Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 November	16 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Birchwood[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted The nominator edited Holborn and St Pancras (UK Parliament constituency) to wikilink the Brexit Party candidate, Hector Birchwood. I reverted as no such article existed. The editor then created the article on Hector Birchwood and restored the link. The article is unreferenced and appears to have been created by the candidate or an associate of his to support his candidacy. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>> It's a short factual entry about a candidate for that seat. Why shouldn't the entries link to one another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:1019:3D7B:1:1:C11:B3CA (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>> I created the article by clicking on the link I created. That's how Wikimedia sites work. Inevitable there is a short period when there is no contents as I write what I know and can find out. I've now added multiple references to the page too, so it is not unreferenced.

Hector Birchwood is quite a well known figure due to his repeated appearances on the Heir Hunters TV programme, extending over some years.

Inevitably if someone is a candidate it is going to have things about that candidate on it.

His adoption as a political candidate makes him intrinsically a more interesting subject and his work in discovering missing heirs is surely relevant and makes him a person of interest. Palfreman (talk) 09:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

>>> I've added eight references, covering student activism, his career, Heir Hunters and being appointed Brexit Party candidate.

Obviously he is more of interest as an electoral candidate, but being one of the top private investigators in world in his field and TV appearances do make him interesting independently of his candidacy. Palfreman (talk) 10:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, without prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat. As always, being a candidate in an election the person has not already won is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But the sources shown here are not mounting a credible claim that he had preexisting notability for any reason that would have gotten him an article independently of the candidacy: four of the eight footnotes are blogs, which are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all; three of the four media hits tangentially verify stray facts about other people without ever mentioning Hector's name at all in conjunction with them; and he is not himself the subject of the only reliable source that actually mentions his name at all, but is merely a provider of soundbite in an article about something else. This is not the kind of sourcing it takes to demonstrate that he was notable enough for an article prior to running as a candidate for political office, so he still has to win the election before he gets to claim notability as a politician. Bearcat (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Bearcat. Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat and Bondegezou. I also add that being a head-hunter or heir-finder is a fairly mundane business and not automatically notable, and fails basic requirements for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above - Jay (talk) 08:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a candidate in an election is not a notability claim. Wm335td (talk) 20:55, 22 November 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. Lourdes 13:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gunner de Medici[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT: A large portion of this article was a copyvio of a piece in The Newsgayper which to me seems clearly promotional.[1] (The site prominently displays a "get featured" banner for user-submitted self-promotion) The article has many other references, but none of them are in-depth, independent and reliable. They're namedrops in the society or gossip columns of gay newspapers, ads for his adult-entertainment parties, promotional industry news and press releases on porn websites, and other assorted unreliable sources. (Please note that the majority of these are NSFW.) I looked for additional sources and found only one profile in his local gay newspaper:[2].

Another person calling himself "Christian de Medici", similarly involved with gay nightclubs and promoting a prospective reality show, received news coverage in 2010-2013 for scamming, run-ins with the law, and an eventual manhunt by police--but these are clearly different people. Cheers, gnu 57 23:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage in independent reliable sources. As stated by nom, many of the sources listed are just incidental mentions of him. ABF992 (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SKCRIT#1. The nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion or redirection. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brit Morin[edit]

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

~~Does not appear to be independently notable of the company she founded, Brit + Co. Merge to Brit + Co, or vice versa. Loksmythe (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)~~ Sorry, I didn't realize this had already been proposed for deletion in past. Withdrawing the nomination. Loksmythe (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 23:36, 15 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Math Games[edit]

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

Article was created after a hoax that stated that the subject was shutting down was solved. I don’t see any notability per se, as it’s just one of many web-game portals. The page also has a few MOS violations that I’m currently working on fixing but I still don’t see why this needs a article in the first place. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 22:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 22:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article has been nominated for speedy deletion before. HurricaneGeek2002 talk 22:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources in the article, including Newsweek (with a short but focused article on the topic) are probably enough. There are even some academic studies which appear to have looked at this (not at work so I can't see the entire articles) such as "Understanding the relationships between interest in online math games and academic performance". It's not way over the bar, but it's notable. Hobit (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as of summer 2017, it was still active and used by the NYC DOE, when I last taught math. As of June 2019, it was still available online to students, although discouraged by educators. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In November 2019, Popular Mechanics listed it as one of its 50 most important websites since the internet was founded. [3]. Britishfinance (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources in the article, including Newsweek and Popular Mechanics. Meets our general notability guidline Wm335td (talk) 20:57, 22 November 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. Lourdes 13:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Legend[edit]

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

Game never came into existence, little to no information about the game despite being shown at TGS. SuperUserCode (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SuperUserCode (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some checking, RSs do not exist to show notability. The fact that it was cancelled does not reduce the notability per NTEMP, but no references to find...does not pass GNG. Wm335td (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly, nothing much indepth to find about this cancelled game besides the IGN preview/WP:ROUTINE announcements. WP:GNG fail because it requires multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Blueside is in such state that a merge would be impossible unless someone creates List of games by Blueside or something. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:41, 23 November 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 draftified. If the article is not improved in draft, it will be deleted in due course. It is now at Draft:RuPaul's DragCon UK. BD2412 T 01:57, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RuPaul's DragCon UK[edit]

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

Event has not yet happened (WP:CRYSTAL) and all sources provided are affiliated and not independent. Loksmythe (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Loksmythe (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and ~~snow~~ keep, this is the first international version of the hugely successful RuPaul’s DragCon series, each of witch annually attracts 100,000 attendees and are the world’s largest drag queen events.

This event is also produced by the same company and will be hosted by its namesake RuPaul, the world’s most famous drag queen.

Already confirmed are at least two dozen of the world’s most famous drag queens.

Even if the event was cancelled the episode would generate rounds of media coverage. And we would want to preserve the content somewhere.

And I think the nominator may have failed WP:Before by 1.) not looking for any alternative; and 2.) not looking hard enough for reliable sourcing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 11:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ until closer to the event per WP:CRYSTAL. There's already some good early RS (see [4] for example), but it's a bit premature to meet WP:SIGCOV. The event will get lots of coverage come January, and the article can be moved to main space then once it has been referenced properly. @Gleeanon409: Invoking snow is not appropriate in this case because of wikipedia's policy regarding future events. I could find only one independent article in a pretty thorough search (the rest were sources affiliated with World of Wonder or were press releases by World of Wonder). I would imagine some more RS will unfold by the end of December/ early January. You should prune the article of primary sources in draft space and work with independent references as they emerge. Once you have three or four substantial references that are independent of the subject we could move it into main space. I have no doubt that you will be successful given some time which is why I am recommending draftifying the article so you don't lose your hard work.4meter4 (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- By my count there’s already five. And WP:Crystal says, “All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.” Both of those are easily met. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: Please provide the 5 articles here, so I can give you a thoughtful response. It's hard to isolate which references you are referring to as their are so many inappropriate primary sources in the article. I did not see anything of worth towards RS per WP:Verifiability.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - I removed two sources, that someone else had added, as WP:Primary, I believe the rest are reliable.
    - "RuPaul's DragCon UK Was Just Announced! | What A Drag Blog". What A Drag. 2019-09-08. Retrieved 2019-09-08.
    - ^ a b c d e f g h i j Yates, Jonathan (October 18, 2019). "Vanessa Vanjie Mateo, Shea Coulee and more join RuPaul's DragCon lineup". My London. Retrieved November 16, 2019.
    - ^ a b Yates, Jonathan (October 1, 2019). "Bob The Drag Queen, Miz Cracker and more join RuPaul's DragCon lineup". My London. Retrieved November 16, 2019.
    - ^ Doonan, Simon (September 30, 2019). "Meet the men behind RuPaul's Drag Race: 'We're bringing bawdiness back to the UK' | Herald Publicist". Herald Publicist. Retrieved November 16, 2019.
    - ^ Damshenas, Sam (September 9, 2019). "RuPaul's DragCon is officially coming to the UK - here's how to get tickets". Gay Times. Retrieved November 16, 2019.
    - ^ Yates, Jonathan (September 24, 2019). "RuPaul's DragCon UK at London's Olympia - tickets, lineup and more". My London/Get West London. Retrieved November 16, 2019.
    - Of course there might be others as I use a news filter, so just started with what was available. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete, per 4meter4's arguments above. A lot of the information on the page and the sourcing is only tangentially related and seems more of an essay issue than about the subject. See WP:NOTESSAY. In fact, of the info I removed (and which Gleeanon409 seems to be adding back), the sources don't even mention DragCon UK, much less cover it in depth. I would strongly encourage Gleeanon409 to leave the cruft out rather than adding it back, as the article looks more like an essay than coverage of the actual subject. --Kbabej (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I accept that someone who has not read potentially *every* reliable subject on RuPaul’s DragCons would feel that way, it’s a niche subject granted. But in actually reading those sources including interviews it’s obvious that the aspects you deleted—-about DragCons being a special space outside bars/clubs: where fans can intentionally meet and talk with the drag queens they admire, if even for only ten minutes; where LGBTQ children have a safe space to be themselves—-are universal to RuPaul’s DragCons, of which this is one. There is exactly zero reasons to believe this DragCon will Be fundamentally different than the other two. And you non-helpful suggestion that that info simply be sent to the parent article would be welcome if such an article existed, it does not. I wrote the other two DragCon articles, this is why I’m familiar with the content, and sourcing. Gleeanon409 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But here's the thing: This article isn't the catch-all about how "DragCons being a special space outside bars/clubs: where fans can intentionally meet and talk with the drag queens they admire, if even for only ten minutes; where LGBTQ children have a safe space to be themselves." This article is about DragRace UK. You have no idea if DRUK is going to be that kind of space, because A. It hasn't happened yet, and B. No RS has stated that. Did you even review WP:NOTESSAY? It seems WP:NOTOPINION might be relevant as well. --Kbabej (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, interesting to note, I stated "Again, this is not about DragCon UK. This could potentially be used on the RuPaul's DragCon NYC however" on an edit of removing tangentially related info. You stated, "And you non-helpful suggestion that that info simply be sent to the parent article would be welcome if such an article existed, it does not." In fact, it does, considering you lifted the exact section from DracCon NYC, as seen here. --Kbabej (talk) 23:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I attributed the content to that article, which you are now attacking. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel I am attacking the NYC article. The issues you have with my edits can be brought up at the article's talk page here. The issue is the same, however: You're writing an essay, which would be great for a magazine piece. Unfortunately, RS don't support what you're positing; NYC (and, on this thread, UK) weren't even mentioned. --Kbabej (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The content is solely about the interaction of drag queens with children which happens in rare circumstances except...at DragCons. I hope you can see the connection. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But it's a tenuous connection that you're making, not that RS are reporting on. One could just as easily use sources to write an essay claiming drag queen culture is harmful to children (and there are those sources out there; see here and here for example). Does that make sense? --Kbabej (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous? Have you seen Nina West’s Drag is Magic, Drag Kids, and Desmond is Amazing? There are more but Drag Race In 2009 started mainstreaming drag queens and an audience for the show turned out to be LGBTQ kids who identified with the queens. A significant percentage of DragCon attendees are minors, I believe under 13’s have to be accompanied by an adult. The reliable sources, that you deleted, do make that connection, and I have yet to see any reliable ones even suggest that the culture of drag queens harms children. Although right-wing sites that generally attack LGBTQ people sure would like you to believe so. I checked out those sources you suggest, neither is WP:Reliable. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem as if you're receptive to others' thoughts regarding this (and related) articles. The fact of the matter is, none of the sources you used in those sections even mention the topic, much less cover it in depth. It seems you're wanting to write an essay on children involved in the drag community; this article is not the place for it. A simple way to look at a source: does it cover the subject? No? Then it probably doesn't belong on the page. I hope that's helpful. --Kbabej (talk) 00:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue we seem to greatly differ on is if DragCon is noted in reliable sources as an event where drag queens and children celebrate drag culture together. I feel you’re working to remove perfectly apt content that would certainly belong in a good article about DragCon, others may disagree. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gleeanon409, I think you are completely missing/ not comprehending what other people are telling you. If you have an article about family/children content at Drag Con UK then that content would be welcome on the page of this article. However, those source are not about Drag Con UK, so that content does not belong in this particular article. You could have that content on the other Drag Con pages (such as RuPaul's DragCon NYC) which those article are referring to. You've got to stick to what is in the sources being cited and not make assumptions beyond the sources.4meter4 (talk) 17:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what you are completely missing is that the DragCons are the largest events of their kind by far, ten times the size as the next closest. And the exact same company is putting on this one as well with zero evidence that it will vary except by location. This is a corporation expanding with a new outlet, also in an English-speaking country with what by every appearance is the same formula.

The removed content referred to DragCons not specific to one city. And frankly, that both the NYC and LA DragCon articles exist should be evidence that a UK one is indeed appropriate and satisfies the WP:Crystal concerns. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I've actually been to Drag Con in LA and NYC so I think I can safely say they aren't exactly the same from first hand experience, and I started watching the show when it first started on LOGO. LA has a much bigger family/kid oriented portion to it than the NYC Con for example. I'm a big fan. Regardless, I don't have to present evidence that something will be different because we don't have to prove things in the negative here at AFD. As I stated above, you have to base your article on the sources and what they say, and prove that there is enough RS to make a quality article. I am just not seeing enough RS yet for this event to meet WP:SIGCOV. We have to follow policy at WP:CRYSTAL. I know that eventually there will be enough sources for this event, which is why I am supporting draftify over delete. Be patient. Once some more reporting is done on the event you can move it into main space.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That level of detail isn’t discussed in any of the articles as the sources haven’t given it. But it’s fairly ridiculous to pretend that they will have have their signature Kids Zone and yet content about drag queens and kids isn’t appropriate. The article as is, even chopped down, is still fully reliably sourced, all verifiable, and perfectly appropriate as a stub. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The following sources on the page don't even mention the subject: The Guardian piece by Amelia Abraham, cited three times; the Out In Jersey piece by Michael Cook; the Herald Publicist piece by Roshan; the Out piece by Mikelle Street; and The Economist piece. --Kbabej (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would much rather have all content verifiable and sourced. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: I think you are having a difficult time taking a step back and keeping a neutral point of view. Firstly. Drag Con LA looks a bit different than Drag Con NYC, and surely Drag Con UK will have its own different flavor as well. You can't assume that something that is true for one Drag Con will be true about another Drag Con. Each country's or city's laws and culture are different, and Drag Con will reflect that. For that reason, you can't use articles from or about another Drag Con to cite claims in an article about this Drag Con, because that is a big assumption going beyond what those sources are actually saying. Even if you think these things are likely true in the real world, wikipedia is not interested in what is true but what is "verifiably true". You are making a lot of assumptions that are just not provable based on the sources. Further, you can't use self published sources by VH1 or World of Wonder or its affiliates because they are primary sources or sources too closely connected to the subject. This might be frustrating, but it's a reality.4meter4 (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t add those two sources and have removed them as WP:Primary. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409:Thank you. Also, WP:BLOGS says that we can't use blogs as sources, so "RuPaul's DragCon UK Was Just Announced!". can't be used either. Further, none of the content in How Drag Went Mainstream is about DragCon in the UK or the United States. DragWorld is a completely different convention not associated with World of Wonder or Drag Race, although many Drag Race alum participate. You should remove all of that content, because it is totally not congruent with what is in the article. Additionally, WP:PRSOURCE says we can not use press releases as sources, which means you cannot use RuPaul's DragCon UK: Vanessa Vanjie Mateo, Shea Coulee and more join lineup or RuPaul's DragCon UK at London's Olympia - how to get tickets, lineup and more or New York City welcomes RuPaul’s DragCon NYC or Yaaas! RuPaul’s DragCon is officially coming to the UK – here’s how to get tickets or Everything You Need to Know About RuPaul’s Drag Race UK. All of that is press release promoting the show, and none of it is independent coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I removed the one reference that did not support the content it was claiming to support. I removed that content about the other convention as well. None of the sources in the article meet the standard of RS as explained above. 4meter4 (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) Wp:blogs says that they can be unreliable at times. Similarly wp:PRSOURCE says an actual press release should not be directly cited, which we have not done, and only factual statements can be used, exactly what we’ve done. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Please read the whole policy, and not cherrypick the parts that appeal to you. Your blogs are not written by acknowledged experts in the field as defined at WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Further, wp:PRSOURCE says nothing about directly citing but says attribution must be placed in the text of the article when using such a source: "Non-independent sources may be used to source content for articles, but the connection of the source to the topic must be clearly identified. i.e. "The organization X said 10,000 people showed up to protest." is OK when using material published by the organization, but "10,000 people showed up to protest." is not." In other words, its ok to quote and use if you are clearly stating where the content is coming from in the written text and not just at the citation at the end of the sentence. Further, WP:PRSOURCE is very clear that these sources should be used sparingly and with caution because they lack independence. "Non-independent sources may not be used to establish notability." Your continuing reliance on these sources shows poor editorial judgement. There are no sources here considered quality enough RS to meet WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m convinced that I am within the spirit of reliable sourcing even if one chooses to try to tear apart one source after the next.

Not every source directly cites RuPaul’s DragCon UK, but those are generally still used approximately to source other facts that help our readers understand the subject. For example discussing, very briefly, DragWorld, which is as of now Europe’s largest drag convention. That would seem to be perfectly relevant to this article.

Blogs may be used but in no way editorially, or even spreading falsehoods. The are specialists in LGBTQ and drag content but are used minimally and no one suggests what they report is false.

as for sources relying on Drag Race’s own press? Well you may have to get used to it as even mainstream news sources do that very thing. For anything actually contested there is likely 2 or 3 more sources stating the exact same thing. And no one disputes the rather humdrum facts stated are true.

So it’s fairly obvious this article shouldn’t be deleted, but given this level of interrogation I do wonder; this DragCon, undoubtedly Europe’s largest by far, only 60 days away, how many more reliable sources does it need to finally make it over these moving goal posts?

How close to this event is close enough for an article about it? The day of? And what sources are likely to cover it much without prompting from Drag Race? Likely the very sources that already have. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have changed my vote from draftify to delete. Unfortunately, Gleeanon409 seems resistant from learning from what other editors are saying about what constitutes reliable sources per wikipedia policy. I am not confident that even in draft space that good editorial judgement would be used in terms of basic sourcing. He or she seems unable to discern between viable RS and press releases and blogs. Further, the editor has restored content to the article which is clearly not in the text of any of the sources cited.4meter4 (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I even added the direct quote, “So at what point did drag move from niche to mainstream concern? It was TV production company World of Wonder that first put RuPaul’s TV show Drag Race on screens in 2009, leading to the show enveloping popular culture during its 11 seasons (and being partly responsible for why so many people use words such as “fierce”, “werk” and “shade”).“ It supports the statement that RuPaul’s Drag Race popularized drag to the mainstream. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above: Event also hasn't happened yet, which makes me lean more towards deleting the page. It may be recreated in the future when the event has actually happened, then its notability can be decided. Jerry (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify until closer to the event, per WP:CRYSTAL, which makes clear this is the best judgement call. TruthGuardians (talk) 08:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, but don't delete. It's WP:TOOSOON at the moment, but given that the event is less than two months away and that it will pass GNG easily at that time, I think it would be overkill to delete the useful portions of the article that have already been written. Some of the present sources/content are unacceptable, but others are worth keeping. Armadillopteryx^talk 09:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON: Event hasn't happened. If it happens the article's creator can ask for a refund. Wm335td (talk) 21:03, 22 November 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. Lourdes 13:27, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles David Kelley[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Last AfD attracted only two commenters and was 7 years ago. Boleyn (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTRESUME, WP:SOAP, WP:GNG, and WP:TNT. This is basically a hagiography of a living person that is written plainly to spread his religious work. Wikipedia is a private, non-sectarian charity, not a Christian version of LinkedIn or Indeed. There's nothing he's done that even approaches general notability. The award of Order of the Three Stars does not automatically confer notability, and being a republic, an award from Latvia can not be the same as a knighthood. Even if the subject were notable, this is so poorly written and formatted that it would have to be completely re-written to be an encyclopedic article. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and wikipedia:Propaganda as the site appears to be getting used for religious promotional purposes of sorts when there is no real notability.TruthGuardians (talk) 08:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'm willing to be talked out of this, and agree that the article as it stands is abysmal propaganda, but why doesn't the Gold Medal of Honor of the Order of the Three Stars he received NOT confer notability, since it is the highest civilian award in Latvia? Per WP:ANYBIO notability guidelines: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." ABF992 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC) — ABF992 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2019 (UTC) Britishfinance I have actually been editing since 2015 under the name ABF99 but lost access to that account, which I state on my current account page. I'm not here as a fan or promoter of this guy, just asking an honest question. ABF992 (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:PROMOTION WP:NOTLINKEDIN Wm335td (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ambigious article on a non notable person who falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 09:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

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. No consensus to Delete, and after a re-list, the consensus to Keep was upheld with further RS that went unchallenged (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 16:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Domio[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources were either Press releases or sponsored by company. Paid editing concerns as well Catorce2016 (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDomio is a great company. When compared to many other pages, the domio page has more sources. Pls don't delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DomioRep (talk • contribs) 18:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Struck, blocked by an admin because of the username violation. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Mazza, Sandy (2019-09-18). "Exclusive: This fast-growing New York startup is renting out homes all over Nashville. Metro officials say it's breaking the law". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Mazza, Sandy (2019-09-17). "What is Domio, the short-term rental platform under fire in Nashville?". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Moore, Clayton (2018-10-08). "Domio aims to dethrone Airbnb with new group travel accommodations". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Carey, Meredith (2019-09-23). "Where to Look When You Need a Group Trip Space That's Not an Airbnb or a Hotel". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2019-10-02. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Hill, Jeremy (2018-09-24). "Upper90 in Group-Travel Joint Venture With Tech-Driven Domio". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Loizos, Connie (2018-10-19). "Domio raised $12 million in Series A funding to build 'apart hotels' across the US". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Jelski, Christina (2019-01-01). "Short-term rental operator Domio adding buildings". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
Jones, Malcolm (2019-04-08). "The New Orleans Hotel Perfect for the AirBnB Lover". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.

Sources with quotes

Mazza, Sandy (2019-09-18). "Exclusive: This fast-growing New York startup is renting out homes all over Nashville. Metro officials say it's breaking the law". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Executives, employees and local partners of a highly valued tech startup that’s quickly expanding its nationwide platform of apartment-style vacation rentals have been operating short-term rentals illegally in Nashville, according to Metro officials.
New York-based Domio, founded in 2016, buys and leases homes around the country to rent to groups of vacationers as "apartment hotels."
But, in Nashville, the company's pattern of claiming permanent residency to get short-term rental permits — with little indication they live in the area at all — reflects a growing issue in the booming short-term rental market.
...
Domio both competes and partners with major short-term rental platforms like Airbnb and Vrbo. The venture has attracted more than $65 million in investment. It has rentals in more than a dozen cities around the country, including New York, Chicago and Boston, and recently announced its expansion into South Florida.
But since last year, Nashville officials have repeatedly issued injunctions against properties owned and leased by Domio, including several belonging to company executives.
A Tennessean review of Domio-listed properties in Nashville found several more rentals with owner-occupied permits owned by people with home addresses in other cities and states on their permits and deeds.
Mazza, Sandy (2019-09-17). "What is Domio, the short-term rental platform under fire in Nashville?". The Tennessean. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Domio, a three-year-old startup based in New York City, is one of several ventures seeking a foothold in the massive global short-term rental industry led by Airbnb, Vrbo and HomeAway, among others.
The tech-hospitality platform offers apartment-style vacation rentals with curated amenities, similar to competing startups Lyric, Sonder, Stay Alfred and Vacasa.
It buys and leases homes, condominiums and apartment buildings specifically for large groups of travelers, like bachelor parties, in more than 14 U.S. markets including Nashville, New Orleans, Boston, San Diego, Austin and Charlotte.
...
The firm has raised more than $65 million in financing, including $50 million from Upper90 venture capital investment company. Other major investors include Tribeca Venture Partners and SoftBank Capital NY.
Moore, Clayton (2018-10-08). "Domio aims to dethrone Airbnb with new group travel accommodations". Digital Trends. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
The latest player in this rapidly developing market is New York City-based Domio, which is evolving beyond its successful single unit properties across the country to turn to multi-unit “apart-hotels” — a hybrid between an apartment and a hotel that is “asset-light,” meaning it offers a hotel-like experience without the costly infrastructure that a traditional hotel requires.
The company announced a big boost in its plans this week as private equity firm Upper90 recently ponied up $50 million into a joint venture to launch as many as 25 apart-hotels across the United States in coming years. Unlike most traditional hotels, which are franchised out to owner-operators or hotelier management firms, Domio intends to control the experience from end to end. That means that Domio will enter long-term leases with developers and then brand, furnish and operate the properties.
Domio already has a good thing going with its single unit properties — the company has served more than 60,000 guests since it was founded in 2016 — but this new initiative is intended to target the growing group travel market. Rather than just targeting groups on its original site, Domio intends to focus on those traveling with friends or family, offering more spacious (two to four bedrooms) accommodations at a significant discount from equitable properties at traditional hotels.
Carey, Meredith (2019-09-23). "Where to Look When You Need a Group Trip Space That's Not an Airbnb or a Hotel". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2019-10-02. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Domio

Launched in 2016, the company is led by co-founders Adrian Lam (a Forbes 30 Under 30 honoree in 2019) and Jay Roberts
Where to find it: 11 cities including New Orleans, San Diego, and Miami
Who it’s best for: Hotel regulars who want to dip their toe into the rental water
How many rooms: Up to four bedrooms
What it’s like: Unlike most of the other companies on this list, Domio has both full floors in new apartment buildings and entire buildings built specifically for its guests. In a city like New Orleans, you'll find both an "aparthotel" and floors of rooms scattered throughout various neighborhoods, all done in the same graphic design style (all of the wall art is shoppable on Society 6) and customer service is handled via text. You’ll get what are by now standards like toiletries, a fully equipped kitchen, free Wi-Fi, and more—but you’ll also get discounted Lyft rides, the option to book in-room massages, and free snacks (like what you’d expect from a hotel mini-bar). If you don’t really want to see locals, this is where to go.
Hill, Jeremy (2018-09-24). "Upper90 in Group-Travel Joint Venture With Tech-Driven Domio". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
The new private equity firm Upper90 is putting $50 million into a joint venture with hospitality company Domio Inc. as more investment dollars flow to tech-driven travel startups.
The companies, both based in New York, plan to roll out as many as 25 apartment-style hotels across the U.S. over the next few years. They’ll enter into long-term leases with developers, then brand, furnish and operate the properties, ultimately offering short-term leases aimed at travel groups. They’re offering a “high-end, hotel-like experience with the cost benefits that the sharing economy provides” and the consistency of a single operator rather than “properties from millions of different owners,” according to a statement.
Loizos, Connie (2018-10-19). "Domio raised $12 million in Series A funding to build 'apart hotels' across the US". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Domio, a two-year-old, New York-based outfit, thinks there’s a third way: apartment hotels, or “apart hotels,” as the company is calling them.
The idea is to build a brand that travelers recognize as upscale yet affordable, more tech friendly than boutique hotels and features plenty of square footage, which it expects will appeal to both families as well as companies that send teams of employees to cities and want to do it more economically.
Domio has a host of competitors, if you’ll forgive the pun. Marriott International earlier this year introduced a branded home-sharing business called Tribute Portfolio Homes wherein it says it vets, outfits and maintains to hotel standards homes of its choosing. And Marriott is among a growing number of hotels to recognize that customers who stay in a hotel for a business trip or a family vacation might prefer a multi-bedroom apartment with hotel-like amenities.
...
Whether Domio can stand out from competitors remains to be seen, but investors are happy to provide it the financing to try
Jelski, Christina (2019-01-01). "Short-term rental operator Domio adding buildings". Travel Weekly. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Fresh off a $12 million Series A round of funding, hospitality start-up Domio is looking to make a splash in the alternative accommodations space.
Launched in 2016 by Jay Roberts and Adrian Lam, Domio is a professional management company that leases apartments and homes from property owners and turns them into short-term rentals, listing them on platforms such as Airbnb.
The company, which has properties in Austin, Boston, San Diego, New Orleans, Honolulu, Nashville and Chicago, handles everything from furnishings to building maintenance to housekeeping and also offers a 24/7 guest concierge service.
The article includes quotes from people affiliated with Domio.
Jones, Malcolm (2019-04-08). "The New Orleans Hotel Perfect for the AirBnB Lover". The Daily Beast. Archived from the original on 2019-11-10. Retrieved 2019-11-10.
The article notes:
Housed in a former factory, Domio Baronne is a six-story, 50-room hotel in the Crescent City’s warehouse district, the part of the Central Business District between the French Quarter and the Garden District that’s currently being rehabbed back to vibrancy with condos and boutique businesses.
Domio, a nascent company that styles itself “a technology platform focused on travel,” began by offering vacation apartment rentals. Co-founder Jay Roberts, a former investment banker, told me that he AirBnB-ed a spare bedroom in his Brooklyn apartment three years ago, and then just kept going; Domio now offers apartment rentals in seven cities. Domio Baronne is the company’s first full-scale apartment/hotel, and if the eight versions on the drawing boards in other cities turn out as nice, this is likely what hotels of the future will be.
If you took the AirBnB concept and built a hotel out of it, this is what it would look like: studios and one- and two-bedroom apartments, with maid service. If you don’t care about having a bar or a restaurant in your hotel (and who cares about that in New Orleans, where you can throw a rock in any direction and hit a restaurant or a bar?), this is for you. If you’re traveling with a family or a small group, this is for you. And it’s not pricey.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Domio to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and do not consider it promotional. The article's wording is neutral throughout. The article even includes a subsection titled "Controversy, Illegal Permits and Lawsuits" that has this content:
Controversy, Illegal Permits and Lawsuits

Domio has come under scrutiny for their business practices in Boston, San Diego, Nashville and other cities. In Boston, Domio set up a fake Airbnb host named "Anthony" and rented out 88 units under the pseudonym.^[1] In Nashville, co-founder and COO Adrian Lam received a court order from the Davidson County Circuit Court in June 2019 to stop renting out his North Nashville condominium, however, Lam was allowed to continue renting out another short-term rental property in East Nashville that doesn’t require him to live there to rent it out. Other Domio employees who have been served with lawsuits over fraudulent permits for homes owned in their name include data scientist Hengyi “Harry” Zhu, revenue manager Juan Miguel Rivera Pecunia and marketing director Umer Usman.^[2]^[3]
References
^ Sullivan, Jack (2018-01-09). "Everyone knows Anthony in the North End – just not this one". CommonWealth Magazine. Retrieved 2019-09-23.

^ Mazza, Sandy. "What is Domio, the short-term rental platform under fire in Nashville?". The Tennessean. Retrieved 2019-09-24.

^ "Get Access". The Tennessean. Retrieved 2019-09-23.
This is very negative material about Domio. Although the article was edited by editors with a conflict of interest, it is also clear that editors without a conflict of interest have also edited it to added sourced negative material to make the article balanced.
Cunard (talk) 11:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A critical look at those references cited reveals most of them are PRs sponsored by Domio as a company or by their agents as well. They appear to fail WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH and even WP:SIGCOV. Take a cursory look, you can discover what I mean. Catorce2016 (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. company is notable as per views expressed by user: "Curnard" above. Press releases cited are rich enough.Joebrk90 (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.. User:Joebrk90, your only edits are on this discussion..Same issue about PRs.Catorce2016 (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. MER-C 10:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Company published several press releases as can be seen on the page. Hence meets notability Isitanker (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment PRs are not considered reliable sources in line with WP:GNG. Sources are expected to be from 3rd part news-related sites. Besides, User:Isitanker, your only edits is on this discussionCatorce2016 (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked sock. MER-C 10:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per Cunard.4meter4 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A critical look at those references cited reveals most of them are PRs sponsored by Domio as a company or by their agents as well. They appear to fail WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH Catorce2016 (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Walton (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Prediciting snow. This one is a WP:BEFORE miss by the nominator. It happens. Reliable sources have been found. Wm335td (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The humbug and stricken !votes above notwithstanding. While I agree that it is clear that the article needs some fluff trimmed: it is hard to argue with the RS of Bloomberg, Forbes and The Tennessean...The Wall Street Journal. Wm335td (talk) 22:02, 17 November 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) 10:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Kaufman (businessman)[edit]

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

Created as apparent promotional article for cryptocurrency Neucoin; no evidence of notability for Kaufman. Has never been much more of an article than this. WP:BEFORE shows only passing mentions, a few of which form the refs for this article. Of his achievements, Neucoin is a redirect to an article that doesn't even mention Neucoin, and Jango (website) is also tagged as advert. PRODed, PROD seconded per WP:NOTWEBHOST; PROD removed by someone adding "better sources" that turned out to be a pile of crypto blogs, not RSes. There's nothing to back this article and never seems to have been. David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find only passing mentions. Wm335td (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete Hi, I'm the one who cited the better sources, which you've now reverted. They aren't self-published blogs, as they were incorrectly called. They are separate, independent, unsponsored news sites that were written by different authors at different times.^[1]^[2]^[3] They're appropriate secondary sources to validate that the subject did indeed do what is said he did. As such, it now meets WP:GNG.VF9 (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Crypto sites are not RSes, and especially not for WP:BLPs - Coindesk is categorised as "generally unreliable" on WP:RSP, and all other crypto sites are worse. In particular, you cannot use crypto sites to demonstrate notability, as you're trying to do here - David Gerard (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, I did not know about that list. (I’m still new here.) That’s very useful! I’m convinced, so how do I change my vote? VF9 (talk) 06:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello @VF9: if you're looking to strike your ivote above, you can use strikethrough to strike what you've written, then (without strikethrough) write what you currently think. That way the history of what's written is preserved, but others know you have updated your ivote. Welcome to the project! --Kbabej (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – lack of substantial coverage in RS. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:02, 23 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amber McDonald[edit]

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

A possibly non-notable actress. Wouldn't pass WP:NACTRESS or WP:GNG Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 20:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor jobbing actor. scope_creep^Talk 12:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a search online and found lots of other people named Amber McDonald, but very little on this person. She has no bio on Rotten Tomatoes, very little on IMdB, two listings in TV Guide, and a single B movie (Hide and Seek) on Fandango. I can't find any significant coverage, only passing mentions or a list if supporting actors. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the closest she came to notability was having a maybe bordering on significant role in a spinoff pilot that seems not to have gone long term. This is not the multiple significant roles needed for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 19 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dodo NKishi[edit]

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

Subject not notable. Article is unsourced with no means for remedy. Google produces a handful of mentions of NKishi, all within articles primarily about musical projects he's involved in. I could find none that mentioned more than just his name. The only writing of any length about the subject is a bio page on the website of one of his own projects. Skeletor3000 (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sympathy with the nominator. I searched and hoped for non-trivial coverage. However I could not find any more than passing mentions in trade publications.Wm335td (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO I would not oppose a redirect per WP:CHEAP to Mouse on Mars, his (former?) band. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 18 November 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 Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Chaos Dwarf. Sandstein 19:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Dwarfs (Warhammer)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just started working to improve this. Does it need to have the same level of detail as the other Warhammer pages like Dark Elves (Warhammer) or The Empire (Warhammer) or do all Warhammer army pages have the same notability problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.227.240 (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need reliable non-primary sources showing more than plot information. The sources need to be non-trivial descriptions from a real world perspective, including creation commentary, reception, and cultural impact. If you have such information, I'd be fine withdrawing it. If you do not have such information but think you may in the future, I'd suggest setting up an account and asking for this to be drafted or set up in a sandbox. The other pages of this series all have the same issue. If you don't have any real world information but want to contribute to the series, I'd suggest starting from Warhammer Fantasy (setting) and work out from there. TTN (talk) 20:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Dear anon, in all honestly, Dark Elves are not much better. More WP:FANCRUFT is not helpful. You need to show the significance of this in the real world. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Chaos Dwarf as non-notable fancruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Races and nations of Warhammer Fantasy#Chaos Dwarf. If the article is improved as per TTN's comment above, feel free to ping me to have another look.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect due to failure of NFICTION/GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frostbite (Wildstorm)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this character in a meaningful way. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced fancruft (outside primary sources and such). Fails PLOT/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taboo (Wildstorm)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no independent sources that give a substantial overview of this character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced fancruft. Fails PLOT/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flint (Wildstorm)[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can see why this article lacks sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:12, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced fancruft. Fails PLOT/NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John l gilder regional institute for children and adolescents[edit]

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

Unsourced except for an external link to the school's website (which is a primary, subject-related source). No cited claim of notability, thereby failing

WP:GNG I have added this

WP:NSCHOOL. This does not apply: "schools that only provide a support to mainstream education"

WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: potential copyright violation. See [5]. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article had a typo in the title when it was nominated for deletion, so the search links above include this typo. The correct links are as follows:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a mainstream school for children with special needs and I think WP:NSCHOOL does apply. The copyvio problem has been removed and the article is no longer an orphan. I have improved the referencing and moved the article to the correct school title. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although this is a diploma granting school, its very small size and limited services exclude it from the school exception as the nominator noted. There's not much out there on this school. With that in mind, normally I'd say merge/redirect to the district. BUT....that hopelessly mangled title. Better just to delete and start over. John from Idegon (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John and yup that title is terrible. Cwmhiraeth, you mentioned you had moved the article here which is good but ideally it may be best to not move it during an AfD per the reasoning here. Steven (Editor) (talk) 13:59, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did wonder if moving it was wise, but I did mention here that I had moved it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it back. Steven (Editor) (talk) 04:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A. Frederick Oberlin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. No indication of notability. Oberlin appears to be a locally "prominent" citizen who served in WWI. Mentioned in one secondary source; other sources include a blog and Find a Grave. Searching newspaper databases, Google books brings up nothing to show notability. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice local history article, but I couldn't find any sources proving notability outside of Oberlin's hometown area. Fails WP:GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete (per below) Notability doesn't have any geographic criteria. A subject that is locally notable is still notable. From what I can tell, he has at least three secondary sources on him (a book, a website, and the bridge/bridge plaque). The subject meets WP:GNG. He even earned a medal from an allied country and has an honorific plaque on a bridge named after him. VF9 (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No, it fails WP:GNG 1. Not all sources are created equal. The blog is not a proper source. There is next to no information in it. The only thing it does is suggests the existence of the bridge. That source should probably be removed from the article. Find a Grave records are self-published. Military Times self-describes as a database. There is only one true secondary source, and that is essentially a directory/profiles of Hamden citizens who served in WWI. Based on the length of the book, it appears to be inclusive of all soldiers in the town of, by 1920, about 8600 people. 2. Neither of the medals he received qualifies him for WP:MILPEOPLE. He was not high ranking and it appears that he didn't serve an important role in particularly decisive battles. 3. A non-notable structure being named after someone in the town does not add to his notability. Most towns have structures named after some of its citizens. Few of them are notable.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m convinced, delete now. VF9 (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article shows why blogs are poor sources. As far as I can tell, neither bridge that the plaque has been on was named for him. Shortly before he died, he oversaw the construction of a bridge that has since been torn down. A plaque was placed on the first bridge in his memory and when the bridge was replaced, the plaque was moved to a replica of the Ithiel Town#Town's lattice bridge at the Eli Whitney Museum (which doesn't mention him on their page about the bridge).[6][7] I have not yet found adequate coverage to support an article. BiologicalMe (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and discussion above, non notable serviceman. Geoffroi 18:17, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Oberlin served his country honorably and also appeared to be an important member of his community, he does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this level of military awards is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information Flow Theory[edit]

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

Declined (and seconded) PROD (neither by me). Article appears to be based on a paper published in July of this year which has gathered no significant attention. Fails WP:GNG. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as far as I can tell, this 'theory' has never been published, simply deposited by its author on ArXiv, ResearchGate and SSRN repositories. Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting original thought - WP:NOTESSAY. Agricolae (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I note that all of the references in the article apart from the one written on May 30, 2019 saying that this theory "provides a novel framework" predate that paper itself, so cannot be writing about the theory. I can find no sources postdating that paper. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citation [1] appears to be the only one mentioning this title. No media coverage. Reywas92^Talk 23:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. I don't think SSRN is peer-reviewed or counts as a reliable source. And even if it did, and even if this were serious research, we don't include articles on topics of new and uncited primary research papers. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was the one to PROD the page; I think my rationale ("Promotion of an idea that has had no discernable influence within the scientific community") still stands. XOR'easter (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that the first of the reasons given when contesting WP:PROD deletion was "this is philosophy and is not a part of the field of science", which is both nitpicking about words (you could replace "scientific" with "philosophical" in your deletion rationale and it would be just as valid) and goes against the lead of the article which says that this theory ("hypothesis" would be a better word, but I suppose "theory" sounds grander) is experimentally falsifiable, meaning that it is supposed to be a scientific theory. I debunked the second part of the contestation ("sources suggest notability") above - a novel theory written up in May 2019 cannot possibly have sources referring to it that were published before that date. I wish academics wouldn't demean themselves by passing off such obvious nonsense in this way. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely presented as a scientific proposal, not a philosophical one. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: clearly fails WP:GNG. Also note "...defines consciousness as form of self-awareness which may arise within any system capable of processing information." Really? Any system? so my new SwissMicros DM42 Calculator just might become self aware? Related: https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/ --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as, to be charitable, OR, and a POVfork of Information flow (information theory) (which is also differently wonderful). Guy (help!) 22:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above this is an unreviewed work. It is unlikely to be cited unless the work gets published. No non-source related mentions to support notability. A large amount of text in the article is lacking RSs and reads like the preprint that it is based on. --mikeu ^talk 01:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KPCE-LP[edit]

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

LPTV station doesn´t meet notability. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNC and WP:BROADCAST. No reliable independent source. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 21:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BROADCAST and past history. Nominator is again warned about spurious nominations. Nate • (chatter) 01:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep per WP:BROADCAST.4meter4 (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to meet WP:BROADCAST due to history.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator's statement doesn't give a valid reason for deletion. The rest of the votes mention WP:BROADCAST one way or the other, but do not indicate why or why not the criteria is met, except for one mention of "history" which I can't find in the broadcast criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi 78.26 - in the first sentence of WP:BROADCAST, "Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market..." (emphasis mine). Hope that helps.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Onel5969 I think that clarifies where the question is. To those who believe the topic is notable, how has it been important part of the area's broadcast history? To those who argue against notability, why is it irrelevant to the broadcast history? Per WP:BROADCAST, does the station produce any original content, or does it just repeat what is sent to it by satellite, from an organization with no other ties to the area? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 19:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WOIL-CD[edit]

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

LPTV station doesn´t meet WP:GNG and WP:NOTABILITY. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. CentralTime301 (talk, contribs) 16:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNC and WP:BROADCAST. No reliable independent source. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 21:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BROADCAST and a definite expansion candidate because it isn't just a digital subchannel pipe, but a local television station which originates mostly local content. We're not deleting this. Nate • (chatter) 01:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per long-established precent and WP:BROADCAST. Station is a class A television station, meaning it satisfies more stringent FCC programming requirements than other low-power stations. Mlaffs (talk) 01:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not finding sources under this name. I think the name is WOIL-LP not WOIL-CD. See [8]. I would trust the FCC.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is the correct call sign, however, per the FCC record. In my experiences, sources can be bad at rendering call signs, so... Raymie (t • c) 02:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:20, 15 November 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. With 2 deletes and 1 weak keep, and a request being made to the original author for sources, I would go with a SoftDelete here. If someone feels terribly wronged, I'll undelete it without arguments. Lourdes 13:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Nay Pyi Taw season[edit]

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

This page fails WP:NSEASONS due to the fact that the team didn't play in the top tier of Myanmar football. I would also like to nominate these two pages for the fact that it might pass WP:NSEASONS with the team in that time being in the top league, the quality of the page is terrible.

2015 Nay Pyi Taw season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Nay Pyi Taw season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HawkAussie (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (Change to ~~Delete~~; Change to Weak Keep) - It's a big club in a town of 1 million people. The season has widespread coverage in major national newspapers; sources should be request to the original author. We certainly won't say Arsenal's or Machester United's season is not notable. 2100s (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @2100s: That is because Arsenal and Manchester United is notable enough as they play in the top league which would be easy enough to satisfy the WP:NSEASONS agreement. Here though, the league is in second tier during the 2016 and 2017 season which might be a struggle to find resources that relate for this team. HawkAussie (talk) 22:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your research. Then, they should be deleted. 2100s (talk) 23:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after reading WP:NSEASONS, I am not sure. It doesn't say Lower Leagues aren't notable; it says they may be notable depending on sources. I believe if there are enough fans coming here and start editing, then it can most likely meet notability criteria. For example, 2006–07 Juventus F.C. season is an article even though it's in lower league. WP:NSPORT says leagues in US states are notable. If we use that as a guide, the population of Naypyitaw exceeds many US States. They're some coverage on local newspaper. I am sure this article can meet notability criteria if someone is serious enough. But the problem is whether we'll have that one. 2100s (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 16:41, 15 November 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 consensus that there is sufficient sourcing Nosebagbear (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Mindell[edit]

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

Article violates WP:FORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY. The whole article is skewed and based on personal opinions of individuals. The first line itself is an opinion of the subject followed by the body of the article filled with opinions from other people. Some of the paragraphs have no reference. Talking about references, I researched to understand that

1. Ref #1 leads here - https://www.cbc.ca/News/TV+Shows/Marketplace/ID/2290470304 - a dead link

2. Ref #2 leads here - https://search.proquest.com/docview/434365733 - failed verification unless you have an account

3. Ref #5 leads here - https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/vbible.html - a personal opinion of a certain individual

4. Ref #6 leads here - https://www.deseret.com/1989/9/8/18823059/speakers-urge-quackdown-against-health-fraud-in-utah - a stand-alone story, but a reflection of the opinion from the previous source

5. Ref #7 leads here - https://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/NegativeBR/hbible.html - a book review, which are generally personal opinions

The remaining are books which I couldn’t read or get hold of. Failed verification, in a way. In the absence of proper references, it violates WP:NBIO and WP:GNG too. Also observe edit warring, possible vandalism per WP:VD. Overall, delete. Brenthaven (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A dead link does not invalidate the linked content as a source. Yes, it makes it more difficult to verify (same with the paywelled source), but it doesn't invalidate it. —C.Fred (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep Mindell wants his Wikipedia article removed or rewritten. After failed attempts by many SPA's, and recent attempts by a paid editor to rewrite the article, along comes a new editor trying to delete the article based upon some outdated links, echoing past arguments that have been rejected. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is sufficiently notable per sources already used. If the article has particular other problems, deletion is not the way to deal with them. Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's fine, per Ronz. -Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 09:17, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gets coverage. So does his books. [9] Dream Focus 13:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The argument made by the proposer isn't very sound. Ref's 1 & 2 are awkward, but still valid. Ref 5 is Quackwatch and Quackwatch's usability in BLPs is debated, but I beleive that most editors concede that articles not by Dr. Barrett are OK. Ref 6 is a third party article by a reputable source that reports on a keynote speech given by the author of ref 3. That seems ok? Ref 7 is also a Quackwatch article not by Dr Barrett. It probably doesn't convey additional notability that the previous article didn't, but it's a valid source. ApLundell (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that notability is not established Nosebagbear (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Raheezy[edit]

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

Non notable rapper. A Google search provides zero coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing in the article other than lists of and links to his music, and I could find no sources in a Google search that would add anything to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article to suggest notability under WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG and like the previous editor my searches don't find anything useful. Neiltonks (talk) 16:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google pulls mostly social media accounts and music streaming links. No outside coverage even as a mention. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Innovolation framework[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable methodology with only 7 results from a Google search. ... discospinster _talk 15:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesses-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:59, 20 November 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 Draftify. There seems to be a rough agreement that though it currently fails TOOSOON and its sources aren't in a state to make a clear indication of notability via NCREATIVE, there is a firm possibility that it will be able to in the future. While there was the suggestion that it require AfC (in effect a variation on salting), there wasn't consensus for that even if it was judged to be within an AfD's authority to determine that. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anoosha Syed[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft:It is not yet ready, it may make a curve when fully created and verifyable source is added.Rocky 734 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also support to move it to draft. Störm (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or draftify). WP:TOOSOON at best. Seems to fail WP:NCREATIVE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, but it would be beneficial to keep this as a draft if more coverage occurs in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft and require AFC review. I think this definitely fails NCREATIVE and is far too soon. I'd suggest making sure it goes through AFC due to creator's past sourcing issues. Praxidicae (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without drafting Non-notable per nom and not perceived to become notable within the next the few months. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 19:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this AfD is closed without relisting, then Draftify. The references are a mess, and it is hard to see what are reviews or descriptions of her work in reliable independent sources, and what are links to publisher's bios or booksellers. Sorting the refs out would be a good start to being able to assess whether the subject meets WP:CREATIVE or not. I'll start doing this, but may not finish and be able to assess notability before it closes. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RetouchMe[edit]

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

Spammy article with nothing reliable coming up when googling for sources. All that's cited, and all that I find, are the same spammy promo junk. Fails WP:GNG –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 15:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly promotional. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant advert. this should've been G11'd. Graywalls (talk) 05:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! thank you for your comments I tried to improve the article, like removing a lot of unnecessary information and changing the structure. Please see if this article is still subject to removal after these actions.Yuraprox (talk) 19:09, 19 November 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 dratify. Nominator withdraw, but there seems to be a consensus to dratify the article. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 18:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Body (2019 film)[edit]

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

Unsourced, does not demonstrate notability (failing WP:NFILM). Potentially WP:TOOSOON. WP:BEFORE check did not bring up anything of note. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft:It is reasonable to move to draft.Rocky 734 (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove deletion tag on The Body (2019 film) article. I was added many sources related that article and in future I will add many sources to improve this article.

Hello!! @Sush150: so nice ly you have created the article but, you have created it very soon . @Kirbanzo: I think instead of deleting it it should be moved to draft for further improvements of articles and then when completed it should be brought to mainspace.

@Rocky 734: i am not lying. I was added information that time and then @Kirbanzo: attached deletion tag. Now the article is ready. Waiting for remove deletion tag so then i upload official poster of article.

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:46, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Husain Sattar[edit]

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

Simply does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I nominated this for speedy deletion because I could find no evidence of significance. This was rejected because it was claimed that he had "won numerous awards". However, that claim is from his own snapshot autobiography written for his page on his employers web-site. There is no independent evidence of this. Just another junior academic with no notability. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An associate professor, and medical educator with no credible evident of any independent reliable sources found to meet either GNG or WP:NSCHOLAR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:18, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I nominate to keep this. Dr Sattar is well known in post-graduate medical circles due to his Pathoma series. I have edited the page to include several references to his popularity both in media outlets (https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/patient-care-articles/2018/january/wildly-popular-pathoma-course-creates-an-unlikely-celebrity-in-medical-education), student magazines (https://issuu.com/medicineonthemidway/docs/medicineonthemidway-fall2017/20) and published articles that include his work a notable adjunct to the medical school curriculum.
A search on the medical school subreddit also demonstrates the popularity of Pathoma amongst medical students and residents (https://www.reddit.com/r/medicalschool/search?q=pathoma&restrict_sr=on)
hshiwani 00:13, 21 November 2019 (BST)
Delete Can not find secondary coverage to indicate sufficient notability. Alexbrn (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MIRA (digital health company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: IwannaKEEP: Keep the article because there is significant press coverage by prestigious publications in-depth. 4.35.91.70 (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IwannaKEEP: Reviewed and did not see any violations of WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH since the company was covered by the Washington Business Journal and was verifiable with SAM.gov, System for Award Management (SAM) is an official website of the U.S. government — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.117.245 (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - yet another example of spam, likely created for undisclosed payments, about an unremarkable startup. I've blocked the creator for WP:UPE. The two IPs above are quite likely to be the same person, so I have struck their comments. MER-C 16:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Comment above did not argue with the validity of argument WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.29.28 (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So much copyright violation going on here, as much of the entry is word-for-word from a Press Release. The rest is promotional or not directly about the company itself. I don't currently have access to the Washington Biz Journal article, but all other press I can see is not substantial or is primary/interviews, which is problematic. Pegnawl (talk) 18:46, 18 November 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. Both sides argue excellent points; but after a month's worth of discussion and two relistings, no consensus to delete has been established. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 16:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Redhawks[edit]

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

After almost two years with no further mention in reliable sources, it appears that the topic fails both WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NotNews guidlines. I created the article in December, 2017 because I thought the Redhawks spoof was interesting and had a couple of reliable sources, but I did not want to add to the already large size of the main article, Washington Redskins name controversy. "Not the News" should have warranted a waiting period before doing so, which is my error. With the passage of time, the criteria of notability is relevant; the topic was a blip in the media that did not last a week, so a separate article should not have been created (again, my bad). That does not mean the topic should automatically folded back into the main article, which remains too large to include all of the minor details surrounding the controversy while remaining a GA, something I am currently trying to remedy. WriterArtistDC (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the content should stay on the 'pedia in some form, whether or not a standalone article winds up being the best place for it. As a culture jam that wound up having a limited run, it makes sense that further sourcing did not emerge. However, for what it was, it was/is notable.

If you want to merge it, we could look at which article on the Mascot controversy currently has the best coverage of actions, or create a section for actions like this in that article. If this isn't kept as a standalone, and I'm not opposed to keeping it as its own article, potentially we could put it there. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not seeing an obvious place to merge it. Fighting Whites has its own article. Unless someone wants to make a new article putting all of these together, right now I'm leaning towards Keep. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, also looking at coverage of the "Caucasians" shirts. Googling about it, along with Migizi Pensoneau of the 1491s turns up a number of pieces about their Daily Show appearance, notably the threats he got when wearing the shirt among fans of the team. This is his original piece about it, but there are quite a few more. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WriterArtistDC (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the protests section at Washington Redskins name controversy per WP:FORK. This is an unnecessary content fork, and on its own doesn't show sustained coverage. It is valuable content that is worth keeping though as others have mentioned above.4meter4 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To gauge support for a merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep over Merge I'm in a similar mind to CorbieVreccan. After digging through WP:EVENT for event specific guidelines (which as a disclaimer I'm not at all familiar with and some of them I'm reading for the first time), the Redhawks would probably remain as a standalone article. Within the criteria, it doesn't have a lasting effect, nor does it fully satisfy the widespread impact, but it was widely covered. The sources it already has satisfy WP:DEPTH and WP:DIVERSE to my liking. It was largely brushed aside after being outed as false, but when it comes to sustained coverage of events, the wording of the guidelines seem to indicate that a lack of consistent coverage or a lasting effect does not disqualify the Redhawks from being suitably notable. "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable." We're certainly in a grey area where it doesn't meet every guideline, but failure to meet every guideline isn't enough to say that it ought to be another section in an already bloated article as these guidelines are worded. Of course my entire argument stems on the fact that I consider it more an event, which doesn't quite hold it to the same standards of sustained coverage. If you don't think so, you'd probably rather merge it. hewhoam areismyself 05:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Washington Redskins name controversy. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, with coverage over a few days, and few references to it since. Even if it meets WP:GNG, it doesn't mandate a standalon article: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. If it's treated as an event, it lacks WP:LASTING impact.—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately, it wasn't deletion sorted to American football until now.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something other than delete but I'm not sure what Looks like there's coverage, content is worthy of inclusion... somewhere... merge? re-write? I'd be against a cold delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. as a7/g11 (non-admin closure) Praxidicae (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Register of Shipping LTD[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as WP:A7 and WP:G11. No claims to notability, entirely unsourced, purely promotional and no content worth keeping even in the unlikely event that a compliant article could be created under this title in the future. Hug^syrup 13:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:A7 and WP:G11. Creator keeps on reverting the addition of AfD and speedy notices, so I had tagged it without realising it was up for AfD. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:43, 15 November 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. Deletion rationale is not convincing in light of WP:NTEMP. ST47 (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wallapop[edit]

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

Company is no longer significant; seems to have faded away with little relevance once it was acquired. Misterpottery (talk) 12:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep perhaps this could use some more sources but if the company still exists and it's relatively well-known I don't particularly see a reason for deletion. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article needs some work but it is certainly notable. Barca (talk) 17:14, 15 November 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. ST47 (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Le Merle[edit]

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

Person is not at all noteworthy. Fails WP:NBIO and his other works are WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, no sources in article are independent of the subject as required by WP:NBIO. Reads like a PR creation. Misterpottery (talk) 12:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 15 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primes and Matrix holders[edit]

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

This is a specialty list that has no value for a general encyclopedia. It is only useful for a specific fictional, in-universe classification. The grouping itself does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another collection of fancruft. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty heavily fancruft, fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely comprised of in-universe plot summaries, sourced only by primary sources, fansites, and social media, with plenty of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH on top of that. Nothing worth preserving or merging elsewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as has been mentioned, this is a lot of badly sourced in-universe fancruft. On top of that, the title is misleading- it sounds like it's going to be about a mathematical topic. Reyk _YO! 11:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a list of primes and matrix holders, not a list of Primes and Matrix holders. JIP | Talk 15:21, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that depends on what kind of nerd the reader is. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This belongs on Wikia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. List of trivia. Fails WP:LISTN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tahiti Hut[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG. Another article for a non-notable song created by the Roxanne Seeman SPA, and again no obvious redirect target. For one thing, the song has been recorded by two notable artists and therefore falls foul of WP:XY, but in any case there's no compelling case to redirect to either artist – the original version is an instrumental from a non-notable album that doesn't have it's own Wikipedia page, and the version with lyrics was a session outtake that was only included as a bonus track on an album 40 years after its original release. No doubt this article will also now be refbombed by the SPA in an attempt to make the song seem notable. Richard3120 (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I was about to propose a redirect, but I agree with the nominator that there are two valid options so that option is not viable imo. Aoba47 (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I try hard to avoid accusations of bad faith but something is surely amiss with the creator of this article and information about Roxanne Seeman. Ms. Seeman's contributions to the second version of this song (by Jermaine Jackson) can be mentioned at her article as an example of her works. The same could also be done at the article for the relevant Jermaine Jackson album (if there is one). But there is no convincing evidence that the song merits an article of its own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The song could be merged into the Love Island album page but could not find how to revert the redirect to create an album page. Read for hours on all of this and looked for the redirect, understood it targets the album section. The album is notable, I've added a citation with the Billboard chart on the top of the Tahiti Hut page showing it was still on the chart for 25 weeks. Not interested in edit wars - fine to merge it into the Love Island album page but don't get why this album is being called non-notable and redirected with nothing visible. Love Island album has been, as mentioned, on the Billboard chart after 25 weeks, and includes tracks that have been sampled, such as San Juan Sunset by Lupe Fiasco in "Paris, Tokyo" which I think was Grammy nominated, Whistle Bump was a single on the Billboard Dance Charts, Love Island song had activity. Tahiti Hut information is on this page but could be merged if possible to create Love Island album page. Thank you for advice on this Rosedelune (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked as suspected sockpuppet. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosedelune: I take your point that the album may be notable, as it charted on the Bilboard Jazz chart, but as an article for the album doesn't exist at the moment, a merge is not a possible option at this stage. An article for the album would have to be created first. Richard3120 (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough per nom. Ambrosiawater (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The initiator of this Nomination for Deletion is well aware that the album is notable and conceded it but did not respond to the query for advice on how to revert the redirect of the album page. The tag could have been to merge the song page with the album page but what is happening here is an effort to delete, which is discussed on the previous Nomination for Deletion. Administrators have reviewed pages for years without incident for years.

it would appear in my opinion, an effort going on to redirect and delete pages, rather than merge or tag as a stub. I have elaborated on the previous Nomination to Delete:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tequila_Mockingbird_(song)

While this has not escalated into a war of reversions, in my opinion where administrators have previously reviewed pages, and where there is no effort to merge or tag as a stub, there appears to be a stubborn determine to argue and delete (please see the link to Tequila Mockingbird (song) Nomination for Deletion discussions. The persistent goal of deletion, rather than encouraging improving an article and revising guidelines, is creating a situation that encourages people to engage paid editors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars

"Occasionally, even experienced Wikipedians lose their heads and devote every waking moment to edit warring over the most trivial thing, wasting time debating topics of no practical value, or wrestling over questions whose answers hold no practical consequence. This page documents our lamest examples. It isn't comprehensive or authoritative, but it serves as a showcase of situations where people lose sight of the big picture and obsessively expend huge amounts of energy fighting over something that, in the end, isn't really so important." Rosedelune (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think a guideline should be suggested if not in place, that before an editor Nominates to Delete a page that has been reviewed by an administrator, the administrator should be "pinged" to review that editors' Nomination to Delete - and that editors Nominations to Delete and their rationale and the tone of the commentary should be reviewed and evaluated before creators and community members are dragged into a discussion wasting time better spent on improving an article or creating a new one. Rosedelune (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120:: I don't know yet how to address you with the proper codes and I don't have the time that you do to learn all of this now - but since you have begun by disparaging the Love Island album as not being notable and my creation of articles - and now have conceded after I cited a Billboard chart showing the album was still on the charts after 25 weeks, it is notable and you could have easily looked that up as you have explained that you spend innumerable amounts of time in UK libraries researching Billboard, Music Week and other publications and charts, and since you did not answer my query as to how to undo the redirect -- and since I am coming to the conclusion that you mean well but are of a rigid and literal mind and interpretation of rules and life and have a special interest with all of this which makes you a specialist in the details which your pursue so zealously - and since I have great admiration for people with knowledge, know-how, and talent, may I suggest that since I cannot for the life of me figure out how to undo the redirect for Love Island album -- that you direct your energies in a positive direction to the creation of the Love Island album page and take the contents of the Tahiti Hut page and merge it there without deleting any of the information. I am suggesting this as a compromise and a request that you consider what would help improve the situation which you are well-aware of with the rules that you are intransigent about following simply because as you say they are the guidelines, you didn't make them and you need to follow them. This community can propose new rules and you are an expert on what they are, so how about considering what would help to keep articles that have merit though not to the standard that you are following simply because in your mind there is no alternative and I understand that. There is a new movie coming out "Just Mercy" which happens to take place in Monroeville where Harper Lee, writer of "To Kill a Mockingbird" lived and wrote the book. It is about the justice system. I recommend it highly to all who are serving on these jury panels.

Here is the tracklist for Eumir Deodato's Love Island (album). Personally I don't agree that the Tahiti Hut article, which was reviewed by an administrator previous to your Nomination to Delete, should be merged here unless you should expand the album page to include information for Whistle Bump, San Juan Sunset and Love Island, but would gladly accept it if it would allay all of this discussion. The disparaging reference to Tahiti Hut as a session outtake, however is incorrect - a session outtake to my understanding would be when the song is recorded multiple takes, one take is chosen, and the others are the outtake of that song's recording session. To understand when and how that song was recorded and why it did not appear on the album would be a question for Jermaine Jackson to answer or Bobby DeBarge, who is deceased but was the subject of this year's biopic: https://tvone.tv/show/the-bobby-debarge-story/ , or the writer of the song might know but that would have to be documented by an interview in a reliable source. Maybe you could think of a way that Wikipedia could start it's own reliable source publication so that facts could be submitted and verified. Many thanks.

{{Track listing | title1 = Area Code 808 | writer1 =Deodato, George Parrish, Jr | length1 = 6:45 | title2 = Whistle Bump | writer2 =Deodato | length2 = 4:32 | title3 = Tahitti Hut | writer3 =Maurice White | length3 = 4:27 | title4 = San Juan Sunset | writer4 = | length4 = 4:15 | title5 = Love Island | writer5 =Deodato | length5 = 6:40 | title6 = Chariot of the Gods | writer6 =Don Juan Mancha, Edwin Starr | length6 = 3:09 | title7 = Pina Colada | writer7 =[Deodato]] | length7 = 5:55 | title8 = Take The “A” Train | writer8 = Billy Strayhorn | length8 = 3:48 Rosedelune (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosedelune: you have entirely missed the point of this AfD discussion. Perhaps I wasn't very clear, but I did tell you that the album article would need to be created first – this is done by overwriting the redirect which is already in place, and if you want help in doing that, I am willing to guide you. But the point is, why should "Tahiti Hut" redirect to Love Island (album) any more than Reaching for Tomorrow, where it is also featured? The whole reason I opened this discussion is because it is far from obvious that one version is more notable than the other, and therefore there is more than one redirect option. Richard3120 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: Tahiti Hut with lyrics is a derivative work of the underlying composition Tahiti Hut which means the copyright for the lyric version is based on the copyright for the original composition which was recorded by Eumir Deodato on the Love Island album. There are two copyrights: the copyright for the song and the copyright for the sound recording. For that reason, the recording by Switch feat. Jermaine Jackson would be attached to the original copyright of the song. On the other hand, as you point out, the recording by Switch feat. Jermaine Jackson is a bonus track on an expanded edition of Reaching For Tomorrow so it would equally make sense that the song would be part of that album. If there is a new recording - and by the way now that there is the recent release, press, activity, uses are likely to occur - so with a new recording then the question is where you put the information for that recording, especially if it does not have chart activity or pass all the hoops that are being deemed necessary for it's own page. So if, for example, a punk act (I understand you like 70's punk/new wave acts) were to cover the song, then there is the issue of where this information would be added - would it then be redirected or included to the Switch "Reaching For Tomorrow" page? Originally the intent was to create the Love Island album page but that was not possible because the redirect was not possible to locate and revert, hence having a page for the song which would include the Eumir Deodato version, the Switch feat Jermaine Jackson version made the most sense and afterwards, there was the Yacht Rock web series podcast which includes the Deodato version and the samples of the Deodato record. So in a case where there are two recordings by notable artists, and the notability of the artists is certainly unquestionable, and there are additional uses, samples, etc. and a there is possibility for a stub to grow, it makes sense in my opinion to create a song page for the song -- and to consider a revision of the notability guidelines to allow for determinations in cases like this so an editor does not elect a Nomination to Delete altogether for lack of knowing what to do Rosedelune (talk) 23:56, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Songs: Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs. WP:Notability (music)#Songs

In this case there has been uses over the decades and a new release so the article can grow beyond a stub. 3. Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands, or groups.

Songs with notable cover versions are normally covered in one common article about the song and the cover versions. To delete the article because you don’t know where to merge it does not seem a positive decision.Hiroman60 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC) Editor blocked as suspected sockpuppet. Richard3120 (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have quoted the notability statement and then ignored it in your next sentence. This song has been in existence for 42 years and still shows no signs of notability – we don't keep articles on the basis that "they might be notable someday". You haven't demonstrated at all that either version of the song is notable, so there is no reason to keep an article about two non-notable versions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 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. ST47 (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La-La[edit]

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

Non-notable app, and apparently defunct. I tidied this page and was going to tag it for notability. However, neither the app's website nor its iTunes links work; there is no indication that it ever got much beyond development, and if it did it's unlikely to be bracketed with the other apps mentioned in the article which are notable. Not my area of expertise, so brought to AfD. Emeraude (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it's about the developer of the above. Non-notable; searches provide no substantial coverage beyond directories etc, nothing in article suggests any real notability, tagged for notablility since March 2018. Both articleswere created by the same user (presumably the "girlfriend" mentioned?) :

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

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 17 November 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. ST47 (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceStage[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:52, 15 November 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 argument in favor of keeping the article is not convincing given that no evidence of notability was provided. I have reviewed the article and while it contains a large number of references, most of them are either trivial mentions in lists of software, or primary sources linking to the subject's official website. ST47 (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (social networking software)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this article needs more sources and material It's not necessarily non-notable, it just needs added substance to help it reach the bar set for notability and encyclopedic content. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:54, 15 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Demolishor[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources that discuss this character in a meaningful way. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NFICTION. Already sufficiently covered in https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Demolishor_(disambiguation) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:27, 19 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darkwing (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. The "Reception" section is trivial. TTN (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any academic or journalistic coverage of this character. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No real-world coverage and fails to establish notability. lullabying (talk) 00:26, 19 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon (Transformers)[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is merely another piece of fancruft. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:53, 18 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Fist Tour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NTOUR and WP:SIGCOV. The article creator has been creating articles for every tour by Motorhead and other heavy rock outfits, none of them sourced to any reliable sources, and none of which give any indication of notability, simply that the tour existed, simply a list of tour dates and setlists sourced to blogs. This article has been redirected three times to Iron Fist (album), and each time the article creator has reverted the redirect with no explanation and no attempt to improve the article, so rather than carrying on edit warring back and forth I've brought this to AfD to get a consensus. Richard3120 (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the creator has now blanked the page, without comment, in an attempt to circumvent the AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets neither WP:GNG or WP:NTOUR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreed it's not notable enough to warrant its own article. KailuaKid (talk) 20:57, 20 November 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. ST47 (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiaomi Mi Max[edit]

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

non-remarkable product that only serves to re-host product information that's more fitting for phonearena Graywalls (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:56, 15 November 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. ST47 (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Vaughan[edit]

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

Cannot find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businesswoman. Edwardx (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:00, 17 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Miziolek[edit]

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

Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. However, if the articles wherein he is included make him newsworthy, that's a different story, but as the article stands, it's simply not reaching the bar of notability. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article, as written, is based overwhelmingly on primary rather than reliable sources — and in the few that are reliable sources, such as Canadian Business and The Globe and Mail, he's not the subject of even one of those pieces, but merely a giver of soundbite in an article whose core subject is something else. This is not notability-making sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am discounting the "this seems notable" vote, as there was no evidence of notability provided. The article currently has one reference, and it is to a primary source, so the nom's deletion rationale is valid. ST47 (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast Producer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are many applications and products in the apple graveyard that have wikipedia articles. this seems notable, hence my vote. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid rationale. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:35, 15 November 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. ST47 (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal eMission[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:42, 15 November 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. ST47 (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clip-Share[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:WEBSITE. Störm (talk) 10:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Gilmour[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. So many issues - that it is an article on a person without clear refs on someone who died quite recently and the tone are just two, that it should probably be WP:TNTed either way. Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of any notability for AG. This is just a list of the companies he worked for over the years and that could be said for millions of people. MarnetteD|Talk 09:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Partly per nom... Neither recency of death, tone, nor lack of refs in the article are valid reasons to delete, and WP:TNT absolutely does not apply. However, my own search has turned up 0 reliable sources, and there is no meaningful claim to notability so the outcome is the same either way. Hug^syrup 10:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ran across this article by accident, and couldn't figure out why it was notable -- and I'm on the inclusionist spectrum.Smallchief (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing any notability for the individual, either actual nor claims within the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sign of notability. He was a chemist and business executive of some kind. The role in making one specific type of duracell battery is not quite major. I do have to wonder how "died recently" and a death 13 years ago work together. That does not quite fit my definition of "recent".John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 19 November 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 USS Estrella (1862)#United States Navy service. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus P. Cooke[edit]

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

Fails WP:SOLDIER as a captain. A minor distinction as the first commander of "a ship armed with self-propelled torpedoes" isn't enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perhaps there should be more sourcing and additional material. Arguably he was a high ranking officer and this has potential under WP:SOLDIER and GNG if properly sourced. I can do some research later if I have some time to source the article. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He was not a high-ranking officer. He was a Civil War commander, only promoted to captain long afterwards. This is a long way from flag rank. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to USS_Estrella_(1862)#United_States_Navy_service. Under modern US rank structures, Naval Captain is OF-6, equivalent to an Army Colonel; not a particularly high rank by Wikipedia standards. By definition, the article could meet the GNG 'if properly sourced' but that's something of a tautology. In fact even ignoring sources, there is little in the article as it stands that jumps out as a claim to notability. I can find a smattering of mentions in sources, but nothing like the significant coverage required for a standalone article. There's a decent target for a redirect and little that justifies a merge, so I'm coming down on redirect as the best option. Hug^syrup 10:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hug. Didn't command a capital ship or reach a flag rank, so doesn't meet SOLDIER. Worth mentioning him on the USS Estrella article though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for naval officers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cracker Mallo[edit]

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

Article claims subject is an artist, record producer & composer but subject fails WP:SINGER, WP:COMPOSER & WP:BASIC. All references provided in the article are not by reliable media & do not establish notability for the subject. A WP:BEFORE shows subject is not yet notable. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Delete Some of the more focused coverage of this guy revolves around his production of "Jealous" by Fireboy DML. It seems like Nigeria's charting method is up to each news outlet to determine, but if we assume some reliability, his production of this reportedly chart-topping^[4] song may mean he meets WP:SINGER... also assuming we apply that criteria to producers and not just primary artists. Any known precedent regarding rap producers of questionable notability? Lots of factors here to wade through. Skeletor3000 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:SINGER subject should have multiple non-trivial, published works that has appearances in sources that are reliable & not self-published and are independent of the musician. So could you provide such reliable references for us that shows he passes WP:SINGER ? the ones in the article clearly shows he doesn’t scale through. Even as per WP:GNG he doesn’t qualify. perhaps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Hence a Delete !vote is very applicable to this article. Also you provided a reference that is about a certain artist called “Fireboy DML” that reference doesn’t speak about the subject of our AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 10:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's listed as a producer on the Fireboy DML track as well as some other "charting" tracks in Nigeria. I can find sources and organize the info later if you'd like, but I'm leaning toward delete being the proper response here after reading up on how Nigeria's "charts" work. I'm putting it in quotes because every news outlet decides their own charts. There's no national equivalent to Billboard, etc. Some just list the most viewed YouTube videos of the week, for example. To me this suggests that, even if he produced some popular songs, the lack of any real charting system removes validity from that aspect of any claim to notability. Skeletor3000 (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC. Mahveotm (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. He has not done enough to warrant stand-alone inclusion. The subject might become a prominent figure in the future but as of right now, he is still an up and coming producer. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas (Dental Surgeon)[edit]

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

I am afraid I do not see from the article why this person is notable. There are dozens of thousands of dental surgeons in the world, and I do not see how this one stands out. Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article was created and considered notable due to the contributions that this particular dental surgeon has made in his specialized field of maxillofacial surgery, particularly in India where he established the first specialized dental implant clinic and craniofacial implants for facial disfigurements, etc... His expertise is also recognized internationally, due to his contributions in UAE, Ireland, UK, and USA. Do you have any suggestions to improve the article in order to make the notability more clear? - HJafri (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Absolutely no notability whatsoever. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Dr. Biju Thomas is a noteworthy dental surgeon in India and in Dubai. Sources have been provided in the article to validate the authenticity of the individual. - ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirza Irfan Baig Barlas (talk • contribs) 10:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC) — Mirza Irfan Baig Barlas (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of HJafri (talk • contribs). [reply]

Delete My dentist is notable where he works, he has also established a dental practice; he has worked in hospitals (and registrar and "associate specialist" are not exactly senor positions) etc etc etc.. That doesn't make him anything special and worthy of a Wikipedia article and nor does it for Thomas. There is nothing in this article to indicate that its subject is notable per Wikipedia's norms. Emeraude (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the phone book. Graywalls (talk) 14:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are lots of good dental surgeons with their own practice. That is not enough in itself to have an article. There is also more than a whiff of promotion in the page. SpinningSpark 20:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the four sources, one doesn't mention him, two are profiles of him from either his own clinic, or somewhere he's worked, so are not WP:INDEPENDENT, the only other source is the Irish Examiner article which seems to be an interview of with him and of one of his patients, so also wouldn't be considered independent. A search for any other sources of him is difficult as it seems to be a relatively common name. YBm2XrpCP (talk) 00:39, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and the article creator just got blocked today as a sock. Also shameless promotion. WP:NOTRESUME Lightburst (talk) 02:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure he's a fine dentist, but notable he certainly is not. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:30, 18 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SG.Charles[edit]

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

Actor/director who's involved in one unreleased film with no other credits. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. JamesG5 (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Found not signifcant sources of the subject. Fails GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Also fails WP:SOURCE; citations are self-published/social media.

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) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Conway (politician)[edit]

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

Although briefly an elected local official, Mike Conway does not meet the notability criteria. I could find no significant coverage of him in published secondary sources; the only significant detail gleaned from a google search of his name is the fact that he died in 2016. Further, no details have been added to the body of this article (aside from reference tweaks) since its creation in 2009. Drdpw (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Drdpw (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Drdpw (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only one (possible) instance of significant coverage in an independent, reliable source found in my before (his obituary in the Glendora City News). To pass WP:BASIC we need two such references in different sources. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pretty clear WP:NPOL fail with no indication of passing WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless other sources can be found. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Glendora CA is not large enough to guarantee all of its mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing as mayors — but this features neither the depth of substance nor the volume of sourcing required to actually get him over WP:NPOL #2. Making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires the ability to write and source a quality article about his political career, not just the ability to offer primary sourced technical verification of the beginning and end dates of his term in office. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 16 November 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) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Alaska Anchorage Seawolves men's basketball team[edit]

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

Lower division college basketball team, fails WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS for not being top level, and at this point mostly WP:NOTSTATS. SportingFlyer T·C 05:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 05:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be a pretty run of the mill Division II team season. You can’t assume notability for lower division teams and I don’t see coverage to indicate the season meets WP:GNG. Rikster2 (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There are plenty of DI teams that need articles, we don't need one for D2 unless it is exceptional, like winning the title. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — If I remember correctly, the UAA women's basketball team did win a national title a few years ago and that provided no incentive on anyone's part to create an article. This individual XFD will provide no incentive to discontinue the POVish cookie-cutter approach which leads to wastes of time such as this being created in the first place. The parent article was created nearly six years ago and is still a stub built by editors who appear to believe that growing the infobox and adding other tables is a suitable substitute for the lack of substance. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:01, 22 November 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) 07:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shevaun Kastl[edit]

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

Failure of WP:ENT and WP:CS: Actress has no significant roles in any notable films or television shows, nor a large fan base. The article has been around for over three years but no reliable inline citations have been given—that's because the actress' prescence is very minimal. I tried finding suitable sources myself but was unable to. I do not think that an actress who has only played mostly minor roles in minor films/TV warrants her own article. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful claim of notability in the article, no sources in the article or found in a Google search to support a claim. Alansohn (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not much available, hence the reason there is not references in the article. scope_creep^Talk 13:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warlock (board game)[edit]

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

The article doesn't make a claim to notability, and the game seems to mostly be referenced on shopping and fandom sites. WP:GNG does not seem to be met. Hog Farm (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Of the sources present, only the actual review from ~~White Dwarf~~ The Space Gamer could be considered a reliable secondary source. And, as the WP:GNG suggests that multiple reliable sources are generally needed, it doesn't meet the criteria. If an additional review or something similar can be located in other reliable sources, though, I would reconsider my stance. Rorshacma (talk) 16:25, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that we should use similar criteria as for video games, where a review or two in reliable source are sufficient. In this particular case, it hinges on the extent of the review in The Space Gamer. And @Rorshacma: - I don't see the White Dwarf review anywhere? Right now I am leaning towards a weak delete, as the term "Capsule Review" suggests a short note, and no other source is presented outside the obligatory BGG link. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, sorry, I meant The Space Gamer. I had been looking at a different article that had used "White Dwarf" as a source, and had the wrong magazine on my mind when I typed that. I've corrected it in my recommendation. Rorshacma (talk) 14:41, 20 November 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 consensus here seems to be that this does not meet NSONG and no viable redirect target currently exists. ST47 (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who the F**k Is Justin Bieber[edit]

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

Funny track, but no actual evidence of notability. One week at #31 in one chart, and that was it. The link to the band name is a redirect back here. Guy (help!) 22:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Actually it is not just the song itself and its brief charting history, but what preceded it in a highly viral interview by Ozzy Osbourne sampled prominently in the video. [10] Also its prominent use in other media resulting for example in a major launch of the 6G series that refers to Who the F**k Is Justin Bieber. [11] So it is not just a charting history that we are looking at. Plus that the article is adequately referenced. werldwayd (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why the article is full of reliable sources that say that. Oh, it isn't. No it's not adequately referenced. Guy (help!) 23:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Back in 2013 someone took the odd step of redirecting the artist (Charleston Clubbers) to this song article. I can find practically no information about them except for the usual social media and retail sites. As for this song, the sources that are currently in the article, and most of the media events mentioned by the previous voter, are about the light-hearted Osbourne/Bieber "feud" and are not about this song. The song itself only shows up in the usual social media and retail sites as well, plus some occasional mentions of its fortunate connection to celebrities. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Being in official Danish chart is probably NSONG, but the key test of GNG seems missing for the Song (and not just RS of where the Song title came from)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charting in Denmark gives it the presumption of notability per WP:NSONG, but to sustain that presumption we'd be looking for multiple independent reliable sources discussing the song, and I really couldn't find anything at all in my WP:BEFORE. Like, nothing actually discussing the song rather than the Osbourne/Bieber feud. At all. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONG. Normally I would say redirect this to a page on the artist due to lack of sourcing, but in the absence of a viable redirect keep is the best option. The song charted so it's notable. Any content not reliably cited should be removed. If it's a stub, it is a stub.4meter4 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I disagree that this article fulfills WP:NSONG. A majority, if not all, of the sources provided consist of chart listings or social media posts; they are not mentions by a third party source (e.g. news, magazine) and do not support any claim of notability. I also do not think the "context equates to prominence" argument has any merit as through that argument any parody or political song could have an article on Wikipedia, which is not what Wikipedia is for. CentreLeftRight ✉ 05:10, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above discussion and since there does not appear to be an appropriate article for a redirect. Aoba47 (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and create the appropriate article that would include it. DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am uncertain if the main artist (Charleston Clubbers) has enough coverage for an article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Football International[edit]

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

Fails the general notability guideline. Part of an ongoing cleanup campaign of conflict-of-interest editing in international Australian rules football articles. I'm AfDing this rather than PRODing because a couple of sources mention the organisation - however, these mentions are not substantial and the articles focus on the sport of Footy 9s rather than the organisation behind it. – Teratix ₵ 04:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: While there has been COI and promotional editing, I have added some sources that I think demonstrate the organisation does meet WP:GNG and the article can hopefully be further improved from here. Possibly some of the multiple articles created by this editor should be merged/re-directed? Melcous (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Melcous: thanks for adding more sources, but none of them give the organisation more than a passing mention. – Teratix ₵ 06:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:07, 15 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Logi Analytics[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are all routine coverage of press releases in industry press, thus failing WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:AUD. My own searching failed to find anything better. The editing history of the article's original author strongly suggests WP:UPE. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This company was involved with the NPO Conservation International in a project mapping the rainforest fires this summer, which generated significant coverage: [12], [13], [14], [15]. It's not a great deal, admittedly, but enough to qualify as passing WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Somewhat notable company and meets WP:GNG. Rocktober2018 (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Analyst reports are considered to meet the criteria for establishing notability. Logi Analytics has been covered by Butler, Gartner and Dresner. I have read the Gartner report - I do not have access to the others but in my opinion, this company meets the requirements. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Deakins[edit]

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

No indication that the individual is notable separately from the company. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 20:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added information about his notable invention of an all natural cleaning product that came to form the foundation of his company in 1987.^[5]^[6] Gscala945 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC) — Gscala945 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - The addition of his notable invention makes this worth keeping. DeloreanTimeMachine (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ruth Reader (3 February 2015). "NeuCoin raises $2.25M to be a headache-free take on Bitcoin". Venture Beat. Retrieved 22 July 2017.
^ Young, Joseph (2016-03-17). "NeuCoin Reaches 275,000 Users After Launch of Facebook Game and..." Bitcoin Magazine. Retrieved 2019-11-15.
^ Lace, Erin (2015-10-07). "'Neucoin Will Have More Consumers Using It Than Bitcoin within One Year' - Founder". Cointelegraph. Retrieved 2019-11-15.
^ "Nigerian Music Chart: Fireboy DML's "Jealous" Leads". Retrieved 16 November 2019.
^ https://books.google.com/books?id=1PdaAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Jay+Deakins%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Jay+Deakins%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi75MX6gdvlAhUPq1kKHWB_Bz0Q6AEwAXoECAIQAg
^ http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.191.511&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Also blatant self promotion and potential COI. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, and there's no indication that the company is especially notable either. Emeraude (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a paid promotional bio without any indication of GNG. I'm also not entirely sold his company meets notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The addition of his invention and formation of the charitable foundation makes him notable apart from the company and should not be deleted.--Dandkpeters (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)— Dandkpeters (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Sources cited do not show notability. There is not any, how you say, indepth coverage of this individual except in primary sourced and/or PR write-ups. VViking_TalkEdits 14:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 3/5 sources in the article are local or topical and otherwise unreliable sources; the 4th is a passing mention in Entrepreneur and the 5th is a press release. That fails significant coverage. His cleaner invention is not so important as to allow for its own article - every year thousands of household products are patented. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Added additional information and references on his numerous contributions to industry specific publications. Gscala945 (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable and the article is more like promotional bio - Jay (talk) 08:36, 22 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garmina Paygar[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested on the grounds that he plays in National Independent Soccer Association. Since this league is not (or not confirmed) fully professional per WP:FPL this does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nominator. HawkAussie (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 09:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found only 1 passing mention in the news. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:59, 19 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Countryhumans[edit]

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

WP:PROD removed by page's creator. Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable sources that discuss this subject. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 08:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This comes nowhere close to the threshold of notability or encyclopedia-worthy content. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - simply doesn't meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:GNG, as already said by the above editors. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is this a meme? A site? Whatever it is, it is not even well referenced. WP:TNT at best. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:48, 18 November 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 Vala (Middle-earth)#Aulë. Content can be merged from history if editorial consensus supports it. Sandstein 19:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aulë[edit]

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

No indication this fictional character passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Pure WP:PLOT. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with rationale "significant figure in Tolkien's works". WP:BEFORE fails to show any in-depth analysis or anything that goes beyond in-univere PLOT summary. Is mentioned in J.R.R. Tolkien Encyclopedia: Scholarship and Critical Assessment in several entries but does not have its own entry. I don't think we should have a separate entry on this level of minute in-universe entity either. Thoughts? PS. Looking at Template:Ainur many other similar entities have been just redirected and so can this one be (redirect target: Vala_(Middle-earth)#Aulë)._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Vala (Middle-earth). Given the Valar's significance in the works of the world's most respected fantasy author I think it's reasonable to retain the information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vala (Middle-earth)#Aulë, for the reasoning provided by nom, but unless and until the Vala article also goes, it should redirect to where the key content is already present (I don't think a wider merge is warranted by the sourcing quality). Nosebagbear (talk) 16:56, 22 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball triple plays[edit]

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

Wikipedia can't handle a list this long. In fact, it's so long and incomplete that no one's going to bother to do all the research and fill in all the gaps here. Songwaters (talk) 02:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send to Draft or delete It is a nice idea, and normally I would vote that this passes WP:NLIST and is WP:IMPERFECT keep, however this one is not ready for prime time. Lightburst (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. One of Retrosheet's six lists (for 2000-19) was already in Triple play's external links section (and the other five are accessible from there), and now I've added Baseball Almanac's one list. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear why we need to copy-and-paste this massive list from baseball-almanac.com; WP:NOTSTATS. Reywas92^Talk 23:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Clear breach of WP:IINFO. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:23, 17 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin James (pornographic actor)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: none of the references currently in the article constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. The source for his death is a highly sketchy self-published website, and everything else is a database entry (IMDb or IAFD). I looked for new ones and found only trivial coverage in several books about pornography[16][17][18]. (Complicating the search was the fact that a mainstream actor has the same name.) Cheers, gnu 57 02:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 02:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am surprised this article lasted 10 years without any good sources. I remember this porn legend, but not even the porn trade press gives him any non-trivial coverage. Biographical detail has never been sourced. Without good sources, even a PORNBIO claim for the Taboo series would have been a stretch. Nothing to support WP:BASIC or WP:ENT notability. Note: The nominator's first book link comes from Luke Ford. Not only does Ford have an abysmal reputation for fact checking, the book contains multiple proven factual errors. • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for letting me know about Ford--I appreciate it, and I'll keep it in mind in future. Cheers, gnu 57 14:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete extremely heavy on directory-style sourcing. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:43, 18 November 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. ST47 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Slugs[edit]

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

Lots of content, but almost all of it is unsourced. Neither any of the bands members nor any of its music appear to be independently Wikipedia notable, but there are some pretty old comments on the talk page about the songs being used in TV shows, etc. which might meet WP:NSONG. Article has been tagged with {{More citations needed}} since May 2014, but most of the content of the article appears to have been added before the end of 2012. A very cursory WP:BEFORE Google search gets the Wikipedia article as the first hit, but not very much after that even going a few pages deep. I'm not seeing much here per WP:GNG or WP:NBAND, but there could be older sources out there somewhere. Article was WP:PRODDED early on after it was created in 2006, but deprodded (mostly based upon WP:OSE reasons) per discussion on its talk page. Way back in the day, OSE arguments might've have been given much more weight since there were so few articles in comparison to today, but don't thing that's really considered to be a good reason for keeping something these days. There does appear to have been some COI editing really early on, but not sure if that matters now. I asked about this at WT:MUSICIAN#The Slugs and also posted some {{{Please see}} notices about it on some other WikiProject talk pages, but only one response has been received so far, and that particular response wasn't really something strongly suggesting the article should be kept. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This band easily gets over the line for notability based on the following references: 1 2 3 4 5. Specifically WP:NBAND no. 1 is met. FOARP (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for finding these; number 4 is already added as an external link to the article, but the others I didn't find in my own searching. I wouldn't, however, necessarily say they easily establish NBAND (at least in my opinion). They do help clarify things a bit and they are certainly better than no sources at all, but only #1 and #3 seem close to SIGCOV with the other three looking more trivial in nature about band reunions (#2), being part of a compilation album of local bands (#4), and band members leaving (#5). All of these things, however, appear to be local type of stuff with no evidence of any coverage outside the Chicagoland area. Significant coverage in regional or national publications showing they were more than a local band would be more helpful in clearly establishing notability, at least in my opinion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:AUD is a WP:CORP guideline. WP:CORP explicitly excludes groups covered by other guidelines (e.g., bands, which are covered by WP:MUSIC). The entire regional/local discussion happening on this page is yet another example of why WP:AUD is a bad guideline when applied generally and should be limited to corporations, which is what it was intended to apply to anyway as a counter to corporate influence over local/trade media. FOARP (talk) 11:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was aware that AUD is part of WP:NORG, but the reasoning behind it seem applicable here as well. There's no real indication that the band was anything more than a local band which played in local clubs. In fact, I might have actually seen them play once or twice back in the 80s. The Reader was (at least back then) nothing more than an ad paper with some articles, which was pretty much entirely devoted to local event (e.g. movie, concert) listings, roommate wanted, apartments for rent, job listings, etc. kind of stuff. I pretty much read it every week for those reasons as did most of the people I knew who also read it. The Tribune is a different story though and if the consensus is that those two Trib articles plus the Reader stuff are enough to meet NBAND, then it is what it is. In that case, the article would still seem to need to major pruning to reflect what content can be found in those RSs. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Chicago Tribune and Chicago Reader as identified by FOARP which are regional sources not local sources, so there is no valid reason left for deletion in this case, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure the Reader is regional; it's (or at least it was back in the day when the article's cited above were written) a local weekly given out for free (or was given out for free) that focused on local events, etc. It was fairly easy to downtown (there were even newspaper boxes), record shops, some restaurants, at college campuses, etc. in the downtown or near north area of the city, but it became much harder to get a copy of one as you moved further into the suburbs. Perhaps these days every local paper which has website could be considered "regional" "national" or even "international", but I don't think papers focus ever went much beyond Chicagoland in it's coverage. The Reader is/was port of a brand name with other cities having their own version of it, but I don't think that make any of them regional papers, unless you're defining the term quite broadly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Chicagoland has a population (broadest interpretation) of nearly 10 million people, but a publication covering it is "local" (or "regional", whatever the difference between the two is supposed to be). Meanwhile the Times of Malta is a "national" publication despite covering an area with less than 1/20th of Chicagoland's population - WP:AUD is a very, very flawed guideline. I get that it is supposed to stop articles being kept for small businesses simply because the Podunk Daily covered them in return for a free sandwich or whatever, but whenever it is applied outside of those narrow circumstances, it delivers ridiculous outcomes. Sorry, but the flaws of WP:AUD have been a bug-bear of mine for a while. FOARP (talk) 11:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I posted above, I don't have a problem with the Trib as a reliable source; the Reader, however, isn't even worthy of a comparison between the two. Chicago has/had many neighborhood newspapers to in addition to major ones like the Trib and Sun Times and none of these would be considered anything more than "local" papers. The determining criterion when it comes to newpapers being local or otherwise seems to be (or at least used to be) that the paper had an international/regional desk which focused on such subject matters; not the population of the city where the paper was located. Pretty much all of the coverage of the Reader was limited to local topic which means (at least in my opinion) that it's a local paper. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't place much weight on the Reader in this case either. The 2 Trib features, nudges them over the line of WP:GNG and WP:NBAND.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:34, 17 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded Advisor[edit]

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

Non notable magazine and the content is supported primarily by the website of the relevant magazine. The article doesn't have reliable sources at all. Abishe (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. No sources. Not notable. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources, no notability. --Randykitty (talk) 13:08, 15 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where-to-be-born Index[edit]

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

Creating nomination on behalf of 216.160.67.169, per their request. I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copied the following reason from Talk:Where-to-be-born Index#Nominating this article for deletion―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for deletion due to its encyclopedic irrelevance and lack of notability. Specifically, this article qualifies for deletion due to these reasons from the Wikipedia:Deletion_policy:

Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

As others have noted, this article is essentially advertising for the Economist Intelligence Unit. It is not a culturally relevant index as evidenced by its lack of incoming links and discussion relating it to other article. 216.160.67.169 (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. The subject is notable, and there is no rationale for deletion by the original nominator. Utopes (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The subject is notable, and there is no real rationale for deletion. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 04:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, and after reading the article, I don't see any advertising content in the page. Hog Farm (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No rational for deletion. An IP address requested an article be sent to AFD at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion without giving a reason why. Dream Focus 14:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion is not cleanup. Passes WP:GNG per mentions in RS. UnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 02:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am largely discounting Fifthavenuebrands, as they are a new user who has submitted votes with poor rationale not only here but at a large number of AfDs over a very short period of time. Based on the article history, they evidently never had time to work on it, and no reliable sources or evidence of notability were discussed at this debate. ST47 (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SCAFCO[edit]

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

I'm submitting this for consideration for deletion on account of a lack of notability, after seeing discussions to that effect on the article's Talk page indicating a mutual inability to locate satisfactory sources. I can't find any either—and the company's new name, "Stone Group of Companies", turns up virtually nothing. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject lacks notability and significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perhaps there must be a way to source this article sufficiently. If I have time I will work on it later. But the company seems notable and I believe that this article actually has potential if substantiated correctly. Fifthavenuebrands (talk) 09:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This amounts to saying that it's notable because it must be notable despite a lack of evidence that it's notable. You finish with the tautology that if it's notable, then it will be notable. An argument made at AFD that a topic is notable needs to actually provide reasons to find it so when the nomination is based on the premise that there aren't sufficient reasons. Largoplazo (talk) 13:05, 15 November 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] Sullivan, Jack (2018-01-09). "Everyone knows Anthony in the North End – just not this one". CommonWealth Magazine. Retrieved 2019-09-23.

[2] Mazza, Sandy. "What is Domio, the short-term rental platform under fire in Nashville?". The Tennessean. Retrieved 2019-09-24.

[3] "Get Access". The Tennessean. Retrieved 2019-09-23.

[4] Ruth Reader (3 February 2015). "NeuCoin raises $2.25M to be a headache-free take on Bitcoin". Venture Beat. Retrieved 22 July 2017.

[5] Young, Joseph (2016-03-17). "NeuCoin Reaches 275,000 Users After Launch of Facebook Game and..." Bitcoin Magazine. Retrieved 2019-11-15.

[6] Lace, Erin (2015-10-07). "'Neucoin Will Have More Consumers Using It Than Bitcoin within One Year' - Founder". Cointelegraph. Retrieved 2019-11-15.

[7] "Nigerian Music Chart: Fireboy DML's "Jealous" Leads". Retrieved 16 November 2019.

[8] ttps://books.google.com/books?id=1PdaAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Jay+Deakins%22+-wikipedia&dq=%22Jay+Deakins%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi75MX6gdvlAhUPq1kKHWB_Bz0Q6AEwAXoECAIQAg

[9] ttp://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.191.511&rep=rep1&type=pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]