 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) 15:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fikram Mohammad[edit]

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

Footballer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. Curently plays in Malaysian Level 3 team, no evidence of playing any games in the Super League BlameRuiner (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GretLomborg (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No NFooty, no GNG. Leviv ich 00:35, 31 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 13:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Startup Princess[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:10, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. AmericanAir88^(talk) 02:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rekha Thakur[edit]

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

Deep searches yield no sources with proper mentions of the subject, doesn't fit in WP:POLITICIAN, only mentions I could find were in books by Sharmila rege and Anupama rao, even those are just bibliographic mentions. nothing more. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 05:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to have any mentions in local/marathi or english sources. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Name and legal entities. Any content worth merging (at the redirect target or elsewhere) is still available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual Reserve[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searches, this corporation does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. There's an article at Intellectual Reserve, Inc. v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, Inc. involving the corporation, but source searches are providing no significant coverage about the corporation itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:58, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to some other LDS article, making it a very short section, merely saying that the LDS intellectual property right are vested in this body. Not separately notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the church's and legal entities section. Not notable enough for its own article.Rollidan (talk) 22:45, 27 March 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. Removing the bad faith assumptions by the nom, the concerns brought for discussion were about the coverage and if the company is, in fact notable. Numerous cites have been brought forth and it's clear that there's a significant amount of coverage that pushes this past WP:GNG. While nobody has re-written it since it was flagged in November, the solution isn't to delete it. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VFS Global[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines for a business. The company has lots of hits on Google News but, if you look through them, they're the same few publications. I'm suspecting a PR department was involved in those articles. Also, the article was published by a Single Purpose Account (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Smoothtie ). The page has been flagged as an advert since November and no one re-wrote it, which is a sign of the lack of notability of the subject and the possibility that the page was created as a part of a PR campaign. Delete please. CerealKillerYum (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the article there's this article in The Star, which is pretty decent. Other news coverage is this article in Times of India. Since VFS global is a major company in outsourcing of visas, there's couple of books with coverage on it: [16] and [17] and there's also this lengthy paper which talks a lot about VFS global and its "dominant position in the Schengen visa processing market". Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 19:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has enough coverage in the news to pass WP:GNG. Also as Galobtter mentioned, it is a major player in visa services across the globe, and also provides services to governments of many countries. KCVelaga (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Air (India)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article does not meet WP:NCORP. Also, the article only seems to use 2 websites. Also, the article has been deleted before, but User:Sunnya343 made a sneaky move and then rewrote the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are several English sources available in the Indian media. Along with this, there is also significant non-English coverage. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rsrikanth05, but does it have significant coverage? I am hard pressed to find information about "star air." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please search for Star Air along with its promoter Sanjay Ghodawat. The number of results shoots up. There are also Kannada and Marathi sources, which can be used. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Also, calling in the aviation enthusiast from our end, @Trinidade:. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Rsrikanth05, I checked and I disagree. They are the usual PR articles. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This airline commenced commercial operations only 60 days ago. As I have mentioned in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VIF Airways, airline companies in India (especially outside of Delhi and Mumbai) do not easily get "significant coverage" in mainstream English media. We need to give local contributors more time. Previously, the article was nominated for deletion, citing, among other things, that the airline wasn't yet flying. Ironically, the airline launched operations just nine days after that first article was deleted by @Bbb23: as a result of the AfD. Now, two months into the airline's operation, we have another nomination citing WP:NCORP!! I think we need to keep the article per WP:CHANCE. Thanks, Trinidade (talk) 08:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trinidade, then shall we drafity the article until enough references can be added? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For now just listing sources that are not yet included in the article, as I find them, while trying to avoid duplicate news sources that cover same story. Will finally evaluate and !vote later. Abecedare (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

Tembhekar, Chittaranjan (19 March 2019). "15 small towns get linked to Mumbai by air under central govt's scheme". The Times of India.
Kundu, Rhik (21 February 2019). "Star Air in talks with Brazil's Embraer to buy aircraft". LiveMint.
"City's Star Air adds more flights". Bangalore Mirror. 25 March 2019.
"Now, fly to Tirupati from Hubballi". The Hindu. 26 January 2019.
"Modi inaugurates Karnataka's new air link to Delhi". Deccan Herald. 8 March 2019.
"Star Air starts Belagavi-B'luru flights". The Times of India. 26 Feb 2019.

Strong Keep Article has valuable information for a young company. With time, it will grow. The words "sneaky move" used in the head are inappropriate IMO. Kigelim (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article was previously deleted but the user created the article using a different title and then moved it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Sneaky move"? I had no idea the article was previously nominated for deletion. I saw the article was linked to from Kempegowda International Airport, since Star Air is an airline that serves the airport; the article was then titled "Ghodawat Aviation" in reference to Star Air's parent company. An article about the parent company did not appear to be notable, so I changed the title & essentially rewrote the article to focus on the scheduled passenger airline that is a subsidiary of Ghodawat Enterprises. As Abecedare has shown, there is ample coverage of this airline in the media. Bottom line: Just because the article is about a part of the world you're not familiar with, doesn't mean it isn't notable! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 17:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soju (drag queen)[edit]

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

Qualified for deletion under G5, as being created by the blocked user user:Ratherbe2000. Was, in my opinion, incorrectly removed by another editor ignoring WP policy regarding sock article creation. This should be procedurely deleted so as to not encourage sock creation of articles. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or just redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). Unnecessary deletion nomination. The redirect serves a purpose and the page's history should be preserved for possible future expansion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment for anyone. It also carries the risk of subsequent surreptitious resurrection of removed contents by those who holds direct or indirect vested interests through single purpose puppets long after the set of editors involved in the discussion have moved-on or no longer paying attention to the article. Graywalls (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to RuPaul’s Drag Race. Outside of all that... practically none of these sources give independent notability and like 80% of them aren’t even reliable. Trillfendi (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GretLomborg (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GretLomborg, If you're open to redirecting, would you note that here? I'm not sure there's much point in deleting the page altogether when the article's history may be helpful in the future and the redirect would serve a purpose by directing readers to the article for season 11? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking WP:RS. Fails notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race like with Plastique Tiara. QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being in a reality show is not default grounds for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, no one is suggesting she is notable just for being on a reality show. Can you at least comment on sourcing in some way since this is an AfD? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:55, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete and redirect to the season 11 since he was part of a show. Deleting it reduces the risk of surreptitious resurrection without triggering the new article creation scrutiny.Graywalls (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race (season 11). Redirects serve a purpose, and this is a prime example of when we would use a redirect. People searching for the subject will be directed to the appropriate season where they can get more information. --Kbabej (talk) 23:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect a customary solution here, and is sufficient until the subject becomes notable enough that some non-spa ever wants to do an article. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 2 April 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. In the absence of any sources, "delete" is the only possible outcome. Randykitty (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Pass[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. No coverage in WP:RS beyond passing mentions. – Teratix ₵ 23:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 23:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pepsi Stuff has its own article with plenty of sources, and has since been replaced by Pepsi Pass. Large companies' loyalty programs are notable, see Template:Customer loyalty programs. — Stevey7788 (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevey7788: The existence of other articles on large company loyalty programs does not imply every large company's loyalty program is notable (WP:OSE), and the existence of a template does not change this. The sourcing for Pepsi Stuff is slimmer than it looks; the only independent source that is not deadlinked is a brief mention in The New York Times. Even if the sourcing for Pepsi Stuff was top-notch, this would not imply anything about the merits of Pepsi Pass's sources. – Teratix ₵ 01:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NPRODUCT --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Immigration to Finland. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 22:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Migration events in Finland in 2015[edit]

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

I've already changed the title of this set of news events; it used to be called "European migrant crisis in Finland", which is essentially POV. (What crisis?) I think it's become fashionable to start making lists of events and posting them as "articles", but there is no article without a primary topic. Delete for those reasons, as well as NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely Outdated with those timeline events have not been updated since somewhere in late 2016, also it lacking sufficient lead section which summarises the key points. Sheldybett (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assorted news tidbits without a primary topic. Reywas92^Talk 18:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A collection of non notable news stories. Ajf773 (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Immigration to Finland per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. That other article has a more general scope but is quite skimpy and thin and so needs more material. Andrew D. (talk) 09:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Taking a look at the article Andrew linked, I'll have to agree with him, a bit of this content should be added to a new section at the Immigration to Finland article, since that article need more sources. Garlicolive (talk) 03:10, 3 April 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 deleted by Anthony Bradbury as A7. The article was also deleted as A7 in November 2008. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Preston[edit]

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

Very minor youtuber, most likely an autobiographical puff piece. Doesn't come anywhere close to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG entirely promotional and not encyclopedic

Delete Fails notability guidelines Neils51 (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I also questioned if this autobiographical. Either way, it is very much an advertisement IMHO. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This appears to be nothing but a puff piece and not at all encyclopedic. Sorely fails notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Essentially unreferenced BLP article about an obviously non-notable minor that doesn't even assert the significance of the subject.----Pontificalibus 18:41, 28 March 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Manzi[edit]

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

Non-notable business guy with limited coverage and mostly interviews/press releases/non-rs Praxidicae (talk) 00:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: And quite frankly, those interviews/press release sources didn't do their homework. The subject's the "youngest person in history to make $1 million?" Highly dubious. Ravenswing 06:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am seeing media coverage on TechCrunch, Moscow Times, Success Magazine, Stanford Magazine, and Hacked. I do not see interviews or press releases as purported. The articles do substantiate all claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B04C:1EB9:C452:80CC:867C:88D0 (talk) 06:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC) — 2600:1010:B04C:1EB9:C452:80CC:867C:88D0 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Svtecheditor01. Cabayi (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable individual, this is a promo piece. Sources are press releases. Lapablo (talk) 19:34, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "All public logs", Wikipedia, retrieved 2019-03-27

[2] ttps://seekingalpha.com/article/4179583-zynga-acquires-gram-games-hyper-casual-puzzle-games

[3] ttps://www.fool.com/investing/2019/03/08/why-zynga-stock-jumped-165-in-february.aspx

[1]

[2]

[3]