Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 May	9 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Post[edit]

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

No real claim to notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this PROMO for a WP:MILL marketing guru. Writing books is part of the self-promotion, doesn't contribute to notabilit when, as here, the books get not reviews, generate no profiles or feature coverage. Post does get quoted occasionally, but fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and E.M.Gregory. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:36, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Behzaad Ghasemi[edit]

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

Zip personal notability. Sources are five passing mentions in newsbites... of which the first three are identical. Clear case of dredging the web for tiny slivers of coverage, and nowhere near suitable as an article subject. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Was considering putting up a AFD for a while but never did. I can't find any notability either for this guy. Wgolf (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those references appear poor. Fails WP:BIO ~GMC ^{{talk to me}} 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-per nom. Fails WP:BLPNOTE-MA Javadi (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — fails GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:11, 12 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Kuzov[edit]

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

WP:BLP which is making extremely serious allegations of criminal behaviour against its subject without citing any reliable sourcing to support them. He appears to have a legitimate notability claim per WP:NPOL, so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with Bulgarian language skills is willing to vacuum-pack it with airtight reliable sourcing for the pedophilia claims -- but we have no business even alleging something like this about a living person without properly referencing it. The claims were present in the article right from the jump, as well, so there's no clean version I can revert to either. Again, I'm happy to withdraw this if somebody who can read Bulgarian is willing to fix it right away, but the WP:BLP sensitivities here override any other consideration: if the pedophilia stuff is true then we need it properly sourced immediately, and if it isn't then the article needs to be deleted and restarted from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you are looking for are here, and are accessible with Google translate: https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2 Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some of the sources from the article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia at bg:Владимир Кузов. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in principle. Bearcat has it right; this needs to either be heavily sourced or have WP:BLOWITUP enacted, quickly. He does seem to meet WP:NPOL regardless. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:03, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but at the very least, remove any poorly sourced claims per BLP vio. Article needs some serious clean-up if it stays in mainspace. I looked at Reuters but they have a disclaimer about verifiability of the Bulgarian news sources. I found Diplomatic Observer which states on their site they are members of the Press Council and abide by their "professional principals". In the last paragraph of their article, they say Kuzov was expelled for pedophelia Jan 30, 2006 but that's about it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:39, 12 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Zanotti[edit]

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

One source is her own website and one source is a forum. You’re hard pressed to find anything else.... Trillfendi (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My search found lots of ghits and pictures, but I didn't see significant coverage to show WP:GNG is met. The number of hits implies popularity, but not necessarily WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A deeper search by me still found nothing that meets WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article makes no claim of anything notable. Both sources are WP:PRIMARY. A quick Google search does not show WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BASIC (has not "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other") or WP:ANYBIO (no "well-known and significant award or honor" & has not "made a widely recognized contribution") - therefore delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:42, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who Will Rock You[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a web series. According to the strongest source here, this airs only on the sponsoring company's proprietary advertorial Roku/Amazon Fire app, not on a real television network, so it doesn't get an automatic free pass over WP:TVSHOW just because it exists -- but the sources are a one-off glancing namecheck of its existence in a Q&A interview with the sponsoring company's CEO, thus not an independent source; one piece of "local band does stuff" human interest coverage in the winning band's hometown newspaper, that wouldn't even clinch the band's notability under NMUSIC all by itself; and just one strong source that's actually about the show. This is not enough coverage to make something like this notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The best sourcing I can find is to the (already in the article) Billboard article, which appears to just be a moderately reworded press release. Even leaving it as counting, I can't find additional significant independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lenert[edit]

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

Only routine coverage, company he heads has no article. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all but one of the refs are to his own newspaper, Luxemburger Wort, so the refs do not meet the WP:BASIC requirement of multiple independent sources - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:15, 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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Itzhak Fisher[edit]

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

Not seeing any in-depth coverage, and the company he runs has no article. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article is atrocious, the subject is probably notable. Minor dabble in politics. Was co-founder and CEO of RSL communications - which raised during the dotcom bubble some 1.7 billion dollars prior to going bust. Some coverage afterwards. Most of the coverage is in Hebrew (business press and some news) - e.g. some in Haaretz English, profile in Globes on post RSL comeback, coverage on a black check company he founded, and here too, coverage prior to RSL's collapse (per Fisher - not in a bad state), in depth coverage of his termination from RSL. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added during this discussion and becasue a simple gNews search [1] shows that this business executive is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Coushik[edit]

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

All the references are written by the subject. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:17, 8 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) feminist (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Smith (DJ)[edit]

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

No convincing claim of notability for this DJ. I looked for better sources but found no in-depth coverage. No article in sv-wiki although he is Swedish. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (no "well-known and significant award or honor" and no "widely recognized contribution") - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
.keep coverage is there, in the paywalled news archive paywalls. Here are copy-pastes of the first several articles in a Proquest newspapers search:

Newsday NYC NIGHTS, DJs heat up after Fla. gigs: ]Johnson, Martin. Newsday, Combined editions; Long Island, N.Y. [Long Island, N.Y]24 Mar 2005: B03. "A couple of years ago, Tronic Treatment was not only the Monday night techno party, but it was a reason to work all weekend and have Tuesday free. Then as the scene shifted to Barcelona, so did the DJs. But Christian Smith is back, and Saturday night at Sullivan Room, 218 Sullivan St., he's doing the first of two Tronic Treatments."

Toronto Star Pop: [Ontario Edition]Rayner, Ben. Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]28 July 2001: J14. " Tronic Treatment (Moonshine). Here's a humbling reality-check for any DJ, bedroom or professional, who might be feeling remotely comfortable with his or her skills. Swedish techno decksman and producer Christian Smith casually unloads one jaw-dropping mix after another on Tronic Treatment, deftly layering tracks across three turntables with such astonishing precision, imagination and ferocity that you'd be forgiven, at times, for thinking he was working with six. Fortunately, while the brain often has a hard time processing the intricacies of the rhythmic overload Smith conjures here, the rest of the body has no such problem. Impeccable programming and a sense of pacing that always matches the velocity and intensity of whatever he's playing- from straight-up, bangin' techno from Ben Sims and Adam Beyer, John Selway and himself, to hard house, creepy electro and a little Latin sing-song- make Tronic Treatment, one savage dance mix. Which, the "wow" factor of a masterful DJ trip aside, is what it's all about in the first place."
Spin away with Christian Smith. Ahmad, Haliza. Malay Mail; Kuala Lumpur [Kuala Lumpur]02 Dec 2000: 22. copyright The Straits Times " CHRISTIAN SMITH (left) is the techno maestro spinning on Kent Choice Essential Mix over RfM at 10, tonight. One of the most sought-after DJs and producers, Smith is recognised for his ability to combine a diverse mix of hard pumping house and tribal funky techno, tight three-turntable mixing, creative scratching and progamming. Dubbed the man who defined new tech-house and funky techno sound, he developed a passion for electronic music at 15, listening to Sven Vath. Smith started as a DJ at the legendary Omen. In 1990, he moved to Washington DC and developed a taste for Detroit techno and Chicago house, becoming a staple on the US dance and club scene for many years, alongside Josh Wink and Richie Hawtin. He returned to Stockholm and with Adam Beyer, Cari Ledebusch and Joel Mull, brought Swedish house and techno to the world. Now, he takes to decks all around the world, Smith had his first producing break with US label Music Now and later on Yoshitoshi, Nervous and Primevil. Although Smith has his own Tronic Music and Strive labels, he collaborates on other labels. "
Get funky with tribal techno: [2* Edition] New Straits Times; Kuala Lumpur [Kuala Lumpur]11 June 2004: 18. " DJ-producer Christian Smith is set to bring the roof down at Atmosphere tonight with his distinct techno funk. THE unmistakable sound of funky and tribal techno will be reverberating at Atmosphere, twelveSI at Jalan Sultan Ismail in Kuala Lumpur tonight, courtesy of deejay-producer Christian Smith. The New York-based DJ is set to bring the roof down with his signature three-deck turntables to create an amalgamation of electronic and tech- house music. Known in the international DJ circuit, Smith's newfound popularity is borne primarily from sheer determination, commitment and a genuine love of electronic music. His innate ability to fuse a diverse mix of hard pumping house and tribal funky techno comes together via a foundation that includes three turntable tight mixing and creative scratching and programming. Smith first caught the electronic music bug at 15, after listening to deejay great Sven Vath at Dorian Gray in Frankfurt in 1987.At 17, he got his first break with a guest spot at Frankurt's legendary Omen. After completing university in Washington, in the United States, he moved back to Sweden and set himself up in Stockholm alongside his Swedish contemporaries Adam Beyer, Cari Lekebusch and Joel Mull. Together, they introduced Swedish house and techno to the world. The last couple of years have seen Smith headlining events every weekend throughout Europe and North America and also in places as diverse as Australia, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, New Zealand and selected South American countries. His first album, Neuromancer was released in 1991. Since re-establishing himself in Sweden, Smith has set up his own label Tronic Music, which also carries a subsidiary label, Strive. Under the label, he has collaborated with DJs Jean-Phillipe Aviance, John Selway and the incomparable Sasha in the Ibiza compilation. Despite focusing on his labels, Smith has continued with strong releases on other labels, including Primevil, Smile, Rotation, Yoshitoshi, LOOP, Jericho and Primate. Today, Smith is signed under established deejay Carl Cox's In- Tec and has collaborated with some of the greats in the club scene such as Selway and Danny Tenaglia."
Platform: reviews Munro, Gary. The Age; Melbourne, Vic. [Melbourne, Vic]02 Oct 2009: 12. "Christian Smith. THE canniest electronic music figures are those that draw on the past, thus satisfying the purists, while still moving forward and maintaining the interest of the current, often fickle, clubbing crowd. Swedish DJ-producer and Tronic label founder Christian Smith fits the bill nicely. His work with New York's John Selway, straddling the techno and progressive divide, drew critical and public acclaim, with tracks such as Move finding favour with the likes of Sasha and John Digweed. Now, following a couple of EPs for the Britain-based Renaissance, the high-profile label has recruited him to launch its Platform DJ-mix series. He lays out his Detroit (via Stockholm via New York) influences on the first disc, with material from the like-minded Technasia and producer du jour Radio Slave, who updates Humate's classic Love Stimulation for the late noughties. Disc two ventures into contemporary club land, peppered with tracks from Smith and Selway, Timo Maas, Guy J and Karotte. It's all tech-tinged and funky, nodding to what came before while offering a sly wink to the future a foot firmly in both camps."
Rock & pop: INTO THE GROOVE ; ROB NASH REVIEWS THE MONTH'S BEST DANCE RELEASES: [FOREIGN Edition] Nash, Rob. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]18 July 2003: 18.19. " Christian Smith's mix Live @ Womb (Womb oooo9) provides a thrilling survey of recent techno and tech-house, kicking off with Marko Nastic's jolly "Let's Get High" and incorporating Technasia's "Evergreen" and Bryan Zentz's irresistible "D-Clash". Crowd noise is mixed in to recreate the club sensation, giving the set immediacy and excitement; you can almost feel Smith's cutting and scratching tricks. On the techno front, I would also recommend Tresor Never Sleeps (oooo9), a collection of mainly new tracks on Tresor. Fans of the German label's belting, underground sound will not be disappointed by any of the inclusions. And drum'n'bass devotees will enjoy Andy C's Nightlife set (Ram, ooo99), on which the DJ launches a fusillade of heavy bombs, before sidling off into subtler realms, including J Majik's evocative Brazilian-style "Capoeira". The final track on Christian Smith's mix is the new single on his label, Tronic: "Energia" by Vince Watson (oooo9). It's a smooth, rolling tech-house number, with a rich and balanced production and drifting, sensuous, gently syncopated synths, perfect as a hypnotic set-closer. And you get everything in double portions in the Mateo Murphy remix, which beefs up the bassline and drums and breaks more dynamically, while keeping the lovely wistful chords." — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets WP:BASIC, as per the source examples above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shown above the subject has multiple and then some coverage in reliable sources and passes WP:GNG and also the criteria #1 of WP:NMUSIC ( only one criteria needed). That these sources are paywalled is another indication of the problems of relying on google to bulild an encyclopedia as doing so results in a dumbed-down recentist mess Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 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. Tone 20:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Thomas (singer-songwriter)[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a musician, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC -- the strongest notability claim here is having an album place in Billboard's "Heatseekers" chart, which is not a notability-clinching chart. It should be noted that the article has recently seen some attempts at blankage, by an editor claiming to be the subject herself, on the grounds that it was created by an old PR company and was "mostly bullshit" -- and while the older version was longer, it was indeed written more like marketing bumf than like a proper encyclopedia article, and the strongest source it ever cited was the campus radio station of her own alma mater. There's just no genuinely strong notability claim or sourcing for the purposes of establishing her as a notable musician -- but the older version isn't worth reverting back to, as it wasn't actually any better at showing either of those things, and was technically conflict of interest editing by her own PR agents anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete There are a few references provided in earlier incarnations, but just of the press release, small time and insignificant nature that do not back up notability. Likewise, Billboard Heatseekers is a bad chart: a placing there is only a listing relative to actually making a real chart. In other word, #25 on Heatseekers means a release is that many positions of away from making the top 100 only among artist who previously haven't made the top 100, which means it's a lot lower than 125 when you factor in artists outside the top 100 who have previously made the chart. I agree with this nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No references by any means. ~GMC ^{{talk to me}} 19:02, 9 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. It seems like the sources posted here haven't convinced most people, and many keep arguments are somewhat vague. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Carl Earl[edit]

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

Blatant Promotion for Non notable businessman/musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of this individual. A lot with him speaking about things but not others writing about him. Awards are not major, HMMAs are not credible. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yet another related page from Richard Ludlow and Hexany Audio. There may be apparent case of COI but the topic is inline with WP:BIO. I recommend keeping this and having it rewritten to suit WP:NPOV Germcrow (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. How is it inline with BIO?
Delete as PROMO. Overstuffed with PRIMARY and unreliable sources, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Draftify. Tried digging more about "Matthew Carl Earl" via Google, I discovered he only has more of interviews from 3rd party sources within the Audio Production industry. The few sources he has as found include 1 and 2.

The major interview refs he has from 3rd party sources include 1, 2 and 3. These are certainly not enough but there's much hope for more exposure in the news. Coming to the current page, it sounds too promotional and loaded with unreliable sources. I recommend incubating this in draftspace. If it must be kept, it requires proper clean up of those fluffy sources and promotional lines. But certainly for me, deletion can be too hard for this. Benleg4000 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"major" is quite a stretch for the 3 non-bluelinked "major interview refs he has from 3rd party sources" thatmountain.com, tvovermind.com, and trektoday.com. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete First, I don't agree with a Draftify or Keep !vote - the article either passes or fails. The reason for Draftifying is because the article shows promise but does not yet meet the criteria for Keeping. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article cleaned up to comply with WP:NPV, WP:COMPOSER and WP:MUSICBIO. Promotional content is removed including external links which contained soundcloud and company websites. All references, though specific industry oriented, are mainly third-party sources complying with WP:NRV. OliverKianzo (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup, reducing the sources by almost half, was a great improvement. However, while it is clear that his music is drawing some attention, I am still not seeing WP:SIGCOV, and I do not think that it meets WP:CREATIVE. I usually use WP:TOOSOON as a way of being kind to sincere-seeming boosters of pages for poets, musicians, actors who appear unlikely to ever become notable. This, however, truly does look like an instance of WP:TOOSOON, a composer still in his twenties who looks likely to become a notable composer. Just, he's not there yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Examining the page and sources directly as they are listed now on the page shows at least three sources to establish notability which are independent, reliable, neutral and significant coverage to meet WP:GNG^[1]^[2]^[3], and this 4th citation^[4] has an introduction written as a secondary source so parts could also meet this. Additionally, WP:COMPOSER applies as well with the credits (and for which purpose for production credits they can be checked via game credits, press mentions, and other verifiable sources.) There simply isn't a glaring, obvious lack of coverage in the sub-genre of "game music" also, and then there are pathways to notability because of the repeated, independent coverage to satisfy WP:NMUSIC as well, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", which since at least 2017 has been the case. The content should be cleaned up, but that's a different issue, things like DOB don't need to be specific to mm/dd and a source for their list of instruments would help, and a source column for the credits would help. Notability does hit a baseline from more than one pathway.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Remington, Kate. "Matthew Carl Earl's Music Gets Arena Of Valor Players Stoked For Battle". www.wshu.org. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Video game composer Matthew Carl Earl discusses 'Arena of Valor' score & more". Nerd Reactor. 12 January 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ Chan, Tony (27 December 2017). "Matthew Earl | Follow these Core Values to Compose Great Music". Game Dev Loadout. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "INTERVIEW: Arena Of Valor Composer Matthew Carl Earl, Creating Music for Video Games". GameTyrant. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

Bold text— — User:Nubtrazolacine|Nubtrazolacine]]]] (User talk:Nubtrazolacine|talk]] • Special:Contributions/Nubtrazolacine|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Or, virtually so. A new account that has rapidly made 62 edits, mainly to Matthew Carl Earl, Richard Ludlow and Hexany Audio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO. 4 sources: a local public radio station plus 3 articles in non-bluelinked, niche publications ≠ WP:SIGCOV. It is clearly WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Game Dev Loadout is someone's blog. and that NONE of these sources is bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Hexany Audio: Found two more sources in sound industry after a quick search, with publications that cover this field:

Huges, Sam (18 February 2018). "Interview with Arena of Valor Composer, Matthew Carl Earl". The Sound Architect. Retrieved 11 May 2019.^[1]

N, Jvon (4 April 2018). "Interview with video game composer Matthew Carl Earl on Tencent's 'Arena of Valor'". Set The Tape. Retrieved 11 May 2019.^[2]

References

^ Huges, Sam (18 February 2018). "Interview with Arena of Valor Composer, Matthew Carl Earl". The Sound Architect. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
^ N, Jvon (4 April 2018). "Interview with video game composer Matthew Carl Earl on Tencent's 'Arena of Valor'". Set The Tape. Retrieved 11 May 2019.

--68.33.74.204 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would there be any value in merging this article and Richard Ludlow into Hexany Audio? All three are up for deletion, and it's because they each have a couple of reliable sources but no more – as far as I can see Mr. Earl and Mr. Ludlow's notability comes from their company, so perhaps if they were all included in one article which would then have have a dozen reliable sources, there would be a better chance of keeping the verifiable information, instead of deleting all three. Richard3120 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This above suggestion doesn't make sense. They are distinct topics. While notability can transfer from a company's major employee's notability per WP:CCSI#CORP, their pages are different distinct topics.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
summing up, we have a series of editors, including an SPA and an IP, arguing to keep this page about a young composer based on sources that include personal blogs and Vimeo, but is almost entirely sourced to non-bluelinked websites covering the video game and video production industry. An exception is the [[Hollywood Reporter[]] where he appears in a long list of nominees for industry awards. (Composers are, of course, covered by numerous widely recognized, edited publications.) I have raised the question of whether such websites can constitute the sole support for notability of a subject at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteSeem to be a lot of Trivial, mentions, some COI mentions and maybe (maybe) a couple of sources that may fail RS. None too sure but not seeing any real notability at this moment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and E.M.Gregory. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One minor award, few interviews in minor outlets, mentions in passing. WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 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 no consensus. Could also have been "keep" as that side goes into more detail in the source analysis, but it's clearly not a consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4imprint plc[edit]

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

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

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

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

The article was declined 7 times on AFC in various obviously Undisclosed Paid Editing attempts. This was also pointed out by another editor of this article [2]. The editor then "improved" and accepted this AFC. The editor has since been blocked (which I just noticed). Anyway, even if we do not disregard the judgement of a blocked editor, the problem is a bit bigger than that here.

The article is clearly about a company which has made various attempts to promote itself and wikipedia is not a tool for promotion of corporations. It not notable enough, does not pass WP:GNG and therefore should be deleted.

Companies are not listed on wikipedia simply because the have a millions in revenue or because of passing mentions and trivial coverage / annual awards given to companies every year... instead notability has to be established in depth - that has not been done here. Jesve Psernel (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Despite the dodgy history of the article there are multiple independent sources. And its big enough that it would be surprising if there are not a lot more.Rathfelder (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While independent sources maybe present, they verify that it exists. Confirmation of existence does not establish notability. There are no in-depth sources. The article is also aimed at promotion of the subject. Wikipedia should never be used for such aims. --Jesve Psernel (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A shady article and the subject of a promotional merchandise. Article's history also suggests Wikipedia Terms of Service violations such as undisclosed paid editing which is yet another reason that this article itself is a violation. --103.255.6.95 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not pass the Wikipedia WP:Notability criteria, on top of being UPE infested. --50.198.13.3 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC) — 50.198.13.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep.~~ weak keep The largest distributor in North America of those random widgets you get at conferences, job fairs, and whatever, but like many business to business suppliers, the name is not something that appears in public that often. Although it's only a few percent. So it looks like there are a whole bunch of these companies each having a market share of single digit percentage point. The article needs to be re-written, have the talk page tagged with known COIs, and sanitize all promotional contents, but inclusion seems warranted. See https://www.asicentral.com/news/newsletters/promogram/january-2019/4imprint-increases-annual-sales-18-in-2018/ Graywalls (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is an obvious attempt at advertising. Company size does not necessitate or excuse the violation of this Wikipedia policy. Current page references also include websites hosted by the company itself, run-of-the-mill best workplaces lists, unnotable websites, and broken news links. — 2600:1008:B126:8B8D:59AF:FBEB:2AE3:7AC8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:20, May 8, 2019 (UTC).
Delete. This article fails to meet relevant notability guidelines. Company sales volume alone doesn't warrant inclusion. This is an obvious attempt at using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. Also, ASI (Advertising Specialty Institute) is an industry publication that 4imprint is a paid member of and is hardly an impartial or independent resource. If size is justification; why not give everyone on this list a Wikipedia article while we're at it then as well: https://www.asicentral.com/news/web-exclusive/july-2018/top-40-distributors-2018/? — 69.246.235.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and move to 4imprint (the common name). Meets WP:CORP. 4imprint is a publicly traded company with significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources, which I've added to the article. These sources were found through EBSCO and Newspapers.com, both of which are available through The Wikipedia Library. — Newslinger talk 09:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. Miller, Paul (February 2001). "4imprint Makes an Impression with Samples". Catalog Age. Vol. 18, no. 2. New York: Penton Media. p. 18. Retrieved 9 May 2019 – via EBSCO's Business Source Complete. 4imprint sends thousands of types of samples, Iott says, including pens, mouse pads, and travel cups - all imprinted or embossed with the 4imprint logo, phone number, and address.
2. Scott, Stefanie (7 July 2000). "Power of Promotion: 4imprint wants to place it in the palm of your hands". The Post-Crescent. Appleton, Wisconsin. p. I-1. Retrieved 9 May 2019 – via Newspapers.com.
  - Continued on page I-6
3. Draeger, Carol (19 March 2000). "Marketing magician: 4imprint plans to double its Oshkosh work force". Oshkosh Northwestern. Oshkosh, Wisconsin. p. D1. Retrieved 9 May 2019 – via Newspapers.com.
  - Continued on page D4
    — Newslinger talk 09:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the editor who accepted the draft, Legacypac, was highly active at Articles for Creation. They were not blocked for any reason related to draft reviewing, conflicts of interest, or paid editing. — Newslinger talk 09:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more than two analyst companies providing research on this company (e.g. Edison Investment Research, Peel Hunt, Liberum, finnCap, Berenberg) and therefore meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic meets WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the history of the article is unreliable, but has enough reliable sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The company evidently lacks an in-depth coverage in the news media. Having gone through a lot of them, they are generally either not trustworthy or talking about routine events like funding, opening new offices etc. I’m surprised by those who voted to a keep. I’d argue them to take a second look. In essence, an advertisement. Plus, the company clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines given the available coverage. Only two analyst companies providing research on this company are not enough to qualify for a Wikipedia page, if this is a notability there will be millions of non-notable companies can exist on the Wiki to build a spam farm.157.47.252.208 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC) — 157.47.252.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Actually you're wrong. Two analyst companies providing research is, in fact, the minumum for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources I posted do not fit your description, as they are in-depth articles on the company. WP:GNG and WP:CORP require significant coverage from two independent reliable sources to establish notability, and the newly added citations exceed the requirement. — Newslinger talk 06:03, 10 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 was close-enough to vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatwal[edit]

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

Unreliable and unauthenticated information Binit14 (talk) 17:32, 8 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. Sandstein 17:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBizzy[edit]

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

non-notable hosting provider, the only (brief) coverage that was ever received was about an unremarkable lawsuit. Praxidicae (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

[REDACTED - Oshwah] EkonTim (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with nom, appears only serious coverage is about the lawsuit, otherwise they have nothing useful to summarize for an article (rest is WP:PRIMARY). Waggie (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable coverage of the company itself, only the lawsuit, which makes it "one-event" notable - doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:46, 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⁺⁺ 10:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article fails notability Alex-h (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability standards and WP:CORPDEPTH. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:CORPDEPTH THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:19, 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. Sandstein 17:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Ceribelli[edit]

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

Deleted once before. Of the two references in the page, one is dead, and the other is a fairly trivial mention. Fails WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What coverage is out there on her falls under the realm of gossip. Trillfendi (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ANYBIO (no "well-known and significant award or honor", no "widely recognized contribution") - having a job is not a basis for notability - Epinoia (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:BIO. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:20, 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 delete. Sandstein 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elton C. Pody[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Sources used are obituaries, govt. records, or routine local coverage. GPL93 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject was mayor of Ruston, Louisiana, estimated population 22,000 in 2016. Mayors of cities this size usually need to show national or international coverage to meet WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ruston is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just because they existed as mayors — but as usual for Billy Hathorn stuff, the assumption here was that as soon as he could find a legacy.com obituary, the topic had met GNG and none of the other sources had to fulfill any further standards of reliability or independence or substance. But that never has been, still isn't, and isn't ever going to become how this works: the notability test for a mayor hinges on the depth of journalistic coverage he can show, not on whether his family placed a death announcement in the classifieds or not. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 9 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 improved, with the suggestion that the article be further expanded from the French Wikipedia page. bd2412 T 13:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora (sculpture)[edit]

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

Does not seem notable enough to justify a standalone article, no sources on page. Google search determines that only other references online are from Pinterest as well as an art site that solely uses the text from the article. Cogaidh (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Jean-Pierre Cortot. I did find one source that seems to assert some notability to the sculpture, here, which makes the claim that the sculpture was one of the two pieces of art that first established the modern image of Pandora's Box. However, that is the only source I could find that was anything more than just a mention of the sculpture's existence. The single source, alone, is not enough to pass the WP:GNG, however I think it is enough that a merge to the artist's page, where the statue is already briefly discussed, is appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing my position to Keep, as there are now enough sources to warrant a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drive-by nomination with no consideration of alternatives to deletion. The nomination's assertion about sources is false, as noted by Rorshacma. And notice that the French article is substantial and has plenty of sources. All the topic needs is attention from an expert such as Johnbod. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral The long French article certainly shows that sources are there - whether this unrefed 2-liner is worth keeping is another matter. It doesn't even give the measurements. Mind you, we have hundreds of these, with a ref or two. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from nomination: "no sources on page", it does now! added the book source above, WHOOP, WHOOP!!!! Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and added info about a François-Louis Dejuinne drawing of it. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i'm surprised there aren't more wikiarticles on notable Pandora artworks ie. Pandora sculpture by John Gibson: source here, source here, anyway, the French wikiarticle on Cortot's Pandora does state that Gibson did pay tribute to Cortot with his rendition here. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable, looking at the added sources (I added another) and at the French Wikipedia page! --- ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ("not another one coola!?":)), and the Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon (where its held) believes it to be such a significant artwork in its collection that they offer an audio commentary on the work "About Pandora, Jean-Baptiste Cortot, 1819: The myth of Pandora" (no. 177 under "Sculptures XIXe"). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG (and the non-existant sng WP:ARTNOTE, i envisage it to be similar to WP:NBOOK:)), article now has sources that reflect this, also in addition to any above sources that aren't in the article(?), there are books such as Les Beaux-Arts: illustration des arts et de la littérature (1843) in which the publisher L. Curmer describes it as "the most remarkable work of Cortot" see here (in French). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple:, nice find! I have added the part about it being purchased by the Minister of the interior, along with your newly found source. This is now clearly WP:HEY.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is unlikely to make it to Featured Article anytime soon, but it doesn't have to. All information is verifiable in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jean-Pierre Cortot - not one of his major works and not individually notable enough for a stand-alone article - it is listed in the Jean-Pierre Cortot article as an early work, so should redirect there - Epinoia (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Coolabahapple and their work improving this article. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:58, 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. Sandstein 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adedayo Ojo[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as the coverage is largely either routine, mentions, or not independent. Article has been predominantly created/edited by a number of SPA/COI editors, one of whom has requested it be deleted for lack of notability here Melcous (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many many issues here but the fact that one of the references is Amazon is the nail in the coffin for me. Blatant advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything notable in his life. But his company did receive a well known award. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 05:04, 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. Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Eastwood[edit]

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

The subject has appeared on some reality TV shows but other than that there is nothing to indicate notability. Numerous low-quality sources mention his attempt to get 100,000 instagram followers but that is obviously not going to confer notability. SmartSE (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. (There are limited sources available, and those that are available do not seem to cover the subject in particular depth or as a primary topic. The source used to support the subject's First Dates appearance, for example, is a less than substantive discussion on "bantz" about Trócaire boxes). Subject also doesn't meet WP:ENT. (Minor appearances in two reality shows doesn't meet the expectation of having had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"). Subject also doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or related guidelines. (An association to a record label, regardless of its output or chart success, does not confer notability. Even if the latter were cited. Which it is not. Being a "co-manager" of any business [regardless of its success or notability] does not confer notability on any subject.) The COI, PAID, PROMO and other issues are also concerning. In short: a firm delete. Guliolopez (talk) 14:07, 8 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. Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Ramazan[edit]

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

No coverage in WP:RS other than affiliated Express Tribune. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Google search shows no notability. Cogaidh (talk) 15:19, 8 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) 12:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reinhart[edit]

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

I fail to see how someone aged 20 could be a notable historian. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that Christopher Reinhart met the Wikipedia guidelines. In 2019, Christopher Reinhart recieved the most outstanding title from the University of Indonesia (and the Minister of Higher Education). Therefore, he met the second criteria of Wikipedia's notability on academics which says as follows: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. See: https://www.ui.ac.id/berita/christopher-reinhart-peneliti-mudah-peduli-sejarah.html

Christopher Reinhart also promotes the usage of transnational perspective in historical writings. This perspective is relatively new in the discussion of historical research among the University of Indonesia's historian which indicates that his research has a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. Xiahe08

My auto translate of the award reads: "Christopher Reinhart was selected as the Achieving Student of the Faculty of Culture, University of Indonesia in 2019. The election of Christopher Reinhart as the main achieving student of FIB UI was supported by good academic achievements. Over the past three years, Rei has published 19 articles and journals about the history of Indonesia." So it is a best student award. The award may have been presented by a minister, although that is not stated in the source, but that doesn't make it a prestigious award in the sense meant by the policy. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiahe08, as the creator of the article (and the only article you have edited), do you have a conflict of interest to declare? Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (no indication of importance). --Tataral (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability states: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The article does not contain (and I could not find) any independent sources... let alone enough to satisfy PROF or any other more general notability guideline. Seems like a likely vanity page. -- Netoholic @ 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources indicate he is a research assistant. Doesn't meet any of the criteria of Prof, or GNG and in addition unable to verify as all the sources in the article were blocked by my ISP as possibly containing malware. Even if he did have the listed papers published, it isn't enough to show notability yet. Maybe later, much later probably. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this blurb. No notability expressed. Trillfendi (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only form of notability claimed in the article is academic, but our standards for academic notability explicitly exclude student awards. Merely having written a few review papers is inadequate for notability; the papers need to be heavily cited, and here they appear not to be. And the supposed references for the article are merely more things the subject has written, not anything that can be used as a reference about the subject. Far too soon. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and all academic-related notability standard. There is also a possible WP:COI issue as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A research assistant to an academic who is a redlink must be NN. This is not altered by half a dozen academic articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom. Fails WP:NACADEMIC- -MA Javadi (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The ageism of the nomination aside, the subject doesn't appear to come close to meeting WP:NACADEMIC. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON - doesn't pass GNG nor PROF. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Research assistants are unlikely to be notable and I didn't find anything in Google Scholar to support a claim of notability for him. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 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. There is rough consensus that she passes WP:NCREATIVE now that new sources have been added. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manon Mathews[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few sources, a little text, the article needs a lot of work, but I think she passes WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with E.M. Gregory. I removed a lot of unsourced (or poorly sourced) information and worked on formatting. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:11, 10 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. Sandstein 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Formula One World Championship[edit]

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

It is too soon to be creating the article. Most of the content is duplicated from the 2020 article. Major revisions to the sporting and technical regulations are expected for 2021 which would be cause to create this article to be created in advance, but as per this source, those regulations are unlikely to be published until October 2019. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, at this stage there is insufficent information to warrant an article for a season which won't start for almost 2 years. Normally I would say Draftifiy, however a draft of this already exists (here) from which this eintire article appears to be copied from anyway. As Mclarenfan17 points out details of the 2021 season are due to be released in October ^[1] and the article can be moved from draft to mainspace then or earlier if a significant announcement is made but at this stage it is simply to early. SSSB (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is already a draft version at Draft:2021 Formula One World Championship. It appears that most of the article has been lifted from that page. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at past seasons, it always seems to be typical that this comes up every season that a season wants to be deleted. For me this is properly a case of WP:TOOSOON as what the nominator said. Maybe when we get to October, then we should create this article but for now this a delete. Matt294069 (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Matt 294069. In fact there was a time when someone made F1 season articles 6-7 years ahead of time and a bunch of these articles were deleted at AFD per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to soon for this. We already have a draft for this which we can expand and maintain until such time as it appropriate to publish it. Not enough 2021 specific information is known at this point. I would like to propose to WP:SALT so that we can focus on the draft and assure that that's the one which gets published when time is proper to do so.T v x1 22:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ironically, whoever created this article seems to have copy-pasted content from the 2021 draft ... but didn't carry over the (few) 2021-specific details in it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 FIA Formula One World Championship which was nominated 2 years ahead, just like this case. Everyone said to keep it and they were right as here we are now and so is F1. And there's an obvious alternative to deletion in all such cases – merger to a higher level such as List of Formula One Grands Prix. Per our policy WP:PRESERVE, we prefer such non-destructive choices. As for the argument that there's nothing to say about 2021, this is evidently false as there is lots of planning and publicity about this – see What's at stake in F1's crucial 2021 rules meeting..., for example. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's speculation and discussion about what they want for 2021, but nothing specific has been decided, let alone announced. Timeframe alone is not justification to have such an article. I can easily link toof a similar AFD which resulted in delete in a similar timeframe, where you were ironically the only one supporting to keep it based on the same flawed arguments as here.T v x1 12:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article – 2020_Formula_One_World_Championship – was not deleted and is still in mainspace. So, the precedent is clear – we keep such articles. Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: the reason that the 2020 article exists is because those articles include details which are new to 2020, (i.e. the vitnamesse grand prix) and a large number of entries are confirmed so there is lots of unique information on the season. The same can not be said for 2021. The 2021 article consists of 1 confirmed entry and a list of grand prix under contract, do you propose to have an article for every season which has a contracted race or driver? I think not. Besides WP:OTHERSTUFF means that you can't argue that the 2020 article existing means the 2021 article must exist too. SSSB (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No,you’re wrong. That article was actually deleted. It was recreated much later when 2020 specific information was announced. Also, there was another AFD dealing with the article you mentioned which resulted in it being deleted at that time. Moreover November 2017 is not two years away from January 2019.T v x1 22:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information about it mentioned in plenty of places as evident in the references in the article. And the ESPN article [3] has a lot to say about it. Also no sense deleting an article only to recreate it later on. This isn't some planned film that might not get made, this is something which is guaranteed to happen so not a crystal ball situation. Dream Focus 18:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the parts of that article that cover the 2021 season are speculative (its mostly a history lesson), there is nothing in that ESPN article which states that anything definite except that there will be a championship, yet we know of championships extending upto 2026 with the contracts referenced in the article, do you propse to create championship articles to 2026? I don't think so. The only sources in that article are sources informing us of 1 team, 15 tracks which will be in the championship along with confirmation that Pirelli will supply tires. Those are also the only season specific information in that article and the only season specific information available in sources, primary or secondry. Finally, there is sence is deleting an article even for it to be created later as explained in WP:TOOSOON. SSSB (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, only information is one driver has a contract, as do some venues. When the interesting, expected car changes get announced and finalised, that would be content worth having. Right now, no extraordinary, or at all interesting, information. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Noble, Edd Straw, Roberto Chinchero, Jonathan. "October compromise likely for 2021 F1 rules to help small teams". Autosport.com. Retrieved 2019-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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 09:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stinson Leonard Street[edit]

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would suggest proceeding slowly here. Sources for law firms are hard to find since there are so many false hits in sources that don't show notability; law firms are routinely named in court filings, lawyer-written articles, and directories. Good sources get lost in the haystack. But this article is about a firm formed from two firms each going back over a century, which almost certainly makes for notability. There's almost certainly some stuff out there, it'd just going to be way difficult to find, particularly online. TJRC (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no inherent notability WP:ORGSIG - no significant achievements or innovations or impact - references are thin (Twitter, seriously?) - the "there must be sources" defence doesn't hold WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST - Epinoia (talk) 20:38, 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) 07:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NCORP and the article reads like a directory listing. A simple search literally only shows listings with no notable external 3rd party coverage. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:33, 8 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. This is still not a very clear-cut case even after a DRV and three relists, but the "delete" arguments are more persuasive. I'm disregarding the conflicting views expressed by Djm-leighpark. There is exactly one opinion addressing the issue of third-party sources that is at the core of this AfD, and it's a "weak keep". There are two other "keep"s (and one "delete") that do not address third-party sources and must be given little weight. Everybody else argues that there are no (or not enough) third-party sources. This argument is, as mentioned, barely contested, and therefore remains decisive. Sandstein 17:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kst (software)[edit]

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Samsara (creator) with the following rationale "certainly not to be done via prod, after so many years!". Edit long enough, I guess one can see every weird iteration of Wikipedia:Arguments not to use in deletion discussion, including I guess "this has survived so long it should stay forever" :> Well, let's discuss this a bit more then. Sources, anyone? I couldn't find anything outside trivial mentions and primary sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: When undoing a prod, giving reasons is entirely optional. Doing so would merely be a courtesy. I find your personal attack extremely misplaced. Samsara 14:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I made any personal attack. You yourself noted you were not courteous in ignoring my specific request for a proper rationale, not me. All I said is that your argument is clearly a bad one (in fact, it is not an argument at all). I don't think my response to you at any point has been particularly so, nor less courteous than your reply to me. It is was not my intent to offend you, and if you feel offended, I apologize - but it was my intent to point out, inoffensively, that your argument is useless, not backed in any rationale we have (there's no policy, guideline or even an essay I am aware of that states that 'old enough' articles should not be deleted), and results in likely (as I expect this AfD will end up in delete) unnecessary expenditure of time for editors that will be posting here. Time will tell if I am correct or not, but if this ends up in delete, I hope you'll reconsider your future deprods. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software is somewhat notable. It is part of Debian. Google Scholar search for "kst-plot.kde.org" gives 28 hits. So our lemma is notable, and the article is a legitimate stub. -- Oisguad (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As best I can tell, none of those hits are actually about the software; they are about other activities, some of which used this software (or something similar to it) in the studies. Other hits included the "kst-plot" as part of a list of software that could be used for certain activities. When looking directly at Google Scholar for "Kst (software)", many if not most hits are for knowledge sharing technology (KST). Risker (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Per Risker, AfD is not a vote and your argument is WP:GOOGLEHITS - also from the list of arguments to avoid during AFD. Please try to find proper in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. All you have proven is that the topic is not a hoax and it exists, and this is not being disputed. Existence, however, is not sufficient for having a Wikipedia article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked further for sources, and please also see my comment above. There just isn't enough software-specific information here. It would perhaps be suitable for merge into an article (or list article) that focuses on similar KDE extensions; many of those individual articles probably do not meet the threshold for notability, either, but as a group of applications would probably cross the notability point. Risker (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I fully support soft delete/redirect/merge, as long as anyone can think of a proper merge target (or create it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This software already appears in the article List of KDE applications. Suggest deletion with a redirect to that page. There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application to demonstrate notability, let alone write a proper article. Risker (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:~~Weak keep~~: Comment: (was weak keep as relist but see re-!vote below) Rob Reilly Linux Journal Volume 2010 Issue 196, August 2010 Article No. 4 Real-time plots with kst and a Microcontroller ... seems a likely feasible reference though I haven't read it (its unlikely to refer to the Kepler space telescope but who knows?). One no-brainer tenable redirect target is List of KDE applications#Science. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further scanning through some scholar hits ... and with kst meaning some other things as well filtering is nightmarish ... kst seems to being particularly applied where real time speed is essential. [4].Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 14 overturned the "delete" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked into the source code on this project and it seems to have stagnated, It may work very well but the toolkit it is using is a full generation behind with no activity in it's repo since 2014. The information is sparse even for a stub class article. I second the merge that User:Risker mentioned. I feel that it would better serve the average Wikipedia user if it was alongside similar software that would provide better context then an almost direct copy paste of it's main web page. On it's own it's notability is questionable, but with similar Software related to it, it's far more relevant. Andrdema (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant criterion is notability, not software development activity. Samsara 14:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to second that. At some point in its lifecycle software can get to the point where it just works and doesn't really need further development. I don't say this has happened here ... but it is possible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can second (third?) that too - with a stress that this is a clear fail of notability, since nobody has yet found a non-WP:PRIMARY (manual) source. This piece of code doesn't seem to have been reviewed or studied in depth, hence, it is not important enough to have a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is notable and could become a proper article. I would highlight the following points:
- The title Kst suggests that this is statistics for KDE, and that seems to have been the idea when it was first created over a decade ago (and, btw, there are also stand-alone binaries for Macos and Windows, so it pretty much runs anywhere). However, the open source statistics market is now strongly dominated by R, which easily exceeds Kst in features. There isn't really any competition in that market any more, but of course, Wikipedia is not concerned merely with the here and now. As Djm-leighpark as well as the software's homepage emphasise, Kst's strengths are in real time visualisation of data. In fact, it may be the leading open source application in this area. This includes uses in electronics, medical devices, and astronomy. More on that below.
- Perhaps one might wonder why there aren't any third party books on Kst. Well, the Canadian Space Agency provided funding to support the creation of what ended up being an almost 300-page manual written at the universities of British Columbia and Toronto. In case this is of interest, the authors are Duncan Hanson, Rick Chern, Philip Rodrigues, Barth Netterfield, Yiwen Mao, and Zongyi Zhang.
- In terms of its connection to astronomy, Kst includes import filters for various formats that are either specific to, or were originally developed in, that field. These include HEALPix, CDF and netDCF, LFIIO, SCUBA and WMAP Time Ordered Data (TOD) files.

I may write more if I can find the time, but for now, I'd like to note that everyone commenting so far seems to have ignored the existence of the manual, with some even complaining about the absence of such material (e.g. Risker: "There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application"). Samsara 15:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manuals are problematic sources, since generally they are WP:PRIMARY. If manual would be sufficient to make a topic notable, every household appliance would be notable. Heck, even USB hubs and such come with manuals these days... what doesn't? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Samsara 15:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

s>*Keep: Following development progression of article to scrape start-class by myself within the last 24 hours and with adequate referencing and removal of some contentious claims from WP:PRIMARY I am moved to change my !vore from weak keep to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)</a>[reply]
Delete—fails to assert why it's notable as currently written, and cursory checks for sources turn up no significant third-party sources discussing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion now the article has been significantly improved since the start of the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've used KST for over a decade, but am not involved in the project. Linux Journal is in depth. The other refs just possibly push this over the line. It definitely shouldn't be deleted - at the very least it should be merged somewhere (KDE? An article on real time plotting?) - as the content does pass WP:V.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability is separate from notability. The issue is not whether we can determine KST exists but whether it is notable enough to have an article. A Linux magazine that uses the software to accomplish a tutorial doesn't expressly demonstrate the importance of the software. Put another way: are there interviews with the creators about KST? An article about KST's importance in applications (rather than just examples where it is used?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contents should be merged at the very least. We do have an interview - [5].Icewhiz (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like we need some more source analysis here based on the last few votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources per article source are grand. The totality of the hinting of the use of the interview (almost a cherrytoppping that interview actually) the hinting almost seems like an attempt to motivate upclassing work on the article but after 3533 days at AfD/DRV by this one with associated scummering and another astronomical graphical pussycat as well I'm kinda spent and this is past the post.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has been here too long. Just have your way and bin it forever as that's what everyone wants.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer Within a period of about 24 hours (my impression, did not count it precisely), Djm has added delete !votes or changed his keep !votes, with a "variety" of rationales, on multiple noms,[6][7][8] mirroring his "change of opinion" here, in one case verbatim. Samsara 19:07, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hexany Audio[edit]

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

Blatant Promotion for Non notable business. None of the awards are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. A business talking about themselves and their products is not independent. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Linked from Richard Ludlow, I guess this company passes WP:CORP. Nevertheless, a rewrite might be necessary to clear some of the non 3rd party sources used. Generally, the topic is in line with WP:GNG. My opinion anyway. Germcrow (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. So you're just guessing are you? Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic appears notable. Good sources out there to scale through WP:COMPANYLaosilika (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify. Searched for this topic in Googlenews, I only discovered three 3rd party sources. They include 1, 2 and 3.

There's also one source about an award on this topic from Variety magazine here. Certainly, the few sources are not good enough. More is needed. The current page is loaded with a refbomb many of which are not reliable. I recommend pushing this to the draft space for now. If it must be kept, it has to be properly cleaned up. All those promo lines and unreliable refs should be cleared. Nevertheless, outright delete can be very harsh as I stated earlier on Matthew Carl's AFD. Both pages have same issues.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Ludlow - Epinoia (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable project credits in line with WP:CORP. New draft removes the promotional aspects of previous draft. ParinazF talk
Delete There are very clear guidelines on establishing the notability for organizations and the references that can be located for the company all fail. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and the Keep !votes above are vague with no references to policy/guidelines. An examination of the sources shows none meet the criteria as per WP:NCORP:
- This interview with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent. The article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is no information provided about the company itself.
- This Sound&Picture interview with a founder also fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent.
- This Berklee reference and this one are from a connected source as Hexany are featured as Berklee Institute for Creative Entrepreneurship graduates and essentially were supported by the organizations publishing the articles, therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This Variety reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This TVOM reference fails for two reasons. It mainly fails because it is an interview with Matthew Carl Earl and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only mentions the company twice, in passing, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Forbes article fails because it is a profile on the founder, not on the company. Notability is not inherited. It also contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Cultured Vultures reference fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on an interview with a founder and is not intellectually independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth information about the company.
- This blog post fails as a reliable source as blogs are not considered reliable.

There is no significant coverage and no independent coverage that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a normal relisting case, I know, but not all of Benleg4000's sources have been rebutted and High King's analysis came quite late in the AFD process. I'd like to see a bit more discussion before settling for a delete close (since most other keep arguments are quite weak given their lack of source analysis)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources from Benleg4000:
- flickeringmyth interview "with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent. The article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is no information provided about the company itself."
Same problem as above as well stated by HighKing. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets WP:NRV as the references, though local, verify and support the content. More notable references like this [9] and this [10] can be added. Variety, Forbes, Sound & Picture are good sources. The article needs a clean-up to remove the redundant content like 'Credits and Clients' section.Sora Sailor (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment References may be deemed "notable" and still fail the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references you mention meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hexany Audio is mentioned in many reliable sources, such as The Boston Globe and Gamasutra, the first of which is a mainstream newspaper and the second of which is a respectable platform in the area of gaming. The Boston Globe [11] found Hexany Audio an authority to quote with regard to the topic of VR while Gamasutra [12] provided in-depth coverage about Hexany Audio through an interview with its Audio Director. Although the article could use some cleanup, it meets the threshold required to possess an encyclopedia entry. desmay (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Mentions" are not part of the criteria for references to establish notability. The Gamasutra reference is an interview with the founder, therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article looks improved, the history notes that cleanup has been done after it was marked for deletion. As per the source analysis -
- Sound and Picture - this interview of the founder talks about the company
- The Boston Globe - this source supports the Berkelee genesis of the company

Further cleanup is required as per WP:NPV and WP:MoS. OliverKianzo (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer It is worrying that some editors above !voting to Keep do not appear to have either read or understood the criteria for references to establish notability. Just above, OliverKianzo quotes a reference and describes it as an interview with the founder - this shows a lack of understanding of WP:ORGIND. Similarly, quoting an article which only contains two quotes from the founder with no discussion on the company whatsoever fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The recent Keep !votes from OliverKianzo, Desmay and Sora Sailor above describe references as "notable" and "reliable sources" - but this is just one small aspect of a reference. Clearly none have correctly applied the interpretations of "independent" - see WP:ORGIND. I provided an analysis of sources and pointing out why each failed WP:NCORP. To date, nobody has refuted this analysis. The closer will not based their decision on the highest number of !votes recorded for either Keep and Delete. We don't simply count !votes at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There will always be some editors who make incomplete arguments, but that doesn't mean there aren't significant sources per WP:GNG, here are some that meet that criteria^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] (and yes, Berklee College of music is independent, not some sock puppet of Hexany Audio). In this case, WP:CCSI#CORP also applies (and "significant sources" also exist for the founder, here cited)^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]. Additionally, there are a few independent, reliable, significant, and secondary tha seem to meet a minimum threshold for notability (prevoiusly cited). In this particular case of a music production company elements of WP:COMPOSER apply as well with the numerous credits. There simply isn't a glaring, obvious lack of coverage in the sub-genre of "game music" also, and then there are pathways to notability because of the repeated, independent coverage to satisfy WP:NMUSIC as well, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", which their music product is, quite clearly, as shown by the citations. The page should be kept so it can be improved (itself a different issue entirely), but it does meet the criteria of notability.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kirsner, Scott. "Berklee students and grads create a noteworthy niche: music for video games". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ Francis, Bryant. "Gamasutra talks to Arena of Valor audio designer Richard Ludlow". www.gamasutra.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ https://www.gamecrate.com/interview-hexany-audio%E2%80%99s-richard-ludlow-challenges-making-video-game-sounds/20312. Retrieved 10 May 2019. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Hexany Audio, Berklee-Bred Business, Blasts Off | Berklee College of Music". www.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Audio profession sounds good to Fountain Valley High alum". Orange County Register. 12 September 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Fountain Valley Native to Speak at Europe's Largest Game Industry Even". Fountain Valley, CA Patch. 15 July 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Richard Ludlow | Berklee Music Network". network.online.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "81: Follow the Three P's Principle When Choosing a Job with Richard Ludlow of Hexany Audio". GameDev.net. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

Response Nubtrazolacine, once again, and I apologize for repeating myself, the criteria for references that can establish notability is different that the criteria for references to support facts within an article. For example, if an article states "According to the company, revenues exceeded $20m last quarter", then it is perfectly fine to use a quotation from the CEO to support this. BUT! That does not automatically mean that this same reference can be used to establish notability. There are different criteria for references to establish notability and for organizations/companies/etc, they can be found at WP:NCORP (especially the sections on significant coverage and independent content

You say the sources you've provided meet the criteria for "significant sources". They don't. Significant coverage does not mean "coverage in a well-known publication" or "namechecked in the Financial Times". Please read the WP:CORPDEPTH section of NCORP. References must also be "independent" - please read WP:ORGIND. You say that Berklee college is independent and not a "sock puppet" of the company. Nobody said they were a "sock puppet", that is a strawman argument. None of the information on the Berklee website contains independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and relies on information provided by the company. I've extracted the quotation below as this is the accepted interpretation of an "independent" source for establishing notability of companies/organizations/etc.

Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

You (here and as a comment below) use a section from WP:CCSI#CORP to support claims of notability and in doing so, manged to mangle the logic behind that section. WP:CCSI is an essay (not a policy/guideline and therefore does not have the support of the community) intended to assist in overturning speedy deletion requests. This is not a speedy deletion request. It has no weight here at AFD and does not mean we can ignore WP:NCORP.
You mention WP:NMUSIC and in particular, the WP:COMPOSER section and this guideline is for "artists, bands, albums, and songs".. It is an interesting and possibly compelling argument that a music production company should be treated the same as a band or artist but to date I am not aware that the community has accepted this argument and therefore this guidelines to not apply. Also, be aware, notability is not inherited. Even if the CEO is notable, it does not mean that this company meets the criteria.

Looking at the references you provided. The first four, you say are "significant coverate". They are not and *all* of them fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.

The Boston Globe reference merely namechecks the company twice with no other information about the company. It is therefore not "significant coverage" as is fails to provide in-depth information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH) and is not independent (quotes from CEO) and fails WP:ORGIND
This Gamasutra reference is a recorded interview with the founder and is therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND (interview with the CEO) and provides no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
This Gamecrate reference is entirely based on an interview with the CEO. Not independent, fails WP:ORGIND and no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This Berklee reference relies on information provided by the company and/or the executives. Not only that, but Berklee are using Hexany's profile in order to promote the college. This is not "independent" coverage and fails WP:ORGIND.

The next four sources you mention are focussed on the founder. For the reasons I've quoted above, those references also do not meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would there be any value in merging Matthew Carl Earl and Richard Ludlow into this article? All three are up for deletion, and it's because they each have a couple of reliable sources but no more – as far as I can see Mr. Earl and Mr. Ludlow's notability comes from their company, so perhaps if they were all included in one article which would then have have a dozen reliable sources, there would be a better chance of keeping any verifiable information, instead of deleting all three. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This above suggestion doesn't make sense. They are distinct topics. While notability can transfer from a CEO's individual notability per WP:CCSI#CORP, their pages are different distinct topics.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you are totally misinterpreting what is being said. Not only does WP:CCSI#CORP *not* state that "Notability can be transferred" but the RFC it in turn references discussed "significance" and not notability. The RFC was not passed and the example it uses in the closing summary makes it clear how common sense should be applied. Nothing in the example lends weight to your argument.
- Response *If* this topic survives AfD (which I doubt as to date, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been provided) then I agree that some relevant and appropriate information on those individuals could be included. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the articles has quite some sources, you will find that only the smallest portion (maybe 4) is actually reliable. The rest is primary (own website), tertiary (MobyGames), or some blogs. Definetly fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. Lordtobi (✉) 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Few mentions in passing plus primary / COI / self-published sources. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leader (spark)[edit]

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

0 sources, plus appears to be a part of a larger topic. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a well-covered and much-referenced thing [13]. Looking through the connected articles, Lightning#Lightning leaders goes into some detail, but with specific reference to lightning only. The phenomenon is more general and would benefit from standalone treatment, with generous links to special cases - which is what the article already does. Keep and add some of the readily available sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Complete failure of WP:BEFORE. Yet another case of assuming unsourced means unsourceable. In depth sources are easily found, this book spends several pages introducing the topic [14] and later devotes a whole chapter to it [15]. Other book sources with in-depth coverage include [16][17][18]. As for "part of a larger topic", I've never heard such an inane rationale for deletion. Everything is part of a larger topic. Shall we reduce the whole encyclopaedia to just one page? SpinningSpark 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae and Spinningspark. I might suggest a move to Leader (electricity), but that's not for this discussion. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:09, 09 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 09:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Maynard[edit]

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

Essentially all these publications are selfpublished. The reviews seems to be routine noticex in Whats On and the like. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic, confident Delete vote. Trevor Maynard is a unique-sounding name, so I ran a proquest gNews search. I scanned 93 hits on guys called Trevor Maynard: athlete, art student, brother of the deceased in an obit, petty criminal, a child interviewed at Disneyland (he liked it), and a risk assessor at Lloyds who may actually be notable, but none of the hits was on this Trevor Maynard. Even minor playwrights we delete always have a few hits in local papers in a news archive search. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had this on my list of articles to nominate for deletion when I get round to it. I note that an editor has been eager to give the impression that the publisher of the books was not Lulu.com or CreateSpace, well-known self-publishing outfits, but Willowdown Books, although Willowdown Books is simply a name used by Maynard to obscure the fact that the books are self-published. I see no evidence of any significant reviews in significant publications. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 9 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 Now, as the only user who voted delete switched to keep I can withdraw it. I will remove now remaining false statements in the article (when I nominated it the article only contained false statements and nothing else.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blagoveshchensk massacre and Sixty-Four Villages East of the River massacre[edit]

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

Unsourced claims of massacres, POV. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify. It is a massacre indeed (Blagoveshchensk massacre can be found in a lot of journals and books [Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL]) and I did not see any POV. But the article is a bit short. It has even less information about the massacre than in Blagoveshchensk#The_Boxer_Rebellion and Sixty-Four_Villages_East_of_the_River#History. The author can expand the article by translating from zhwp. --94rain ^Talk 08:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article says Russian army invaded the two cities in China whereas it is trivial to check that this is one city and a bunch of villages around, and they were (and still are) located in Russia. It is somehow not difficult to figure out that Blagoveshchensk is not a Chinese name.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Blagoveshchensk is a Russian name. Actually the city formerly belongs to Qing Dynasty, but it was ceded to Russia by Treaty of Aigun in 1858.--94rain ^Talk 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to be exact, the area was indeed ceded to Russia, and then Russians built a fortress in the area.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to starting another article with a similar title per WP:TNT - It's trivially easy to find academic sources for the term Blagoveshchensk Massacre but the article as it stands is just too poor and unsourced. Alternatively an editor with more time could make this article into something worth keeping and I'd flip to keep per WP:HEY KEEP per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not well-written but the sources for the massacre are abundant, including this, this, this, this and this. Russian troops massacred Chinese nationals who were living on Russian soil, though that’s not really clear from the text. No reason at all to delete. Personally I don’t think it’s even so bad that it warrants a Draftify; I think it just wants some tidying and filling out. Mccapra (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unsourced ≠ POV. That is a falacious rationale that is used far too much at AFD. SpinningSpark 19:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides which, the improvements made by 94rain make the nomination moot. SpinningSpark 19:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a massacre indeed, not good in writing, but the sources are abundant.--SalmanZ (talk) 23:57, 8 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 Scott Taylor (politician)#2018 election and ballot fraud investigation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Brown (politician)[edit]

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

Per WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Does not meet either criteria. Comatmebro (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win. For her to warrant an article, it would be necessary to demonstrate that either (a) she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway, or (b) her candidacy received so much more (i.e. nationalized) coverage than every candidate in every election always gets that she would have a credible claim to her candidacy being a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those things is shown here at all, so a smattering of the purely local campaign coverage that's routinely expected to always exist for all candidates is not enough to get her in the door. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her candidacy was apparently important enough that someone who worked for the incumbent Republican was allegedly willing to risk prosecution to get her on the ballot. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm talking about. We need to see nationalized significance on the level of "Christine O'Donnell denies being witch and generates national cable-news firestorm that lasts for weeks, to the point that ten years later she's still about a million times more famous than the actual senator she lost to" or "Jon Ossoff gets distinctly unusual volume of nationalized coverage as first national "referendum" on the presidency of Donald Trump, to the point that four years later he's still about a million times more famous than the woman he lost to", before her candidacy would be enduringly "important" enough to earn her an article — "somebody on another candidate's campaign did something unethical to help her get onto the ballot as a spoiler candidate and here are three pieces of purely local coverage to prove it" is not enough. The basis for an article about her would be evidence that the entire world will still care about any of this in 2029, not just evidence that she's currently slightly newsy in her own local media market because of other people's actions. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she wasn't nationally famous, but her case was unprecedented enough that they had to come up with new regulations to prevent something like this from happening again. This was cited as having profound implications statewide, because it was the first time that a candidate certified for the ballot by the State Board of Elections had ever been kicked off the ballot. So, it's of more than local interest, but of less than national interest. Anyway, undecided about the best way to proceed. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scott Taylor (politician)#2018 election and ballot fraud investigation. Not notable enough for a standalone asrticle. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scott Taylor (politician)#2018 election and ballot fraud investigation. Agree with GPL93. Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. The fact that she was used as a political pawn can either be mentioned in the article for Scott Taylor or in the article about the election Bkissin (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the idea of a redirect here if we think that's better suited then a full on delete. Comatmebro (talk) 04:02, 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. Sandstein 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moinul Islam Kowshik[edit]

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

Mainul Islam Kowshik has been on the Bangladesh men's national field hockey team since 2012, and played in the South Asian Games, Hockey World League, Hockey Asia Cup, and Asian Games. He is regularly mentioned in primary source match reports such as [19], [20], and [21]. But there are hardly any mentions in secondary sources - ones that aren't first hand accounts by an observer of the event - as called for by the WP:GNG. All I could find, including when searching by মইনুল ইসলাম কৌশিক (name in Bengali script), is a mention that he was high scorer the previous season and a mention that he scored against China in their prior match. This does not rise to significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Worldbruce (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep notable enough to be interviewed by Prothom Alo, the second largest newspaper in Bangladesh [22]. Given that he has played at the international level and is being interviewed by a major national newspaper, I think necessary sources exist but may be in printed newspapers in Bangladesh. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded by "think necessary sources exist [in print]". These days every periodical in Bangladesh also publishes online. Their online archives for 5-6 years ago may be weak, but the subject should be at the peak of his career now, so if secondary sources exist, one should be able to find them online. That said, I did miss the Prothom Alo interview, so good work finding that. It contains a few sentences of analysis by the interviewer before becoming a primary source interview. Perhaps participants will feel that is enough. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up to speed on Bangladeshi news practices, so I can't speak to that. You make a good point that being near his peak finding sources shouldn't be this hard, but I'm also wary of systemic bias considering this is a player from a non-anglophone country in a niche sport. The Prothom Alo source, in the context of what else we know about the player, makes me think the necessary sources exist not just out of hope but based on WP:NEXIST and WP:NSPORT. An internet search cannot turn up every possible source, and per WP:NEXIST we need to consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. This is the reason NSPORT exists, to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. The reasoning being that players at the highest international level are likely important enough in their home country to be covered in local publications, and so presumably sources exist to satisfy the GNG even if they don't readily appear in search results. The assumption that he'd be covered by local new sources is bolstered by him having been interviewed by the second largest newspaper in the country, and so the idea that sources with lower circulation and a limited online presence would have covered him does not seem far fetched. This isn't the ideal evidence, hence the weak keep, but based on my reading of WP:N I am more convinced that the subject is notable than not. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we knew a difficult-to-access publication existed (Bangladesh Field Hockey Monthly, say), it would be reasonable to assume per WP:NEXIST that some issue of it likely covered Maninul Islam. But we have no evidence of any such niche periodical, and after three years and an extensive WP:BEFORE, no substantial secondary source has been found. A player runs through stock sports cliches along the lines of: 'It's a team effort', 'I'm just happy to be here', 'We gotta play 'em one day at a time', etc. Is that an indicator of notability, when printed in a major newspaper? I hesitate to assume that the Prothom Alo interview is the tip of some iceberg trove of encyclopedic information.

The phrase "at the highest level" is key in "likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Field hockey is an Olympic sport; that is the sport's highest level competition, where the world's 12 best teams compete. Bangladesh has never fielded a men's Olympic field hockey team and, currently ranked 34th, is unlikely to soon.

WP:NSPORT is a raw deal for Mainul Islam. Many other sports define high levels of competition (other than just the highest) for which sports figures can be presumed notable. But not field hockey. This appears to be intentional on the part of the community. If one looks at Asian Games squads (the highest level at which Mainul Islam has played), they're a sea of red links except for countries who have qualified for the Olympics: India, Pakistan, Malaysia, China, and South Korea. (Asian Games 2018 - 2014 - 2010 - 2006 - 2002)

If this is kept, so be it, but short of stringing together all the primary source match reports, I don't see a way to make it more than a permastub. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When there’s absolutely no evidence of notability you end up with one sentence “articles”. Trillfendi (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article provide that (one link doesn't even mention him). There's no evidence he ever competed at the world championships or Olympics so WP:NSPORT is not met. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 12 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. Sandstein 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Tracks[edit]

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

Promotion for Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. UPE concerns, yet page seems promising. incubate in draft is possibleLaosilika (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No objection to moving to Drafts is someone wants to take it on but they'll need to find/provide good references. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 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 delete. The "delete" arguments are stronger. Nobody has really argued that there are the kind of in-depth reliable sources, as opposed to passing mentions, that are a requirement for the inclusion of a biography. Sandstein 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Meighen[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized résumé of a philanthropist, not reliably sourced as meeting our notability standards. This is referenced 8/10 to primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, and 2/10 to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people -- which means it's referenced exactly 0/10 to reliable source coverage that's substantively about her. As usual, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN; we are not a place where people are automatically entitled to have articles that read like résumés, and talk about how "avid and highly accomplished" they are, just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this one appears to just need sourcing, much of the page is now PRIMARY sourced. Some of her positions on boards of charities can be confirmed by news sources [23]. More to the point, there is this Globe and Mail story: CAMH Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Kelly Meighen The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]29 Nov 2014: B.2. from which a bio can be sourced. And this: Stratford Festival Receives $5-Million Donation from Couple Canada AM - CTV Television; Toronto : n/a. Toronto: CTV Television, Inc. (Sep 27, 2000) ...to Stratford Festival; hitKelly hitMeighen, Donator to Stratford Festival; Antoni... ... hitKELLY hitMEIGHEN: We have a passion for Stratford. We love the theatre....... CIMOLINO: Thank you. hitKELLY hitMEIGHEN: Thank you... E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is an obvious PR piece. "Highly accomplished" in the lead? I can't find any secondary sources indicating notability. Most passing mentions are in association with her politician husband. Fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete UNAMBIGUOUS advertising from even the very first sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs to be reworked to remove promotion, however WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:ATD WP:NOTPAPER subject passes WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

The Philanthropist of the Year Award from the Association of Fundraising Professionals in 2008.
The Dr. Ivan Smith Award.[8] Along with her husband, she was a recipient of the Yorktown Family Services Humanitarian Award for community service in 2013
The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

I also removed some promotional language as cleanup and then arranged the research Lubbad85 (☎) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO is not automatically passed by just every award that exists on earth — it is passed only by notable awards that generate news coverage about the granting of the award, and not by non-notable awards that can be referenced only to their own self-published web presence. Zero of those awards pass the necessary conditions. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO due The Philanthropist of the Year Award and the Queen's Jubilee Medal. Article can use work with sources (without a 'blow it up and start over' approach. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Jubilee Medal is not an ANYBIO-passing award — it was presented to 46 thousand people in 2002, to honour any random act of community service that motivated any random person to nominate any other random person, so it is not a magic notability-maker in and of itself. And receiving an organization's own internal proprietary award for its own members, such as the Association of Fundraising Professionals' own "Philanthropist of the Year Award", is not a notability clincher either. For the purposes of whether an award gets its recipients over ANYBIO or not, we care only about awards that generate journalism that covers the granting of that award as news, and not about any award that can be referenced only to the award's own self-published website about itself because news coverage about it is nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat The Queen's Jubilee Medal is noteworthy enough that is has a Wikipedia article. In addition the subject has received RS coverage. I think the article has been improved since the afd. WP:ANYBIO covers this: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". It is a significant honor. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a Wikipedia article about the award is not the test for whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it; for one thing, its article is based entirely on primary sources, with not even one single solitary piece of real media coverage shown at all. The ability to source her reception of the award to a news story about her reception of the award is the test. Again, the medal was presented to forty six thousand people in a single year just in Canada alone, and another four hundred thousand people in the UK — so if she clears ANYBIO because of the Queen's Jubilee Medal itself, then so does every last one of those other 445,999 people. But they don't, and given the number of people we're talking about they can't, all clear ANYBIO on that basis alone, if they can't be properly sourced as having established notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to rewrite the GNG criteria to include all of the hurdles that you are putting in front of the subject. As it is ...the award is well known and significant - I am unconcerned that 46k people received the award, nothing in the criteria speaks to numbers...again you would need to rewrite the criteria if you think too many people get the award for it to be "significant" and "well known". I am not concerned with other recipients who are not part of the afd, bbut this subject has many other GNG qualities besides the significant and well known award. In addition WP:NOTPAPER and no reason to WP:RUSHDELETE. cheers Lubbad85 (☎) 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't have to rewrite a damn thing. GNG is the hurdle I'm putting in front of the subject — GNG is a measure of the quality of the sources, not a measure of what the article does or doesn't say — and the award is not "well-known and significant" enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. As a Canadian, I'm also a much more reliable judge of whether a Canadian award is "well-known and significant" or not than a non-Canadian is. And I also don't give a flying fig what you're "unconcerned" about: if the award constitutes an ANYBIO pass in and of itself, just because it can technically be referenced to the award's own self-published website about itself in the absence of any media coverage about it, then 446,000 Canadian and British people just got instant inclusion freebies that exempt them from actually having to pass GNG on real sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are getting angry with me. I am actively researching the subject. You should take it as a win that your afd has caused others to improve the article. By the way...I just added another award she received On Thursday Janury 31st, 2019. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another non-notable award sourceable only to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, with no evidence of reliable source journalism reporting the award's presentation as a news story, still doesn't change anything. As I correctly said earlier, ANYBIO is not just automatically passed by just any award that exists — it is passed only by awards that media outlets care enough about to assign journalists to write news stories about, and not by any award that does not. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not share the same opinion, but I am actively improving the article and that is because of the Afd. I will discontinue this debate with you since it is taking time from the active research. Ferreting out sources is often difficult for those who did great things pre-internet, however I have no such awards as this person - and they are significant and well known. It seems this person is a great credit to humanity and a great Canadian, the sources and research clearly show that. I will continue to seek sources that show GNG. Have a great day. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NBIO - the Meighen Family Foundation and The Meighen Centre are significant and notable achievements - Epinoia (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The extent to which those are "notable achievements" is strictly coterminous with the extent to which they generate journalism in reliable sources. There is nothing that any person can ever claim that constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist: the inclusion test hinges on the extent to which media did or did not report on those things as news, not on simply being able to offer primary source verification that the person exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What she has created and awards she has won seems to make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Someone dedicating their life to helping others might not get as much coverage in the media as some random model or entertainer, but there are other ways to determine their notability. Dream Focus 04:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source coverage is directly challenged, so awards won are not relevant. Arguments are needed based upon the presence, or lack thereof, of source coverage, when that is directly challenged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this article has been relisted in violation of wikipedia policies and guidelines for closure of afd. We have WP:CONSENSUS. Editors disagree with the relisting assertion that the awards are not relevant and with the nominator's assertions. Also ignored are editor arguments about this person's philanthropic WP:GNG. (also posted on relister's talk page) Lubbad85 (☎) 21:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Online searching is turning up passing mentions, or quotes in stories focused on something else (usually focused on the recipient of their gift). Nothing that would be significant enough to meet WP:BASIC. The best I can find is this article, which is more about the organizations than the person, and this book, which does not appear to be a reliable source because Dog Ear Publishing is a vanity press (so I think using it would be an SPSBLP violation). I don't see WP:ANYBIO as being met, either. The Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal is given out to 46,000 people; by definition that's not an award that confers notability, as it's given out to too many people. The Philanthropist of the Year Award is, well, given by the Association of Fundraising Professionals Greater Toronto Chapter (i.e., the people who solicit charitable donations [24]). So that would be an award given by people who ask for money to people who give money...in Toronto, where the Meighens are based. Hmm. Definitely not independent or conferring notability. The "prestigious" (our article says) Humanitarian Award for Community Service was given by Yorktown Family Services in 2013. I guessed: if I look at their annual reports, will I find that the Meighens became donors in, say, 2012 or 2013? Yup. Here are the annual reports if you want to look. They show up in 2011–2012 as individual donors, the foundation donates in 2012–2013, and the Meighens get the award as mentioned in the 2013–2014 annual report. What a surprise. Look, she and her husband Michael Meighen sound like great people and great philanthropists, and the organizations and causes they support also sound worthy. At some point, she, or the foundation, may receive enough significant coverage to meet WP:BIO, but I don't see evidence of it today. I do think that she and the work she does might be included in the articles about the organizations she is involved with, such as Stratford Festival and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. But after researching, I have to !vote delete here, at least until they donate to the WMF (just kidding). Leviv ich 23:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SIGCOV. Meets WP:GNG. Several substantial awards, philanthropic activity, etc. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are the WP:THREE that meet GNG? Leviv ich 17:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are already 19 sources in this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Keep per SIGCOV". Which of the 19 would you say are SIGCOV, i.e., significant coverage in an independent, reliable source? Leviv ich 20:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a synergy and consistent theme here. The whole is more than the sum of the individual pieces. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how the GNG or SIGCOV works. We don’t have a “X minor mentions equal one significant source” rule. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. I have min. We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—since there are plainly erroneous interpretations of policy and guideline above, registering my opinion. As Levivich amply demonstrates above, the awards are basically peacock philanthropist titles that don't demonstrate real notability beyond spreading money around. To go through the sources presented in this version:
- 1,2,3: Stray mention in Montreal Gazette, does not establish notability (not significant part of the article nor subject.) 2 and 3 are Geneological sites and an obituary not about the subject.
- 4,5: Non-independent source that is used for a degree citation, and an honorary degree in a year given to multiple other people including her husband.
- 6,7,8: Non-independent sources.
- 9: Quoted in one line about a totally separate subject. Doesn't demonstrate notability.
- 10: Actually a source from an independent reliable source about the Meighens ' charitable gift. It doesn't really spend much time on Ms. Meighen (she's barely quoted.)
- 11: Non-independent source.
- 12–19: The aforementioned awards that are anything but prestigious or unique enough to meet WP:ANYBIO.

The sum total of this is far short of a number of significant mentions in reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:10, 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. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chamupa Unlimited[edit]

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

The grammar issues alone would suggest draftify or TNT, however the article subject is also not notable. An attempt to move to draft space by another editor was reverted but really I don't see notability from current sourcing and do not believe there is other sourcing to suggest notability under NMUSIC, NENT, or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chamupa Unlimited. The editor has been moving the article to mainspace multiple times. I tried what I could to push it back to draft since there was the MFD going. If you want to have the discussion here that's fine, pinging Dan arndt, Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe to discuss here. Also there is a duplicate at Chamupa Unlimited (Music Produer). Anyway:

Speedy delete and salt all locations Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build a useful article about himself but a promotional one that in this state would fulfill WP:CSD G11 blatant advertising. Throughout the re-creating, he has done nothing to improve the notability, just resubs and pushes to mainspace. No new sources that show notability, just more pointing to his websites. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the MfD - I glanced at the draft only to see it looked the same and so ignored any sort of banners as typical AfC stuff. Given that the article does exist in mainspace I nominated it here. What that means, if anything, for the MfD I admit I don't know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria (WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG) and feels promotional. Salting may be premature. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt all locations, this has been identified on multiple occasions as being self-promotional, referenced with user-generated and unreliable sources, direct conflict of interest, advertising etc. It has been moved back to draft to allow the creator/editor to improve the article and when it has been refused through the AfC process the editor has moved to the mainspace anyway. The main editor has repeatedly removed maintenance tags, the AfC outcomes, and MfD tags without making any changes apparently in an attempt to present the article has not having any identified issues. Clearly the article is not going to met notability standards and these multiple efforts by the editor to circumvent due process has been a complete waste of everybody's else's time. Dan arndt (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete all copies. This is blatant self promotion. The author blanks attempts to talk to him on his talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 8 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) 07:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Math Field Day[edit]

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

Fails to meet basic WP:N requirements. The cites given are only basic structure of the event, and almost the entire article from top to bottom is completely unreferenced. Appears to have been written by a WP:SPA who is no longer active. SanAnMan (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independent sources for this event in particular. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOSCOPE: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". Here the region is at most two counties. D.Lazard (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, not seeing a way to save this one. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Posey[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Not able to find anything substantial that can help in demonstrating notability per WP:SIGCOV. Hitro talk 01:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found short reviews at huffpost thereviewsarein glidemagazine and AllMusic has nothing but a dabatase entry for their EP. No significant content. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:14, 10 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. A redirect can be created at editorial discretion, seeing as nobody seems to need the page history Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strand Home Video[edit]

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

This was previously deleted by consensus in 2009 as a a non-notable company, and then recreated six months later. Since then, notability has not improved, and it still only cites an unreliable source. Contested redirect. – bradv🍁 01:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough for a redirect, but might be mentioned in passing in the Thomas and Friends article. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 01:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect to 2entertain though. --IanDBeacon (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree. One source, and not very reputable. NetrualEditor (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2_Entertain#Video_Collection_International as lacking notability but having a suitable AtD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as does not seem to be independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably or Redirect as above is more appropriate. Certainly this topic is not notable in its own right, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 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.

[1] Remington, Kate. "Matthew Carl Earl's Music Gets Arena Of Valor Players Stoked For Battle". www.wshu.org. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[2] "Video game composer Matthew Carl Earl discusses 'Arena of Valor' score & more". Nerd Reactor. 12 January 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[3] Chan, Tony (27 December 2017). "Matthew Earl | Follow these Core Values to Compose Great Music". Game Dev Loadout. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[4] "INTERVIEW: Arena Of Valor Composer Matthew Carl Earl, Creating Music for Video Games". GameTyrant. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[5] Huges, Sam (18 February 2018). "Interview with Arena of Valor Composer, Matthew Carl Earl". The Sound Architect. Retrieved 11 May 2019.

[6] N, Jvon (4 April 2018). "Interview with video game composer Matthew Carl Earl on Tencent's 'Arena of Valor'". Set The Tape. Retrieved 11 May 2019.

[7] Noble, Edd Straw, Roberto Chinchero, Jonathan. "October compromise likely for 2021 F1 rules to help small teams". Autosport.com. Retrieved 2019-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[8] Kirsner, Scott. "Berklee students and grads create a noteworthy niche: music for video games". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[9] Francis, Bryant. "Gamasutra talks to Arena of Valor audio designer Richard Ludlow". www.gamasutra.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[10] ttps://www.gamecrate.com/interview-hexany-audio%E2%80%99s-richard-ludlow-challenges-making-video-game-sounds/20312. Retrieved 10 May 2019. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[11] "Hexany Audio, Berklee-Bred Business, Blasts Off | Berklee College of Music". www.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[12] "Audio profession sounds good to Fountain Valley High alum". Orange County Register. 12 September 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[13] "Fountain Valley Native to Speak at Europe's Largest Game Industry Even". Fountain Valley, CA Patch. 15 July 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[14] "Richard Ludlow | Berklee Music Network". network.online.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[15] "81: Follow the Three P's Principle When Choosing a Job with Richard Ludlow of Hexany Audio". GameDev.net. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]