Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 May	14 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pagandom (Band)[edit]

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

No sources exist at all for this band. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 23:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment: I am adding an album article credited to this band as the article would be eligible for A9 upon deletion of the band's article. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt as a Shadow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete Most likely a case of WP:GARAGEBAND by a largely SPA. Their official website is their bandcamp account, so that should tell you something. I found a couple of Thrash Metal blog type things, but nothing significant--but in fairness their existence pre-dates most online coverage, but even then, they only have one release and there's no evidence of it charting. ShelbyMarion (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BAND, has not "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom. Nikolaiho^☎️📖 06:48, 20 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Pedrosa Mendes[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF. The subject has no distinguished awards and is not in a named chair. He is some sort of leader (but not the creator) of COPASI so I don't think he qualifies there. The citations look impressive until you strip out articles he co-authored as well as stuff from his employer and you're left with almost nothing. He might be notable in fifty years but today this article is just advertising and vanity. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With nearly 20,000 citations on GS a wide pass of WP:Prof#C1 [1]. A mighty trout for the nominator for failing to carry out WP:Before. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
As C1 does not specify what "highly cited" means, it's impossible to fairly apply. I'm not surprised you abused it for your inclusionism. GS doesn't give me statistics to compare this subject to others, either. Next time, please show me an objective criterion I can apply. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep He is the corresponding author on the papers that introduce COPASI, this usually indicates that he is the project leader. His citation record is objectively impressive - an h-index in the 50s, 34 articles cited more than 100 times and more than 1000 citations per year per GS puts him in the top rank of academics. Polyharrisson (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1. The nomination already said "the citations look impressive", and most academic publications these days are co-authored so pretending that science has to be done by a lone hero to be valuable makes no sense. The claim that he is "not the creator" of COPASI appears to be at best misleading — he created the predecessor system and led the development of COPASI itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: What I should have said is that the citations in the article are not sufficiently independent of the subject for GNG and his work with COPASI likely does not qualify him. I can see how I was misunderstood. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is that relevant when PROF, not GNG, is the appropriate notability criterion? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as satisfying WP:NPROF. "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work" - already demonstrated by the editors above. High h-index, absolutely no reason to dismiss co-authored work. I also don't see where the "vanity" comes from. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep agreeing with all the above, definitely notable (but needs updating)Duncan.Hull (talk) 06:05, 15 May 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) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Southland Conference men's basketball season[edit]

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

As a D1 division I have no doubt that sourcing exists to make this article policy compliant but as it stands now fails NSEASON and serves primarily as a sports directory. Was created by a now blocked user but has been updated by others since then. Suggest delete or draftify until it can consist mainly of well-sourced prose, not just statistics and lists of players. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no doubt that sourcing exists to make this article policy compliant: If that is the case, it seems unnecessarily bureaucratic to AfD this. Moreover, WP:BEFORE is expected to be performed prior to a nomination, and sources existing would preclude deletion. Per the policy WP:DEL-CONTENT, we generally do not delete notable topics merely due to content issues. @Barkeep49: Please consider withdrawing this unless your BEFORE shows a notability issue. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba, NSEASON is a notability guideline. NOT is a policy. I am making a policy based argument for why this argument should not exist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: Understood, but we would not delete for not meeting NSEASON if GNG is met, which you indicated in your nomination that you believe it would. If sources exist to take this topic beyond a directory, than NOT is ... not a concern.—Bagumba (talk) 10:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well in all fairness NSEASON would suggest a redirect is the correct solution to the issues presented by this article which I didn't suggest in my nom but seems like a PAG acceptable outcome too. In the time this article has existed, which is through the entire season, 4 sentences of prose has been added while 5 different directory tables have been added. We have no deadline can argue for this side too - when someone is ready with a policy and guidelines compliant article we should have one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSEASONS says to redirect ... if no sourced prose can be created. However, there is a big difference between "can be created" versus "has been created". The main question should be, "Does this topic meet WP:GNG"?—Bagumba (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not cleanup. As you say yourself, it is very likely that there are sources to make this article compliant. This article needs work, not deletion. Dammit_steve (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. If sources exist, then it should not be nominated for deletion. It should be tagged and improved.--TM 10:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep AFD is not cleanup. No valid reason specified for deletion, complete waste of our time. Smartyllama (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep WP:BEFORE was not performed. Per policy WP:DEL-CONTENT, If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Nominator leaves discussion open to make a WP:POINT about technicality in WP:NSEASONS.—Bagumba (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not cleanup. Sources exist to show that this subject meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:20, 15 May 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. Needs work, but meet inclusion criteria. (non-admin closure) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1987–88 Bradley Braves men's basketball team[edit]

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

Fails NSEASON as it is primarily statistics and lists of players (and the list of player is itself incredibly incomplete). Given the team's performance that season there is likely an article to be written about the topic but this is not it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AFD is not cleanup. This article needs work (alot of it) but not deletion. Dammit_steve (talk) 08:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the nomination, ... there is likely an article to be written about the topic but this is not it. However, policy WP:DEL-CONTENT says that we generally do not delete notable topics merely due to content issues. Barring a statement that WP:BEFORE showed GNG was not met, I'd suggest this AfD be withdrawn.—Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Let's make it a redirect until such time that a policy and guideline compliant article can be written. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 11:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is certainly a suggestion you can make if the article isn’t improved during the AfD process. Rikster2 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a valid AfD outcome. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No valid reason specified for deletion. If the article can be improved, then it shouldn't be deleted. Smartyllama (talk) 16:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep I've added some sourced prose to the article. Clearly WP:BEFORE was not performed, and this discussion remains open to grandstand some WP:POINT about NSEASONS.—Bagumba (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AFD is not cleanup. Sources exist to show that this subject meets WP:GNG. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team won its conference championship, advanced to the NCAA tournament, featured the national scoring champion, and most importantly was the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources such that WP:GNG is satisfied. Any deficiencies noted by the nominator are cause for improvement, not deletion. Cbl62 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now has two reliable sources and I know the subject meets GNG. Still needs a lot of work, though. Rikster2 (talk) 19:39, 17 May 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. czar 15:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

33 Jazz Records[edit]

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

Lacks independent coverage in multiple RS to meet WP:NCORP. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deleteYep seems to lack any real notability. Looking at the last AFD I fail to see how WP:MUSIC applies as this does not seem to cover record publishers, but rather artists and their work.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In the 2016 AfD I observed that "I haven't located substantial coverage of the label itself, in the absence of which this fails WP:CORPDEPTH" and searches now are showing an unchanged situation. The prevailing view in that AfD seemed to become that the company's release of the first album by Anita Wardell, who went on to win an award 7 years later, was a significant consideration; however, I view that as falling under WP:NOTINHERITED. AllyD (talk) 14:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS to support the notability of the article. Fails WP:NCORP. - Funky Snack (Talk) 20:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone do a Google search? Here is an article about Paul Jolly, the owner of 33 Jazz.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's the existing source. Nevertheless, it is a source.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? "roster suggests a cultural prominence consistent with WP:MUSIC's definition of an important indie label".
Vmavanti (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The artists they represent or release do not contribute to the notability of the label itself, per WP:NOTINHERITED.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable, really, because I quoted an editor who used that reason whenever I tried to get a label deleted, and he nearly always succeeded in keeping the article. The question then becomes: What's different here compared to those instances?
Vmavanti (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess in those discussions there were not enough editors around who know the policies as you or I do. See the recent (long) discussion on galleries on the WP:N talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:47, 17 May 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. Bare assertions of significant coverage cannot overcome Bakazaka's detailed (and unrebutted) analysis. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EMix[edit]

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

Google news comes up with one peice of news and it is a press release. https://www.healthcareitnews.com/press-release/pacsgear-adds-emix-open-image-exchange Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1. No argument has been made for deletion. The nominator has mentioned that there is only one result on Google News, which is not overwhelmingly surprising, considering that this article is about a technology in the medical field and healthcare industry. A better search would also involve Google Scholar. MarkZusab (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On the other hand, as a technology in the medical field, Google Scholar comes up with significantly more than one result. Note that many of these are merely mentions of the phrase "electronic medical information exchange", and do not actually discuss the technology this article is about. However, there are also many sources discussing the actual technology. This may contribute to notability. MarkZusab (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:03, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per MarkZusab. Mosaicberry (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO. The above !votes do not distinguish between the generic term "Electronic Medical Information Exchange" and the specific product name "eMix". This article is a promotional brochure for the product. Bakazaka (talk) 19:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, that is exactly what I tried to do when I stated "Note that many of these are merely mentions of the phrase "electronic medical information exchange", and do not actually discuss the technology this article is about." You are correct that most of the sources use it as a generic term, but there are a few sources that actually discuss eMix: [2] [3] [4]. There are also sources from publications including Radiology Today, 24x7 magazine, Campus Technology, and Imaging Technology News. MarkZusab (talk) 15:08, 27 April 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)} 04:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there any coverage available beyond the coverage around the original press release? All the references are all within 3 days of each other which means they are all covering a single event or action which would not be notable. The company described in this article should have significant extended coverage across multiple channels. Their website certainly doesn't have any info on it and the small link at the bottom forwards to a different company.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MarkZusab's sources. This topic appears to have received WP:SIGCOV over a WP:SUSTAINED period of time. For example, the Radiology Today article was from 2010, and the IEEE Spectrum article was from 2017. feminist (talk) 03:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It "appears to" until you actually access and read the sources. For example, the entire coverage of eMix in the IEEE conference paper is An example of a cloud-based system includes the Electronic Medical Information Exchange (called eMix) (Sultan, 2014) that allows health care providers and patients to pervasively access medical reports. Do you think that is WP:SIGCOV? Let's follow the reference to Sultan, 2014. Sultan, 2014, the basis for that single sentence of "coverage", does not mention eMix or Electronic Medical Information Exchange at all. The ITN source is a lightly edited press release. The Radiology Today not only repeats the company's own PR, it does it alongside quotes from a company executive. The Campus Technology article is a lightly reworded/expanded UCSD press release from a few months prior. Whatever 24x7 mag is, the 2 paragraphs in their article get their information from the "DR Systems vice president of business development" (that's the PR/sales guy). Did I miss one? Right, the Springer book. One paragraph on eMix on page 10, containing the company's own description of its product, cited to the company's website. Since you've cited WP:SIGCOV, you undoubtedly remember the part where the coverage has to be independent, so I don't have to remind you why this isn't WP:SIGCOV. Bakazaka (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We still need a bit more commentary on MarkZusab's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard to determine whether the cited Xconomy and HealthLeaders articles contribute to eMix's notability. You can participate at WP:RSN § Xconomy and HealthLeaders for eMix — Newslinger talk 00:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This company hasn't gone anywhere and didn't reach significance. Website has nothing - I guess it's owned by IBM now? An example of a notable company in the space of medical image sharing is Ambra Health. II | (t - c) 06:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @MarkZusab: can you comment on @Bakazaka:'s insights above? All that is currently cited is from 2010, so we can't even say anything current about this company. And we can't conflate the technology and the corporate entity, which may have been absorbed by an IBM subsidiary "Merge Healthcare" at some point given what I see on its opaque and extremely limited corporate website. II | (t - c) 08:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:MarkZusab and User:Newslinger's new sources for citations.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:12, 18 May 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 2009 Southeastern Conference football season. Any usable content may be merged from the page history at editorial discretion. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Southeastern Conference football officiating controversy[edit]

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

This article is a list of controversial referee decisions from a college football conference season. There is no claim of notability for the actual controversy though. Just about any sports season could have a list of controversial referee decisions. There is nothing that makes this season particularly notable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. I'm finding coverage of the individual calls and controversies, but I can't find sources sufficient to establish notability for a stand-alone article, e.g., WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Leviv ich 21:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete you can probably write these sorts of articles for any season in any sport that gets covered in the media. The kicker for me on WP:GNG front is there is no article that covers the controversy as a whole, so there's a WP:SYNTH issue as well. SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2009 Southeastern Conference football season and merge any reliably sourced information there, as appropriate. It's a possible search term, and redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ejgreen77 (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 2009 Southeastern Conference football season, yes redirects are cheap, but to me it seems like a iffy-iffy search term. Pay attention to hits on Google, if somewhat common, I will be all for a redirect. James-the-Charizard (talk) 17:40, 16 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Numbskulls[edit]

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

I can't find any reliable sources on this band's existence, let alone notability. All the references in here are dead ends. Google searches for the band and their albums only bring back Wikipedia and mirrors (if they were as influential as this page claims they were, surely there would be something else). Could even be a very detailed hoax. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: hmmm... supposedly influenced by the UK's Madchester scene of 1989-90, yet this band broke up three years before that in 1986, even before acid house had hit the headlines or the charts anywhere? I think this is a hoax as well. Or at the very least, an exaggerated promotional piece by a band member (the article creator is a SPA with the same surname as the guitarist, and states elsewhere that he is a band member [5]). Richard3120 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look over at WP:HOAXLIST and if page is a hoax, which is looking likely, it could be one of the longest lived ones in Wikipedia. This iteration of this page (excluding a previous nonsense page made and deleted two years prior) was created in July 2006. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a likely hoax (which is probably not blatant enough for CSD G3). As the above comment noted, things here simply don't add up. Rlin8 (☎·✎·📧) 23:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think this band may have really existed under the name HyperzombieNumbSkulls, with "Numbskulls" as a short nickname. There are several other bands in various countries and decades also called the Numbskulls, and I think a member of THIS band is trying to use sources dedicated to those other bands as proof of media notice. Here is some interesting archeology: see the comment from January 2010 at Talk:Lists of punk bands (#17 in the Contents). In any case, if they really did exist the sheer lack of sources indicates that they were hardly influential, and if the article is not a hoax then it is a vanity project by a 50-something former punk trying to show his grandkids that he was cool back in '83. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:08, 14 May 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) So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anna-Lynne Williams[edit]

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

Questionable WP:BIO notability and the article appears to serve the primary purpose of being an extension of the subject's publicity. Multiple single purpose accounts have edited the articles: Teaandcake48 and Amodelme. An IP editor identifying to be the subject made edits removing age information to moderate contents to suite her interests diff which suggests the subject exerts excessive amount of control and turns it into musical career resume/CV. Additional edits are made by Saintlouprecords, a label under the subject's control. It should be deleted as it primarily serves advertising interest and the notability is not that significant. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Nominating statement is wholly disingenuous. The article currently contains several RS's, and a Google search shows several more which could be utilized. The article has not been "extensively edited" by the subject or record labels. I am one of the primary authors, and have no connection to the subject or label--other than being a fan. And I see no issue with the subject removing her birth year. In fact, she has every right to, if she so wishes. That's her only confirmed involvement, as far as I can see, in the article, BTW. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor also added contents.. that she actually wants on there. [6]. Search result shows she controls Saintlouprecords. Edits were made under that account. Also, a few other single purpose accounts edited the article. Graywalls (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a diff of the IP adding 2 newish releases to the discography section. I would have done that myself, had I known at the time. The extent of the IP's activity seems to consist solely of it removing her age from the infobox, and adding those 2 new releases. I don't see a problem with any of that, necessarily. And I'm not sure about Saint Loup Records—it seems to be a label with multiple artists in their repertoire. If the underlying problem is that the article contains possible fancruft and/or unsourced content, I can confirm it doesn't, with the only exception being that I can't find RS's for all of the collaborations. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

http://saint-louprecords.blogspot.com/ and also see "about" in https://www.amazon.com/Anna-Lynne-Williams/e/B008BYASQI . It's a company under her control. Edits through three single purpose accounts and also through IP, I'd say the extent of contents control by the subject is strong enough to suggest considerable promotional intentions. And the notability appears rather marginal. I don't know if bigtakeover.com, popmatters.com and such sites are considered reliable source for notability building purposes... Add: also see Teaandcake48 (talk · contribs), and Amodelme (talk · contribs). When there are multiple single purpose accounts, in addition to the subject's direct invovlement, there's usually a promotional intention of the article's existence.

Graywalls (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit made by those two accounts you've linked to were undone almost instantly. And those sources are indeed reliable, and every one of them - with the exception of the sources used to reference her collaborations - talk about Anna/Lotte as the primary subject. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - First, I wonder if this article should actually be titled Lotte Kestner because that is the name under which she currently releases music; the intro could then state that she previously sang for Trespassers William under her given name Anna-Lynne Williams. Under the name Lotte Kestner she has received some reliable coverage: [7], [8], [9], and there are a few more items on collaborations that she did under her given name, such as [10]. Admittedly it's not much but possibly enough for a stub article. Also, if there is a conflict of interest in the writing of the article, that is better addressed with an edit tag and removal of blatantly promotional language. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. The most significant coverage she has received as a solo artist has been under the name Lotte Kestner. She is only addressed by her birth name as a member of Trespassers William or Ormonde, although most reliable sources refer to those bands as a singular ("Trespassers William on tour"; "Ormonde releases new album", etc.) I think using (her more popular name) Lotte Kestner may help expansion in the long run, and can't foresee any issues arising from this... so long as Anna-Lynne Williams remains as a redirect to Lotte Kestner. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doomsdayer520. She seems to pass WP:GNG, and the article should be expanded rather than deleted. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple reliable sources listed by Doomsdayer, also pop matters is a reliable source as identified by WikiProject Music. The tone of the article can be readjusted if it is considered promotional, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lennox Farrell[edit]

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

Non-notable activist and unelected politician. No claim to notability. Madg2011 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Madg2011 (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Has no references and fails WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any supported claims of notability as a teacher, politician, or anything else. Also fails WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete minor coverage in local media. No indication of notability found. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:54, 15 May 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dannielle Kerkoven[edit]

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

Fails WP: GNG, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Only claim is winning a national beauty pageant - see WP:1EVENT. Failed to place at international level. No other significant achievements since then. Dan arndt (talk) 11:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage in RS to demonstrate notability; other awards and titles won than Miss Sri Lanka. MurielMary (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it's not notable itself. Forest90 (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn’t established, neither the Miss Sri Lanka 2006 nor the Miss World 2006 article even mention her, and the sources are poor. Trillfendi (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Good refs. BabbaQ (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons that the person is notable and article has good sources as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 06:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're kind of deadlocked here... relisting to hopefully find a more clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Firstly it appears that a number of editors have indicated that the article be kept as she won a national beauty pageant. It clearly needs to be pointed out that she never 'won' the 2006 Miss Sri Lanka, as the event was cancelled for security reasons. She was simply nominated by a travel agency to represent Sri Lanka at the 2006 Miss World, for which they paid her airfares to attend. Secondly there is no independent verification that she finished 2nd runner up at the International Best Female Model World pageant. In fact I am struggling to find any information that such a competition actually exists. Thirdly the Asia Fashion Awards are a non-notable competition and finishing in the top five in the Category of 'Asian Top Fashion Model of the Year Female' is hardly a notable achievement. Noting the article erroneously states that she 'won' the category. Dan arndt (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dan arndt. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Anyone who thinks the sources are good are lying to themselves. Trillfendi (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Five out of Six sources are Sri Lankan news papers. Nothing wrong with them.--Chanaka L (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On both the "keep" and "delete" sides, there's an absence of any helpful analysis. If you think the sources establish sufficient coverage to meet notability standards, please say which and why. If you don't, please say why not. "Yes they do" and "No they don't" back and forth aren't particularly of help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model and beauty queen. All the more so because there was no competition for her to win. The fact that people are given these beauty queen titles by fiat should make us much more hesitant to treat than as real accomplishments adding up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (nomination withdrawn) - Reviewing the comments and policy based opinions, it's clear that the consensus at this time is keep. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Martin (artist)[edit]

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

Unsourced for more than 12 years the Tate website page is only a mirror of this and I can't see much in depth independent coverage anywhere else Theroadislong (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator Happy for someone else to close this. Theroadislong (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and has no references. Syndicater (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you search for references, you can sometimes find them. See the article now.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are very likely to exist. I added some in under a minute. Having work in the collection of the Tate is hardly a "massive fail" of WP:ARTIST.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs)
Keep. Theroadislong, this ignores WP:BEFORE and also WP:ARTIST. New York Times reviewer Roberta Smith called Martin's show in NY "a minor masterpiece of poetic discretion." He is in the permanent collection of the Tate museum and the Dallas Museum of Fine Arts. He is very plainly notable, and excellent sources exist. If you did not "see much in depth independent coverage" previously, check the article now as Vexations and I have found and added many sources to it. The nomination for deletion is therefore incorrect.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article now contains 23 sources, so now would be the item to withdraw the nomination.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frank McEnulty[edit]

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

Having received only 833 votes out of 131 million votes cast means he was not notable as a politician. I don't see anything in his business career to make him notable for that either. Banana Republic (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC) *Comment Please note that the creation of this article may be a WP:COI violation. The article's creator is user:Mcenulty, which is a WP:SPA. Banana Republic (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear notable based on the sources available. SportingFlyer T·C 00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ramone Remmie[edit]

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

Fails the GNG. No significant coverage found anywhere, including in the refs given. schetm (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 16:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, and the references show very little significant coverage. Syndicater (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG per my assessment. He is briefly mentioned as an agent of a few players in not so many news items. In addition there is this. Icewhiz (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard G. Hinckley[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches per WP:BEFORE are not providing adequate sources to qualify an article; just passing mentions and name checks. The article itself is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not serve to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOPRIMARY. Syndicater (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet 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") - however, it could be argued that becoming a general authority of The LDS Church is a "significant award or honor" and being a general authority constitutes a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" under WP:ANYBIO - but I think we have to go with WP:GNG here and presume the subject is not notable in the absence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - Epinoia (talk) 02:41, 18 May 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) 16:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bonsoni[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable website. References (those that aren't dead links) are directory listings, non-independent (press releases), or merely niche publications. There is nothing that amounts to the "significant coverage" required to meet WP:N or historical significance mentioned in WP:Notability (web). The business currently linked at bonsoni.com is a housewares store and appears unrelated to the classified advertisement website described in this article. Deli nk (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEBSITE. Syndicater (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see launch publicity but no sustained coverage. I’m doubtful of some of the claims the article makes as Bonsoni just sounds like Craigslist. Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons above. Mccapra (talk) 08:59, 20 May 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. G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayanta Nath by Ritchie333 (non-admin closure) 94rain ^Talk 15:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jayanta nath[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the GNG or the music guidelines. Not seeing awards, national tours etc. I am however open to notability in a different language but feel we should at least have this conversation. The author made and sourced awards but the problem here [[11]], it doesn't actually mention the sbject or the movie. ASlso I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayanta Nath and have thus nom for a csd Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:37, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ensighten[edit]

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

Promotional. Too many primary sources. Article does not meet WP:N. Investedpersonas (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOPRIMARY. Syndicater (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTPROMO References are about promotion (or are trivial mentions). Not so much on what the company has done that is significant. ogenstein (talk) 10:21, 14 May 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. As noted by people here, we delete pages that ARE hoaxes but not necessarily pages that are ABOUT hoaxes so as long as we make it clear that a) they are such and b) they satisfy notability guidelines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894[edit]

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

This article is referencing a popular urban legend that has been repeated numerous times but never actually happened. See: https://peakoil.com/generalideas/the-impossible-battle-against-fake-news-the-horse-manure-crisis-in-london. If nothing more the article should be revised completely to explicitly state it is an myth with no basis in actual history. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The edit summary for the creation of the article states "Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 is an outdated concept of urban planning" Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not quite an urban legend. As explained here - source - this was coined (in the 1894 form) by Stephen Davis in The Freeman in 2004. It has since been referenced in various placed (as evident in google books/scholar/news). The problem itself (of horse manure) was a real one in the late 19th century - the 1894 crisis is a made up parable (of a problem that would be solved by a (then) un-forseen technical innovation (the car)). I suspect the 2004 article and parable may be notable. The article, as presently construed, presenting this as factual is not acceptable. Icewhiz (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as article now makes clear this is a hoax/parable. Could use some more work. Icewhiz (talk) 05:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this horseshit article even if it's horseshit because AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. The myth/urban legend/story/whatever is clearly notable in and of itself–the article is a good addition to the encyclopedia and I'm glad it was written. That the article doesn't explain that it's a myth is a reason to edit the article, not delete it. I don't have access to the 2018 Times article that I guess debunks this myth, but someone else who does could use it to update the article. Leviv ich 16:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, which WP:RELIABLE source are we using to establish a quote "Horse Manure Crisis of 1894" specific topic? Which do we follow? Which is reliable, notable etc? I agree that AFD is not cleanup. How does wikipedia treat notable myths when half the myth story is a jumbled mess of poop based on a parable quoted by an economic journal that was once a libertarian literature editorial. The UK Times article you linked to is 404'd and no longer is accessible. That being said I did laugh a little about it so maybe that's what you are getting at. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Randomeditor1000, I fixed the link, sorry about that. Leviv ich 17:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: - I concur the present article fails WP:HOAX in presenting this 1894 crisis, coined/invented in 2004, as factual. You may be able to save it with a WP:HEY - but work is required here.Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think FOARP may have put the horse back in the barn. Leviv ich 20:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is my creation, and I see how it can go both ways (I actually created the article under understanding that it is a real thing, finding reliable sources, and then it was pointed out to me that this ls likely a hoax). Please see the talk page discussion for more information.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is an article about a notable hoax and should be kept per WP:NHOAX. Referencing needed to show this is available. User:Ymblanter and others seem to be on top of this and should be allowed to get on with it. FOARP (talk) 20:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not a hoax, it was a problem genuinely considered in the 19th century and is used in modern times as a meme for a problem that may resolve itself through developing technology. SpinningSpark 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax in the sense that all the details used to describe it as a crisis (the supposed conference, the 1894 Times article, the failure to see that cars would replace horses in the 1890's) simply aren't true. But that isn't a reason to delete. FOARP (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't know if there was a particular crisis in any particular year. At newspapers.com, "manure" doesn't seem to show up more in 1894 than in other years during the period.[12] The most interesting thing I found has to do with Manure Bills in the state legislature, two in particular. In the mid 1870s to late 1880s, Michael Kane maintained a dump at Newtown Creek [13] (which was so bad, it is now a superfund site, or maybe it is a superfund for some other reasons). His brother-in-law, State Senator John J. Cullen tried to pass a number of (corrupt?) manure bills to protect Kane from penalties related to problems with the dump in the 1880s, at least until 1887.[14] In 1894, State Senator Judson Lawson succeeded in passing a law requiring manure to be bailed (compressed) before carting off, a state which made it easier to carry off.[15] Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes it clear that the issue was a hoax, and gives context for the hoax as a metaphor for problems solved by advancing technology. RobDuch (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think there is enough consensus here to keep. I request an admin close this AFD nomination. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sources, amusing hoax.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (possibly dropping the date). Even if the story began as a hoax, it is a sufficiently notable one for an article on the subject to be worth having. Otherwise people will continue promulgating it as if it were truth. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The World's Astonishing News[edit]

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

Article about a television series, not reliably sourced as passing a notability criterion per WP:TVSHOW. The only "reference" here is its IMDB page, which is not a notability-clinching source all by itself, and the article has been flagged for referencing problems since 2008 without improvement. As always, the notability test for TV shows is not just the ability to verify that they exist; it is the ability to demonstrate that they have been the subject of reliable source coverage in real media, but there's no evidence here that this is. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:TVSHOW and has no references. Syndicater (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TVSERIES says that reliable sources are more important than network distribution - as there are no references to reliable sources, the article qualifies for delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:52, 18 May 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 Porthole Cruise Magazine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porthole TV[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a television show, not reliably sourced as passing WP:TVSHOW. As always, every TV show is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists; it needs to be the subject of some form of actual media coverage to establish that it satisfies a notability criterion. But in 15 years of existing, this article has never actually had a single source in it but its own production company's self-published website about itself, and even that's now a dead link. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Porthole Cruise Magazine. —Мандичка^YO 😜 13:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Porthole Cruise Magazine. Syndicater (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Porthole Cruise Magazine, as these are both very short articles, and the TV show is basically an audiovisual extension of the magazine. bd2412 T 02:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elda Dushi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Whilst the winner of a national beauty pageant (non-notable competition - also see WP:1EVENT), did not place in the international pageant. Has no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NMODEL or WP:ANYBIO (has not "received a well-known and significant award") or WP:BASIC (has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources") - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a contestant in Miss World is not a default show of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeja Ternar[edit]

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

Whilst the winner of a national beauty pageant (non-notable competition - also see WP:1EVENT), did not place in the international pageant. Has no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. Trillfendi (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. She only represented Slovenia for one year. Syndicater (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing even close to good enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:05, 19 May 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. Consensus is that the part about "continued coverage" in WP:EVENT is not satisfied here Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018 Venezuela earthquakes[edit]

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

The earthquake seems had no major effect, may fails WP:GNG B dash (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. B dash (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (neutral). I don't think it fails GNG per Spanish-language coverage. There seems to be somewhat significant structural damage.[16] What are the notability requirements for earthquakes? —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The most likely category this fits in is WP:EVENT and WP:EVENTCRITERIA, which the article seems to meet. As stated before, the article does meet WP:GNG since there are plenty of at least Spanish sources that cover the earthquakes, as well as the damages produced.
- El Nuevo Herald
- La Prensa Lara
- RT Español
- CNN en Español
- EVTV Miami
- Venezuela al Día --Jamez42 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:EVENT coverage of the earthquake must be WP:LASTING. These articles all seem to be from the time of the earthquake - are there any sources showing lasting impact? FOARP (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The impact isn't even known, and this seems written from a perspective that occurs before the impact. Syndicater (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Whilst the event received substantial coverage at the time of the quakes, there is no evidence of WP:LASTING impact, and as such this fails WP:EVENT. FOARP (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT, article appears to have been created within 24hours of the earthquake occurring, may have been a case of recentism, being made WP:TOOSOON, article has now been around long enough to show whether it is lasting - its not. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is it also telling that the Spanish WP has an article on the August 2018 Venezuela earthquakes but not this one, see here? Coolabahapple (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created it thinking the earthquakes would be of similar significance as the August ones, but no. They were also less-covered due to year-end finance reports taking priority, though. Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 17 May 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. Tone 14:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of volcanic settlements[edit]

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

Old, orphaned article from 2013 without a single source. Apparently created in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Volcanic settlements, hence the lack of a source.

To me the article sounds like a lot of WP:OR and a violation of WP:LISTN as I've never seen any source that classifies cities by "This category does not include settlements merely threatened by volcanic activity but which are located at a distance away, and not located on the volcanic structure itself", although sources that discuss settlements threatened by volcanoes certainly exist. Some noteworthy omissions such as Honolulu (Honolulu Volcanic Series), too, and some of the things mentioned are volcanoes not settlements.

This was discussed (briefly) on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes#List of volcanic settlements where the suggestion was made to repurpose it into a list of settlements threatened by volcanoes. I don't think this would work a) this list is unsourced and much of the content wouldn't apply to a "cities threatened by volcanoes" list (and a lot of content that belongs in such a list is not here) and b) a list of cities threatened by volcanoes would probably violate WP:SALAT as it would be quite long unless we picked quite arbitrary inclusion criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:LISTN. No evidence of notability for this subject in my WP:BEFORE, let alone for this subject as a list. FOARP (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The exact scope of the list may need work per WP:IMPERFECT but, to support this, there seem to be enough sources which discuss such places, e.g. LA Times and Dangerous Neighbours. Andrew D. (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Er, these sources discuss volcanoes threatened by cities, not volcanoes on cities, except in the context of the former criterium. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To pass WP:LISTN it's important that they discuss the cities/towns as a list, and provide list inclusion criteria (there needs to be a proper definition of what should be listed, since theoretically every city in the world can be threatened in some way by a volcano). The LA Times Article is based on a USGS paper listing volcanoes, not cities, and as such does not provide proof of notability to cities/towns per se. Even where cities are discussed in the LA Times article, it describes volcanoes as potentially threatening the entire state (e.g., by impacting power and water supplies). There are no list inclusion criteria in the LA Times article. The book reference discusses a number of cities threatened by volcanoes but, as far as can be seen from the chapter headings the cities listed include Mexico City, Auckland, and Manila - it is hard to find any list inclusion criteria in this if it includes cities dozens of miles from any volcano, and anyway a single reference is not enough to show notability. FOARP (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"To pass WP:LISTN it's important that they discuss the cities/towns as a list". To be precise, that's not what LISTN says; it says sources should discuss "the grouping or set in general", not as a list. postdlf (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A book discussing something related to the topic does not make this specific list notable. Andrew D's links definitely would support expansion of Volcanic hazards perhaps but it's absurd to assume that means this list should be kept. He did none of the actual comparison of the contents that FOARP did. This does not pass LISTN. Reywas92^Talk 18:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The source is poor and fails WP:LISTN. Syndicater (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:24, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam A Zango[edit]

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

No real evidence of any notability. Not sure about most (if not) all of the sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR. Syndicater (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NACTOR by mile. Though I agree the article looks shabby, but notability does not depend on a state of an article. He's quiet a public figure and notable. Some sources: Best Actor African Film Award, London; standalone news for his music video; another; marriage affairs; exclusive interview; Politics; scandal BBC; more from BBC; and many, many, many more. There are also many sources in English media as he exclusively works in non-English settings. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ammarpad. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG as shown above with the identification of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. The article needs improvement but the notability is established, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 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) 02:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial life organizations[edit]

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

Prod declined. Not an actual list of any notability but a lumping of three unrelated groups. The International Society of Artificial Life may or may not be notable for its own article, could be merged with Artificial Life (journal). Biota.org is not a notable website, with related articles under discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Barbalet. I can't find any evidence of notability, even for being worthy of inclusion in a list, for the defunct Grey Thumb Society. Reywas92^Talk 04:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move- if not deleted, this should be moved to List of Artificial life organizations - the topic Artificial life seems notable and "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" as per WP:LISTN - Epinoia (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an organization entirely sourced from their own organizational documentation, a self-published web page sourced to itself, and a society that is entirely unsourced. At an absolute minimum, for a list topic to notable it either needs to be sourced as a topic (someone needs to have published such a list in a WP:RS) or the list members themselves need to be independently notable, neither of which seems to be the case here. Agricolae (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:02, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No source of credibility, barely meets GNG, pick any. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOPRIMARY, and WP:SOAP. Syndicater (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agricolae. This page has no intent, and yet it still fails at its intent. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:56, 13 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Murder Mystery Company[edit]

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

I'm a little surprised by the lack of coverage for this - I expected it to be notable but digging through what sources I could find doesn't bring up anything that would be significant enough to warrant an article. I'm also including Scott Cramton with this as a bundle since his primary claim to notability is TMMC and I can find no coverage of him either in relation to the company or otherwise. This source is pretty much the only significant piece I can find and it's not really so much about TMMC as the Wine Train. I suspect their partnership with the Napa Valley Wine Train will eventually become notable but it's WP:TOOSOON. No objection to a mention in Napa Valley Wine Train but anything more will be a bit undue since the most that can be said about it is the partnership. Praxidicae (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Scott Cramton on the basis of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [17], [18], [19]. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

is a full blown interview based on a local station appearance, interview in a hyper local paper, appears to be a guest column but even if this is a suitable source, we can't use a single ok-source to substantiate two entire articles, one of which is a BLP. Your definition of independent and significant is incorrect. Praxidicae (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews that are a transcript of what the subject says are a problem; These are not that kind of interview. I'm not aware of a definition for or issue with "hyper local" sources for BLPs. ~Kvng (talk) 15:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both There seems to be no real biographical coverage of Cramton. What coverage there is, really is significant coverage of the company. Unfortunately the company fails NCORP. The only source I could locate in the article, or when looking outside Wikipedia, which would satisfy NCORP for The Murder Mystery Company is the inc article - the fact that it was not a staff writer is irrelevant when considering its reliability in this case. WP:AUD is important when considering whether there is has been multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the company in significant detail and so the fact that the coverage of the company is hyperlocal is of importance when considering notability. We definitely don't need two articles here and it seems like we're not yet at the stage where notability justifies even one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect - merge with or redirect to Scott Cramton - Epinoia (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no clear consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 06:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references lack coverage and fails WP:SOAP. Syndicater (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The references are classic examples of advertorials and fail the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scott Cramton and The Murder Mystery Company on the basis of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Inc. article was mentioned earlier [20], along with MLive [21], but there is also an article from The Boston Globe [22], and so many other articles from local news sources that support the biographical information needed for Cramton and The Murder Mystery Company. As for the advertorial and soapbox concerns, I have edited those to reflect a more neutral tone. There were self-serving quotes taken from sources, but those no longer appear in the article in an attempt to improve the overall quality. Notability concerns were also raised, but I do believe that there is significant and reliable coverage here from secondary sources to establish notability that comes from hyperlocal and regional publications. I will also disclose that I do have a COI because I was hired by The Murder Mystery Company to provide assistance with their social media and update their Wikipedia article since it had seen no significant revision since 2012 or 2013. My apologies to all the editors here for not disclosing this earlier - I am still new to the platform and learning every day. That being said, I have updated this article with information relating to the company's most recent history (2017-present). However, if my edits have in any way negatively impacted The Murder Mystery Company article's integrity, please, by all means, restore it to the version prior to my revisions, so that it may be judged for its content and not my interference. ~Hjpikaart (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: The above editor seems to be a SPA who while adding the Boston Globe story also added this rather PROMO laden edit which makes some problems at the article worse rather than better. A YEH if you will. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 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. bd2412 T 02:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matias Oyarzo[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 04:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for violating WP:BLPCRIME. This is a one-event pseudobiography for an alleged crime, where a conviction has not been secured. • Gene93k (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLPCRIME. An alleged crime. No, just No.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that coverage of the subject is mainly under "Peluchin Entertainment", and not his real name. At this point, this is WP:TOOSOON - while the YouTube videos have received quite a bit of coverage both in Spanish and in the Daily Dot in English, it seems that at this point coverage is mainly restricted to the end of 2018 and beginning of 2019. Should coverage persist this may merit an article (either as notable crime, or a notable YouTuber - whichever applies). Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and per all. Syndicater (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as of now.BabbaQ (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail Passes WP:GNG so, right now is WP:TOOSOON. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:52, 19 May 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. Per WP:SNOW. Near-unanimous consensus that the article subject meets multiple WP:NACADEMIC criteria. (non-admin closure) Leviv ich 17:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Perfit[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Perfit

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

Contested Prod. The article has not been edited in approximately two years and simply says he is a “geologist, currently a distinguished professor at the University of Florida.” The editor who contested the prod disagreed with my reason that based on the evidence presented, there was no evidence to indicate notability compared to hundreds if not thousands of other geologists. My thinking was, and still is, if no one has expanded the article in two years, no one probably would. So, unless someone updates the article with verifiable, reliable sources of such things as publications or geological field work, then simply being a professor is not enough, IMHO. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 04:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The editor who contested the PROD did so with reference to a notability guideline, which it would have been useful to refer to before bringing it to AfD. The subject is a distinguished professor, and so meets WP:PROF#C5. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NB This relates to Michael Perfit, but seems to be appearing under the AfD above that. RebeccaGreen (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Moved to correct position RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 07:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Maybe simply being a professor is not enough, but being a distinguished professor certainly is, and I cited the guideline that says so when I contested the WP:PROD tag. The length of time since this was edited, and the length of the article, have no bearing whatsoever on whether it should be deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. With over 10,000 GS cites a clear pass of WP:Prof#C1. A misguided nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy Keep As a distinguished professor meets NACADEMIC#5 and Google scholar citations show over 100K work cited thus passes NACADEMIC#1. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is headed for a snow keep. Maybe the nominator would like to withdraw it? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5. XOR'easter (talk)
- Also WP:PROF#C3 and possibly WP:PROF#C7/WP:AUTHOR. The sources now in the article are enough to expand it, too. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to satisfying WP:PROF#C1 and WP:PROF#C5, the subject is also an elected fellow of the Geological Society of America (I added a ref), so also passes WP:PROF#C3. Suggest an early close. Nsk92 (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does a poor job of making a case for meeting WP:GNG, but a search through Google Scholar shows that he easily meets WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs improvement, but he clearly passes multiple WP:PROF criteria. --Tataral (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is the type of "article" that WP:PROF in its present form fails to prevent from appearing in the encyclopedia. No reliable, independent sources from which to establish notability. The most newspaper coverage I've found of this subject is in local Florida papers where he was occasionally quoted when a volcano fires up somewhere in the world (but none in the last 20 years though), or mentioned as recently as 2007 as being a mentor for science fair participants. All of his Google Scholar citations are from multi-author papers - nothing independently notable. This will sit here forever, never being improved beyond a stub. -- Netoholic @ 18:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you notice that your recent RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#RfC about independent sources for academic notability was overwhelmingly rejected just a few days ago? Have a bit of self-awareness. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CCC, and this is a great example of how PROF is failing us. -- Netoholic @ 18:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lots of "keeps/speedy keeps", most citing WP:PROF, 1 "delete", stating wp:prof is broken and WP:CCC (that consensus changes), doesn't look like any time soon. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over 10,000 citations, and an h-index of 56, and an elected fellow of the GSA, he clearly passes NACADEMIC. – bradv🍁 03:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:PROF for reasons given by others above, article has been improved to show this (also meets WP:NAUTHOR, well known books, with multiple reviews (others are available) cited in the article), can a mopper please put this afd to sleep? or better still the nominator (hi MensanDeltiologist:)) could close it early, btw, nominator may like to have another look at the following: WP:ARTN, WP:BEFORE (especially as the prod was contested), and WP:PROF (that has consensus). Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian diaspora in Africa[edit]

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

Fork of Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin#Africa. Don't let those refimprove tags fool you, because behind every subsection in that section is a well-sourced article. Moreover, I don't think there's any content in this article that's worth merging. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - At 111,103 bytes Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin appears to be already WP:TOOLONG and so it makes sense to have a spinoff page. Whilst this is partly dealt with already by a number of pages dealing with Indians in different areas of Africa (e.g., Indian diaspora in Southeast Africa, Indians in Madagascar etc.), not every area of Africa is covered. My WP:BEFORE found a number of references discussing the Indian diaspora in Africa as a whole (e.g., 1 2 3 4 ) so there is sufficient notability for a stand-alone WP:SPINOFF article on Indians in Africa as whole. User:Rosguill is correct that the article is in a bad state, but it is not so bad that I would support a WP:TNT deletion of it - it's clearly improvable. FOARP (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a search confirms that the title of the article us a valid search term. Notability is established by sources for the term itself and for related subsearches such as ‘Indians in Sudan’ and ‘Indians in Ghana’. The article needs expanding and substantial rewriting but the topic is clearly notable. Mccapra (talk) 10:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just clarifying my position, I think that the subject is notable, but that the present treatment of the subject in the article up for deletion is inferior to its treatment in the section of Non-resident Indian and person of Indian origin#Africa. Other editors are correct in pointing out that the sections of Non-resident Indian don't include every region of Africa that has Indian people, but neither does Indian diaspora in Africa, unless you count language so vague that it is not clear which parts of Africa it may refer to. I'm not opposed to moving the content from Non-resident Indian...#Africa to Indian diaspora in Africa. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article doesn't matter so much in this regard unless you're invoking WP:TNT (which I think doesn't apply as this article isn't beyond saving). There are certainly many page-quality issues that could be dealt with, but these are page quality issues not for AFD. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FOARP, I feel like it would have been TNT in practice if only because there exists content elsewhere on Wikipedia that could have replaced the content in the Indian diaspora in Africa article almost entirely. I see that since nomination an editor has significantly expanded the article, so I think this no longer applies, although I think more of the content at Non-resident could be merged to this article. At this point I'm content to close this discussion as keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:44, 13 May 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. Consensus is that this company/online database does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines at this time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Equipboard[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. Most of the sources appear to be unreliable, or contain trivial coverage. Of the sources in the article, [23] this was the best coverage. Online coverage seemed to include lots of mere mentions and blogs, but nothing substantial in a reputable place. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a look at this website and I think I am a fan. I like what the company is doing and while this article seems to be a mess with the way it was written, I think the company provides a unique service in a very popular industry. With further research it might be notable enough at least for a stub but this article needs TNT and might be candidate for AfC if they can't come up with a non-promotional stub or article. Obviously this version needs to go but I wouldn't discount the subject matter as I think it would be good to be included. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question ScienceAdvisor what specifically do you mean when you say the “article seems to be a mess with the way it was written?” Some specific feedback would help me improve the article. I like what Equipboard is doing too and believe they are worthy of inclusion. They have been cited in 80 Wikipedia articles. --Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ubiquitouslarry the entry is very advertorial. The list of further reading is essentially a duplicate of the references below and if it isn't then it should be. There is no reason that the types of affiliate programs the site participates is of any interest in an encyclopedic entry. The external links at the bottom should probably only include the company website since there is no reason that Wikipedia should be used to help fundraise or direct traffic to the company's Angel.Co webpage. There are a number of issues but that doesn't mean the company isn't notable enough for a page if someone either cleaned this article up or just started over. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also i think the page's references need to be cleaned and brought up to date. These look older like from when the company was trying to justify a wiki entry. I would hope their have been more relevant sources by now from NY Times, Forbes, WSJ, or even magazines and trade journals.ScienceAdvisor (talk) 21:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply ScienceAdvisor The further reading was all of the news coverage that I had gathered. Some of it was cited in the article, some wasn’t. Sure, it could be trimmed down. The mentioning of affiliate programs was to explain how Equipboard earns its money. I believe it is a legitimate datapoint. The article on Amazon talks about how they generate money. Equipboard should have similar coverage. I was careful not to drop names of individual affiliates. I saw the angel.co, Crunchbase, and 500 Startups entries more as indexes of the company’s revenue, and less as a revenue generators. I can see removing two of them. But keeping one would be helpful seeing as the information is not available on their company website. I have been unable to find more relevant news sources.Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 22:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Ubiquitouslarry I'm going to be polite since you seem close to the company. If you have to ask why Equipboard doesn't deserve the same coverage as Amazon, which might be the most valuable company in the world, accounts for 50% of internet purchases, and has millions of media mentions then I might as well change my vote to delete right now. The changes I suggested are not hard and do not affect the integrity of an article describing what this company does. This company is barely notable if it actually is. I do think the concept is original enough that it probably deserves a stub because it appeals to a certain demographic of music lovers. Most of your press is around two points: 1) Being accepted into 500 Startups and 2) Ed Sheeran's performance resulting in the crashing their site. Most editors on here would probably have this page deleted since it is entirely promotional, focuses very little on the product the company provides and very little media that focuses on the company or their products. That is probably a failure of their marketing and communications dept but is still a valid point. I would delete everything after history except a link to their company website. You would be better off with 3-5 good references and a small article stub. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ScienceAdvisor I in no way meant to be combatative with my comments. And you are right, Amazon’s achievements far eclipse anything that Equipboard has achieved. The point I was arguing was that other companies (Amazon included) list their business models. It was a question I asked when I first looked into the company. Listing the business model seemed to be part of the encyclopedic definitionUbiquitouslarry (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ubiquitouslarry that looks much better and more encyclopedic. I wouldnt remove the references to the Ed Sheeran event because a couple of those articles, if I remember, actually talk in detail about the company and help establish notability beyond just their startup fundraising. Also Angel.co I don't believe is referencable since the account is created by the company itself and not professionally edited. I would definitely look for a few more articles, tv segments and websites that talk about the company's product, collaborations with Artists, and the information they are aggregating. The aspects that differentiate them from other startups and make them unique. If that can be done I certainly think this article should be considered for a keep. Either way, I think the new article you have looks much cleaner and is more likely to pass once you add some references that establish notability. From what I can tell they are doing something unique in the very high publicity market. Good luck with this article, I hope you can convince talk:Rosguill and the editors to keep the page. I think having an online database of the instruments artists use will generate a treasure trove of great archival information which would definitely make it notable for an entry in Wikipedia. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ORGCRITE; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:SUSTAINED, WP:NTEMP. The referenced stories seem primarily about the startup organizers/funders, with this company typically being mentioned in a list and all from several years ago. In a quick search for newer commentary, I came up with zero external references. ogenstein (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are very poor and fails WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:28, 14 May 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. bd2412 T 02:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melbourne Wireless[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Previous discussion closed as no consensus without prejudice to renomination, so I'll try again with some more detailed analysis and hopefully Twinkle not stitching me up this time.

Considering sources present in the article against WP:NORG:

About the only good source in existence, goes into some detail about the organisation but is written by a member so borderline on independence.
Trivial mention in article about wikis.
Primary source, the organisation's submission to an Australian parliamentary committee. (This and 4 are the only references used to assert significance in the article).
Similar to 3.
Primary source, organisation's own website.
Forum thread, therefore not reliable.
Dead link to webcam feed.

Other sources found on a search:

Trivial or listing mentions in books here and here.
Trivial mention here
Blog post by founder here
and a variety of listings and forum posts.

I found nothing on a search of news and science databases.

In summary, this organisation simply doesn't come near NORG and doesn't look to be notable by any other measure. Triptothecottage (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article looks informative and encyclopedic. Germcrow (talk) 11:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not demonstrate notability. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kpg jhp jm 02:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (formerly a keep vote). The following is my previous opinion with the keep vote: The arguments presented can be fixed with good edits to the article, and I do not see any glaring problems against it that would cause the article to be deleted. Trivial information in existence is not a reason against an article, and there are sources that I have found that can be used to improve the article. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC) Striking through text, regardless of where it is located in the vote, seems to remove the vote entirely from the AfD stats tools. Testing whether this archived vote appears in the statistics. Sorry for any hassle. Utopes (talk) 03:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @UtopianPoyzin: My rationale for deletion is a lack of notability, which is independent of the quality of the article. If you have found useful sources to demonstrate notability perhaps you could supply them here. I would appreciate it. Triptothecottage (talk) 03:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Switching to delete, the article is not encyclopedic as written, and I can't imagine it improving much more. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 02:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Problems with current sourcing is well explained by the nom. Lack of coverage is a glaring problem that can't be fixed with edits. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:49, 16 May 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. bd2412 T 02:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rural poverty in Canada[edit]

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

Looks like an original research. Also, I didnt find any other "Rural poverty" articles. All countries have "Poverty in country" articles. In case of Canada, Poverty in Canada exists. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but do NOT restore to rural poverty, it dominated that article and I moved it because I was hesitant to delete such a lot of referenced material, and absolutely there are not other articles on rural poverty in... The rural poverty article also had amuch smaller section on Bangladesh which I saw no reason to separate form the main article. It could also be merged into Poverty in Canada ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:05, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article seems like it implemented original research to me as well, phrases like "This suggests" which assume or infer something are used frequently which is a red flag. I don't however think that this being the only "Rural poverty in a country" article negates any worthiness to continue existing, after all, it could be the first of many other articles detailing rural poverty in a country.Grapefruit17 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the sources are there, the citations just need to be filled - "Burns, Bruce, Marlin" refers to a Government of Canada report [24] and "Wilson, MacDonald" refers to a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report [25] - the Poverty in Canada article does not mention rural poverty, so this is a notable topic worthy of a stand-alone article - needs some improvement, but definitely a worthwhile article that meets the reliable secondary sources notability requirement - the article is significant to Canada as most of the major cities are close to the US border leaving large rural areas to the north with limited access to goods and services - (ps: I have no vested interest here, no affiliation with the article creators, no undeclared COI) - Epinoia (talk) 01:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need the sources proposed by Epinoia to be evaluated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article appears to be well-referenced. The delete argument appears to be WP:WAX - it doesn't matter that other countries don't have a "Rural poverty in...." article. The WP:OR issues identified are style-related, and not actually original research. FOARP (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Other things don't exist" is not a reason to delete. Canada has a relatively small population over a large area, unlike most other countries, leading to larger rural areas largely populated by First Nations tribes, some of which are largely cut off from other areas because they are so rural and at some times of the year, inaccessible. There are kids who have to go to school via web because of where they live, yet they don't have reliable internet because of poverty and because they are so far from major settlements. I'm not even Canadian and I've read about this. —Мандичка^YO 😜 12:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This reads like a school essay.... If kept it needs to be rewritten from top to bottom. Trillfendi (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article's a mess, so I wouldn't strongly oppose deleting or draftifying it per WP:TNT. That said, deletion is not cleanup and it seems like this could be its own article, so if it can be fixed up in a reasonable amount of time keep. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is well-referenced and does meet WP:GNG. Syndicater (talk) 20:57, 13 May 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.