Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 October	17 October >

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. RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cymru Rydd[edit]

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

I could not find any reference to this political party - https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=IaenXdmmLYbQwQLb7LWYAQ&q=cymru+rydd+welsh+republicans&oq=cymru+rydd+welsh+republicans&gs_l=psy-ab.3...7379.10192..10660...0.2..0.66.187.3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.BmcLCVyrBj8&ved=0ahUKEwiZu-rv9qHlAhUGaFAKHVt2DRMQ4dUDCAo&uact=5 Alligators1974 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Alligators1974 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was able to find passing mentions of the political party but being that it is only minor, it lacks notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am the article creator. There is no justification for keeping this article and I am more than happy to accept the deletion nomination as valid. doktorb _words^deeds 06:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Party is not notable, therefore fails WP:GNG. Quick Google search showed no reliable sources regarding the minor party. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:ORG, which covers political parties. -The Gnome (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded no sources of note. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign whatsoever of the sort of notability that would be expected to justify having an article on Wikipedia. Dunarc (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This may be controversial, but the closing admin is meant to weigh up the strength of arguments on both sides. I am simply not seeing a convincing argument for GNG here. Granted there are some passing mentions of the match post the event, but I am simply not seeing sustained significant coverage to justify a standalone article. I don't doubt that the match had an impact on us soccer, but that doesn't mean an article is kept without having to show coverage in sources over an extended period of time. Fenix down (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that DRV overturned this close to no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification)[edit]

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

Was this game really notable? The result of it was that the US Men's national team failed to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, but not sure if it has lasting notability as a match in itself. Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article doesn't do a good job of examining the lasting impact of the event, which was the canary in the coal mine for U.S. Soccer. Within two years, the entire organization has changed (new managers, new executives, unseating the decade-long tenure of the USSF president) and the match is still used as a comparison, for example this article comparing it to another humiliating defeat last night. Sounder Bruce 23:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)≥[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the most significant matches in the history of the US national team and had a major impact, both positive and negative, for years to come. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I went through the references in the article, and there's no indication on why the match is notable. The references all seem routine - and most are dated BEFORE the match took place! Move the content (no redirect necessary) to 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fifth Round (where there's barely any reference to this match) and United States men's national soccer team (where there's only 2 sentences and 2 references from the day after the match). Looking at qualifying ... the USA failed to win a single away match, and lost twice at home. With only one more draw (point) separating them from the 3rd qualifying spot, it's not like this particular match was the issue, rather than the other 5 problematic matches. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would consider the match very notable considering its high press coverage outside the USA and how important it is to the History of the USMNT. I would also consider this match to be as notable as the "Shot heard round the world" match, both of which are "Start" class articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where User:KingSkyLord are the references that say this? They aren't in the article. They haven't been brought forward in this debate, and a Google search (not the easiest search term I'll admit) just yields match reports, and the occasional passing reference. Where's the in-depth coverage of it's significance - or heck, anything in-depth that wasn't filed within 24-48 hours of the match? Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see WP:SIGCOV, sources and content are not derived towards the match it's self, I see some notability in the match but there isn't enough for a stand alone article and we have been through this multiple times before. Single games must either be a final or have significant coverage for an article, with significant incident. I agree with Nfitz that some content can be moved too, 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fifth Round. Also, GiantSnowman with articles like this you really should give a few reasons instead of one generic no evidence of notability when clearly some notability does exist makes your delete rationale a rather floored argument that a lot of closers might just ignore your vote! Govvy (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it is, indeed, an important match, and I reckon passes WP:EVENTCRIT. The article doesn't do it justice as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are some references User:SportingFlyer that support that this match has any lasting significance? All we've got are match-day reports, and mostly reports from before the match. I'll happily change my vote, if I could see some references - but I haven't. I hardly think that everytime that a top-tier CONCACAF team barely loses to a second-tier squad, away, is significant ... every time it happens, there's calls for the coach to be replaced ... and we've seen that again this week. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a simple Google search and looked for articles written after October 11, 2017. See articles like [1] or [2], or even mentions in books like [3]. Some of that arguably isn't WP:SIGCOV, but again, I'm a weak keep, so I'm not really that arsed to track down better coverage, really just noting I'd be very surprised if it's not ultimately notable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you consider any of the sources mentioned here, User:SportingFlyer as SIGCOV? The MLS Article mentioned below is the only thing I've seen that doesn't seem to be at the time of the match, or briefly in passing. But is MLS a secondary source that is "Independent of the subject" - I'm not sure it is, given all the spam they keep emailing me promoting this team. Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The major American sports teams hire independent writers for their websites, IE the league doesn't directly control the content, I think MLS is the same way. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of coverage—from 2017 to now and in the media of various countries—describing reactions and consequences (failed qualification). I'd say it passes WP:GNG along this line (many October 2017 articles with details, and later articles with a clear reference to make comparisions), and WP:LASTING because it essentially brought about many changes for the USMNT [4] and was described as a wakeup call for U.S. Soccer. I also found interesting that this match is described as "rock bottom", "catastrophic," etc., even in sources published longer after the match, and is used to make negative comparisons (e.g. the recent 2-0 loss to Canada [5] [6]). This was a historic match for the USMNT; the article could be expanded with some of this information. ComplexRational (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah User:ComplexRational! That MLS Article is interesting - but as I ask above, is it a secondary source that's independent of the subject? The other two are brief mentions, when the USA lost another match this week to a CONCACAF team that it should have beaten - and quite frankly the first time I heard about this Trinidad match was listening to commentary during that match last week - but there were mentions of other matches too. Is every unexpected loss noteworthy? What about Honduras 8, Canada 1 (which I don't think is, despite seeing frequent references to it). Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plenty of matches in qualifying stages tend to result in certain teams not qualifying. This isn't special. Number 5 7 11:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. This game is still being referenced in coverage which shows sustaining notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What reference do you, User:4meter4 consider as GNG and SIGCOV? The MLS Article mentioned above is the only one that seems close. But is MLS a secondary source that is "Independent of the subject"? Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with the 7-day deadline on this approaching, I suggest relisting this, while we discuss the recently found sources further. Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 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) 23:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navfitness[edit]

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

Seems to be defunct. Only references are to its own publications. Doesnt seem very notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The app's official website is dead. The article's 2 sources are the official website. It was created in 2015 by a user who basically only ever contributed this article, and it has not had any attention to its content since. A quick web search does not bring up any worthwhile sources. Does not satisfy WP:NSOFTWARE. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP, WP:NSOFT, and WP:GNG. That the text was put up by a kamikaze account isn't helping. -The Gnome (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded no sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 23 October 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) 22:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim von Westphal[edit]

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

Non notable music producer and promoter. No reliable independent sources found. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this search result from google de says its it all:https://www.google.de/search?source=hp&ei=DqunXdnLOMXxkwWlnJ7oCQ&q=Joachim+von+Westphal&oq=Joachim+von+Westphal&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30.856.856..1391...0.0..0.69.69.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.oMcqbeIctoY&ved=0ahUKEwjZipLP-qHlAhXF-KQKHSWOB50Q4dUDCAc&uact=5 Alligators1974 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable artist. Barca (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - besides the terrible sourcing (a German Wikipedia page, a blog, a dead link, and a personal website), we almost always delete articles about music producers based on them being run of the mill for the most part. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not describe achievements that are important or significant. Has no refs; the external links don't help. A web search does not help. Does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and even WP:GNG. The text was created by an almost single-purpose account whose owner put up a couple of articles on German music a dozen years ago and then disappeared. -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 23 October 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 based on improved sourcing. RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graem Whyte[edit]

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

Non notable sculptor. Article lacks reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was surprised to find sources for this artist. I found him profiled in ART21, which is significant. A few other sources are decent. Note that "Popp's Packing" refers to the business operating his home studio business, which also includes several adjacent pieces of land with ongoing projects (e.g. "popp's Packing", a gallery/storefront). He is all about the relational aesthetics.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing has significantly improved. There is now independent reporting on Whyte (and Lerman). It is published in reliable sources, and specifically about their work. Vexations (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:SIGCOV by Art:21, Hyperallergic and The Detroit News means it passes WP:GNG. I haven't investigated coverage of his works enough, but a little bit of looking suggests it potentially also passes WP:ARTIST. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 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) 22:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defiler[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.

Delete - all I could find on the internet were such links as facebook, twitter and his website (only self-publish refs)). Alligators1974 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subjects lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 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 List of Autobots. Tone 20:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Overload (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Overload is an Autobot in several series, but a Deception in another one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 13 October 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)} 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots. Most of them were Autobots, but there was only one Decepticon. ミラ P 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 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 List of Transformers comics characters. Tone 20:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kup (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 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)} 20:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION. Has a good entry on transformers wiki, nothing is lost. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Transformers comics characters.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Transformers comics characters where it is listed. There isn't enough to say about the subject to warrant a separate article. Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:56, 23 October 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. Lack of independent reliable sources to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClayClaim[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. There is no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. See the talk page where the creator argues for notability based on subscriber count. Note also that a YouTube Creator Award is based on subscriber count and does not confer notability. --Pontificalibus 12:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:25, 9 October 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)} 20:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches revealed no sources of note. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 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) 22:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legends (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable toy line TTN (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 9 October 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)} 20:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails NFICTION / NPRODUCT. Has a good entry on transformers wiki, nothing is lost (https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers_Legends_(franchise)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 23 October 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 08:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Psychology, NTNU[edit]

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

Insufficient evidence oif notability . We usually restrict articles on academic department in a university to the very few most famous one in the world. Two nobelists who shared a prize for joint work is not sufficient to achieve that. None of the references are actualy about the deparrtment. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How many university departments are there with two Nobel laureates then? (And how many psychology departments?) I find literally tons of articles on quite ordinary educational institutions, including university departments that are nothing out of the ordinary (to mention just one example, massive coverage of all Category:Departments of the University of Manchester such as Psychological Sciences at The University of Manchester which seems like a quite ordinary psychology department, certainly less known than this one; the University of Manchester as a university is roughly on the same level as NTNU, NTNU is probably more recognised in some respects). Plus, of course, tons of articles on obscure high schools with fewer employees, fewer students and no notable research, all three meaningful criteria for an educational/research institution. There are entire universities in the US that are both smaller and less significant than this department.

The department has existed for 50+ years, is one of Norway's two main psychology departments and includes a Nobel Prize-winning research group of some 100+ scientists. In its field this is one of the world's leading research environments. The department is part of the country's largest university with over 40,000 students and nearly 8,000 employees so material on all the individual departments wouldn't belong in the main university article.

Also, the Nobel Prize for the two Mosers is just one of several honours the research environment based at the institute has received; it was also one of 13 research groups appointed as elite research environments by the Government of Norway in 2002, and it is one of the world's Kavli Institutes (certainly all the other universities with Kavli Institutes are among the world's leading).

Also, while the department has been part of NTNU since 1996, it was originally an independent educational/research institution. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 9 October 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)} 20:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Ella Sjødyr: I think you make a good argument that the institutions work prior to it's merger into the university may be a good reason to justify keeping an article on the department. That would be contingent though on finding significant coverage on the Psykologisk institutt prior to 1996. If you can find references like that I would support you in keeping this article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The first reference is a 342-page book about the institution's history from 1946 to 1996 (when NTNU was formed by the merger of several university-level institutions in Trondheim). In my opinion the more important issue here, though, is that the department is at least as significant, and in many, many cases more significant, than all the hundreds of other articles on university departments that I can find, and that it would seem particularly odd to delete what is not only a very large, well-established and reputable psychology department at a well-established, reputable university, but in fact the world's only psychology department with any research that has/academics who have been awarded a Nobel prize.

- In a list of psychology research institutions, psychology at NTNU with its offshoots, with its combined 200 scientists and a long list of awards, including the government appointment as elite research environment in 2002 and the Nobel prize for the Mosers, would easily belong to "the very few most famous ones in the world" (which doesn't appear to be the general criterion anyway, for anyone who has ever looked into other articles on university departments here). --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. @Ella Sjødyr: Your inexperience in wikipedia AFDs is showing here. Arguments not based in wikipedia policy will not convince other editors to support an article's inclusion. The main policies at issue in this case are WP:SIGCOV, WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:Verifiability. Making claims without citing evidence doesn't go over well because wikipedia is not interested in what is true and but what is verifiably true. If you want people to support you, you need to show url links to independent secondary and tertiary sources where either the Department of Psychology, NTNU or the Psykologisk institutt is the main subject of that coverage (ie not just secondary to a larger article on the university). Offline sources that are independent of the subject can also bolster your argument by listing them here in this discussion. You will need to provide the Title, Author(s), Publisher, Date/year of Publication, and page numbers along with a description as to how this source is a significant supporting reference (ie the source must cover the topic more than just in passing). If you cannot provide this kind of evidence the article will be deleted. The book you gave possibly lends toward notability, however, Tapir Akademisk Forlag appears to be owned and operated by a student organization and I am not sure if this publishers works are considered reliable (ie peer reviewed and not self published). So far there appears to be only one good potential source (and not if the publisher isn't good). Wikipedia require at least three quality sources to pass WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addtional comment. The nobel prizes only confer notability on the actual winners and not to the department because WP:notability is not inherited. The only way to prove notability is by showing evidence of three verifiable sources that are independent of the subject where the Department of Psychology, NTNU is the central focus of those sources. If you can't do that then the guidelines for inclusion tell us to delete.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- no:Tapir Akademisk Forlag was a well-established academic publisher in Norway from 1921 to 2012 when it merged to become Akademika forlag, one of Norway's current main academic publishers, and the author of the book was a recognised scholar (for instance the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters published a collection of essays in honour of him in 1998[7]). The fact that the student welfare organisation in Trondheim was a shareholder (but not really involved in actually running the company) has no bearing on the publisher's standing, and in fact, academic publishers (and journals) owned by student welfare organisations and such are quite common (Sweden's main academic publisher is also such a publisher). As far as I can see there is no general criterion to have exactly three sources, and the article includes adequate sources at this point (the article includes six, including one particularly high-quality, particularly in-depth source). Of course more could be found for a department mentioned in national news media every day, but for me to spend further time on improving the article, rather than concentrating on my work on the Norwegian Wikipedia where I don't have to waste time on unproductive discussions instead, I would like to see a more constructive attitude than the unwarranted close policing of the article and application of entirely different standards than those normally, overwhelmingly applied to comparable articles in the US and UK so far.

- The Nobel prizes of full-time staff are clearly relevant, also when evaluating the department's notability, and in fact all articles on universities with any Nobel prize laureates go out of their way to mention them both in the lead and body. The Nobel prize is really just one of several expressions of the fact that the institution's research activity is considered particularly significant; the appointment of the entire research environment (not just individuals) as elite research environment by the Government years before the Nobel prize was another example of that. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ella Sjødyr: I suggest you read Wikipedia:I don't agree with that, because you simply keep restating yourself and arguing with people constantly (and being rather condescending and un-collaborative with those trying to work with you here) when they have a different opinion. This article was brought to WP:Articles for Deletion by a concerned editor. This is where we appropriately review articles by following our written policies. The policies have broad consensus behind them. You may not like them, but they are implemented consistently. Having multiple secondary sources that show significant coverage is a non-negotiable here at AFD per policy, and this is something you are just going to have to accept if you want to edit on wikipedia with success.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails the significant coverage guideline of WP:GNG. While assuming in good faith that the book is a quality reference, it is the only single reference in the article of significance. The newspaper article "NTNU-sentre vant forsker-millioner" is merely a press release of governmental research funds given to the university, as well as to several other institutions. The articles about the Nobel prizes are primarily about the faculty members and not the institution. As stated above, notability is not inherited. The article Fenton, André A. (2015-06-01). "Coordinating with the "Inner GPS"". Hippocampus. 25 (6): 763–769 is a journal article not about the institution but researched at the institution making it a primary source which is not usable per WP:Verifiability. WIth only one good reference, there is not enough evidence to support inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Your false claim that Adresseavisen publishes "press releases" really shows your lack of understanding of both sources and this topic area. I'm quite sure: Had the US government appointed 13 elite research environments in the US, based at the country's most recognised universities, that also went on to win Nobel prizes and other honours (both institutional and individual), US-based editors would have been enraged if Norwegian editors had insisted that the institutions weren't notable or that the main newspapers in the US just published "press releases", and in fact, they don't have a problem at all with endless streams of articles on quite ordinary university departments in Anglophone countries, whose only source is typically a "Portrait of a University", published by the university, not even about the department. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again Ella Sjødyr, it's about 13 research institutions so the Department of Psychology, NTNU is not really the main subject, the money being awarded is. Significant coverage has to be an article specifically about the Department of Psychology, NTNU as a whole, not an awarded grant to 13 institutions. You are once again not hearing what I am saying or comprehending the policy accurately. Please feel free to bring any United States University Departments to AFD and I will evaluate them the same way I am here. (FYI there are only two other Department of Psychology articles on wikipedia, and I doubt either of them would survive an AFD)4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated the only wikipedia article on a Department of Psychology in United States for deletion using the same rationale as I have for this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences. You and this article are not being targeted unfairly.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that article will end up getting deleted, but in any event it is far less notable as a research institution than this department. It's a college with some programs, and the article doesn't describe any notable research. As a university, Brigham Young University, established by the Mormons, is ranked as #77 within its own country; NTNU, established by the King of Norway, by comparison is often ranked as #2 in Norway (#1 in its core fields). The BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences article is one article in a series that seems to include all departments at Brigham Young University.

Instead of discussing a random, individual department it would be better for editors who disagree with the current, extensive coverage of university departments to start a more general discussion. We also have coverage of some 30 departments at the University of Manchester, a respectable but medium-tier university by UK standards (behind the likes of Oxford and Cambridge), and comparable coverage of numerous other universities. Personally, I don't understand any desire to get rid of such articles on university departments like this one, with its 1,100 students, 244 staff/scientists and a track-record of groundbreaking research, when we have thousands (tens of thousands?) of articles on high schools that are far less notable on all counts, and I think it would be more reasonable to discuss the coverage of all those high schools before getting rid of any university departments, both the more obscure ones such as those at Brigham Young University, and those that are world-leading in its fields, such as this department and departments at the top universities in the US (such as those other universities that, like NTNU/this department, have been awarded Kavli Institutes: Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Caltech and Harvard). --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RFC at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It applies to all schools, and its reasoning applies here. Without significant coverage schools and their departments just are not notable. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, because those other topics either meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria or they don't. FYI, I only brought that other article up here because you accused me of nationality bias. I wanted to show you that I am impartial, and I am really just interested in this article meeting the criteria at WP:GNG. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Predictably, US-based editors are showing up in streams to keep the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences article on a fairly obscure and undistinguished US department of their country's #100 or so university (one of dozens of departments within that school with articles), while insisting that an article on a far more notable department in Norway with a large Nobel Prize-winning research group and national appointment as elite research environment must be deleted for inane reasons. If we ever needed any evidence of systemic bias against European (non-Anglophone) people or institutions, here it is. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two people is hardly a stream. I'm confident policy will win out in the end.4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Upon first seeing this I was wondering what was going on. As I read further, and looked at the article, it became clear there are notability issue. The Department of Psychology is one of seven in the Faculty of Social and Educational Sciences. The school has close to 60 departments and they are covered in the Norwegian University of Science and Technology article. I could not find secondary sourcing and see requests for any that might exist (if they can't be located on a search maybe they can be found in Norwegian sources) has been like carrying on a conversation with a brick wall. Notability is not inherited, so the merits of the Nobel prize winners do not transfer to the school. All of the above comments, defending the school and the article, could likely be found in primary sources except that does not satisfy sourcing criterion as primary sources do not advance notability. Lacking the above requested sourcing and unless shown as a Hey I have leaned towards delete. Otr500 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 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 Skillet discography per WP:BOLD. I have no idea why this AFD wasn't closed as such instead of being relisted twice, because it's clear that the consensus is to redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Older I Get (EP)[edit]

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

We may witness just 1 (one) review by Jesus Freak Hideout, a christian music blog the page about which was deleted four (4) times, at hand. The criteria presented in WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM are not met. -- Pr12402 (talk) 05:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skillet discography. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the band's discog. No charting and only one review. I would have said just redirect it next time and take to a discussion if someone objects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Older I Get (the title song from the EP). feminist (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 8 October 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)} 20:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Skillet discography per above, not enough content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luma Health[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Bad case of WP:REFBOMBING but none of the sources meet WP:ORGCRIT except maybe one from the Business Journals. Everything else is about funding, brief mentions, or general announcements. CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not sure whether the funding pieces do not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Perhaps you meant that it's a single event, thus it is not significant? I see there are multiple reliable secondary sources from May 2018, May 2019, August 2019, September 2019. So the references do not revolve around a single event. Moreover, the pieces on The Wall Street Journal and VentureBeat were done by staff reporters, independent of the subject, and both articles provide significant coverage of the company. — Kstone999 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are general announcements about recent funding so the WSJ and VB articles would not be considered significant when it comes to company notability. I agree that the sources are reliable, but they don't provide anything in-depth that can establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand what you're saying, but I still stand with my earlier decision. Both articles don't just mention the funding rounds but go more in-depth about the platform, it's history, successes. Moreover, it looks like there are other non-funding-related sources available, like this one, which were not added to the article. Perhaps it could be tagged with {More citations needed} or {Sources exist}, but I leave it up to you. — Kstone999 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coolabahapple, I created the article and I believe the subject meets the notability guidelines. Do you think WSJ would make a post about a non-notable company's funding or announcements? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi KartikeyaS343, not sure why you have pinged me about this as i have only added this afd to some subject/project lists, i do not have knowledge of WSJ reporting policy, and have not looked at the article sources, anyway, where i am it is early morning (definitely not early evening/5.30pm:)) so need some zzzzzzzzzs... Coolabahapple (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad! I mistakenly pinged you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no probs:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article consists of frame contents only, i.e. is written surrounding the subject not about the subject. I'm sure there are millions of healthcare companies in the world, and web has become a common focus among them. What's unique or important about this company? flowing dreams (talk page) 08:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check the article now. There are in-depth coverages which I added in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 10:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill private company going about its business. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because there are in-depth coverages in independent sources within its industry which makes it pass WP:ORGIND. It is not a B2C company that it will have huge press mentions. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones pass WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking. Please, check [8], [9], [10] etc. and all of these discusses the services provided by the company. It has been cited in Journal of Medical Internet Research as well. Do you think the WSJ would cover a funding of non-notable business? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked do I think WSJ would cover funding of a non-notable business? Why yes, yes I most positively would! Also, it not only has to meet ORGCRIT, but references (for the purposes of establishing notability) must also meet CORPDEPTH and most importantly WP:ORGIND. Anyway, this article in HIT Consultant is based on an announcement and therefore fails WP:ORGIND, this Enterprise Talk reference also fails ORGIND as it is clearly written with large input by the company/client as a "use case" (and happens to be the only "use case" on the website...) but more importantly, does not provide any original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Finally, the MobiHealth News reference is also based on a company announcement and relies entirely on material/quotes from the company, also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Usual variety startup 'invest in us/buy us' spam. Sources are either primary or business-as-usual. Fails WP:NORG. WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please, check [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Do you think these are spam? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. This Business Insider article could be a good reference since analyst reports are regarded as meeting the criteria for establishing notability so long as the report provides in-depth information on the company and isn't a mere mention-in-passing. Seeing as the company is explicitly mentioned, I think this is a good reference. This VentureBeat reference fails WP:ORGIND as it is based on a company announcement. I've dealt with this previously, fails ORGIND. This Biz Journals reference fails ORGIND as it relies entirely on material provided by the company/client and is the usual spam/pr churnalism we see in business "journalism" and what tightening the guidelines in WP:NCORP was set to explicitly avoid for the purposes of establishing notability. Finally, this Business Insider reference is marked as PR and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. So there's potentially one good reference. We need two for a company to be notable. Any other research reports? HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind explanation. Do you think this WSJ article [16] adds anything to it? I believe WSJ wouldn't do churnalism. Please, let me know. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's largely based on a funding announcement, counts as "trivial coverage" (see WP:CORPDEPTH) and doesn't count towards establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ There's potentially one research report available which discusses the company but I am unable to access a copy. An article requires "multiple" references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the other references meet the criteria (most are the usual churnalism) and I am unable to locate any other references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP but I'm happy to revisit my !vote is another good reference turns up. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please have a look at these researches and reports: [17], [18], [19], [20] and specially these:[21], [22], and [23] ? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks KartikeyaS343, this research resport covers Luma in depth so that research report, along with this one mentioned earlier means we've met the requirements for establishing notability. Topic meets GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time to look at the sources. I have added another journal citation in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its got coverage in reputable independent sources like Healthcare IT News and the San Francisco Business Times.Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly Strong delete - When I did Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase searches for "Luma Health" on Google News and Google web search, the only articles I found were related to their venture capital funding raises, employee hires and departures, and signing of business deals with other companies—all of which amount to trite, trivial, and inconsequential matters. At the same time, the rest of the results were Yellow Pages-esque directory listings. There were only two articles from the BizJournals and San Francisco Business Times that may provide a substantive enough article to meet WP:NCORP and WP:SIG standards to establish WP:CORPDEPTH, but it's doubtful. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS. This subject passes WP:GNG independent sources exist so it passes WP:ORGIND. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, They have to be WP:SIG significant coverage - at least five of which provide significant, over-arching and exhaustive works on the company's history. They can't just mention the company in a tangential way or cover it from routine business, VC financing, and partnership perspectives. I still say it's a 'strong delete, though that's not to say someone is welcome to re-create it in the future and have it go through AfC process. We're drowning in WP:CORPSPAM and, to improve, Wikipedia's got to get smaller. -DM

Have you checked [24], [25], and [26]? These are not routine mentions or about fundings. I still didn't get the answer to if publisher like WSJ started making news about non-noatble businesses! KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343, Thanks. Ref #17 is a company-commissioned survey (trivial or trite coverage), #18 is a directory listing of select company executives as far as I see it, and #19 might qualify. I haven't checked the journal article, but if it's not about the company. it doesn't qualify. The company might be producing notable medicines, which could be notable, but that doesn't mean it is notable. Its researchers/employees would, however, be notable.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for checking. Could you please check if any of these: [27], [28], [29], [30] qualifies? These were the other sources I found using Google searches. Regards.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added news sources with a citation from the Journal of Medical Internet Research. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am intentionally re-listing this for a third time, a several new sources have been presented for discussion without an analysis of these sources having taken place.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Well, here's my two cents: a few of the sources are merely listings (e.g. Bloomberg), while others (WSJ, Business review/journal articles; medical journal) are both reliable and substantial. I'm leaning towards keeping because, overall, there is in fact significant coverage of the corporation and its services. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, Do they provide substantial coverage about the company, more than just tangential or passing mentions, and more than just capital raises, business partnerships, strategic alliances, asset sales or purchases, executive announcements, and the like—all of which are considered "trivial coverage"—such that we could write at least a C- or B-class article of sufficient WP:CORPDEPTH?Doug Mehus (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, The articles from WSJ and a few of the business magazines are behind paywalls, which in my mind actually means they are substantial. IF these media companies charge you, there must be something good behind the curtain, right? Bearian (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, LOL, that's disappointing Bloomberg has started charging for access to the articles. Many Bloomberg articles, though, tend to relate to corporate earnings announcements, merger speculation, asset sale rumours, and product announcements—none of which is substantial. I don't think my academic library subscribes to Wall Street Journal, so probably can't look it up. Have you tried using Sci-Hub or Academia.edu to look up the journal article?

Dmehus, *sigh* I can't, since I'm neither teaching nor enrolled in grad school full-time this semester. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we ignore some of the business listings and company profiles, there are sources that meet both WP:RS and WP:IS. As HighKing pointed out with the research reports. I'm subscribed to the SF bizjournals and can attest that there is enough focus on the subject to meet WP:SIGCOV. Centron X 11:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CentronX.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What I see was a non-notable run-of-the-mill company that is lacking in reliable sources according to acceptable standards. An editor added more to apparently bolster the notability and I see two references, dated the same day, that mention raising 6 million and 6.3 million and I wager these are referring to the same money. There are at least five references that mention raising 16 million. On just a scan I see seven out of sixteen references on two items and this jumps out as source bombing to show notability. Justification that it is not a B2C company, so not going to receive a lot of coverage, is a reason to consider notability and not an excuse to make exceptions. I make my determination on the lack of reliable independent sources and the rationale of User:Flowing dreams (what is unique that stands out from thousands of other start-ups?), User:K.e.coffman (fails WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH) but I also base my decision on a logical opinion. User:HighKing almost persuaded me, but by that count there are only two sources that advance notability. I am not, nor should other editors, digress to such a low number. I have seen where it has become a community accepted standard to find at least 3 reliable, independent sources. An added 15 sources that were checked still resulted in only two that was acceptable to advance notability. This tells me we should consider the independence of sources more than industry related sources. This is an acceptable number but when I see "The articles from WSJ and a few of the business magazines are behind paywalls, which in my mind actually means they are substantial.", I cringe. That is a horrible rationale that it is there, but we can't see it unless we pay, but it "must" be substantial. Corporate money should not dictate or water-down our policies and guidelines. At the very least the discussion shows me it is too soon, and comments by User:Dmehus (I did a search) are accurate. A headcount (not how things should go) show 8 to seven with my !vote so either a slim margin to keep or the rationale for delete is persuasive to bring a closure of no consensus or maybe even delete. It is close but I think two sources out of sixteen on the article, and many listed here that fail to establish notability, should be taken into account that notability is so far lacking. Otr500 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what I understood is that you are basically referring to the rationales I gave earlier but it has been re-listed after that. If you believe there are at least 2 sources that advance notability, then I can check again if I can find more sources. Can you please advise? Thank you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thank you for your diligence. I would welcome the occasion of not deleting articles, more so than can be imagined. If you find an additional source, that follows our sourcing guidelines towards notability, I would most certainly change my !vote and I am sure a WP:Hey would be considered. Note; Please bracket a user you are specifically addressing (KartikeyaS343). I am about to leave and just happen to check my email or would have missed this. Also, this has been opened awhile so if you are successful, and it should close, ping me for sure. We can then possibly check with other involved editor for an opinion on reopening. Here's wishing you luck, Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to your comment I am not, nor should other editors, digress to such a low number. Just so that you know and it has been discussed on other AfD pages, the guidelines state that there must be "multiple" references (that meet the criteria for establishing notability) and consensus on other AfD pages is that there must be at least two. You say consensus on other pages is three - can you point to this consensus somewhere? Having been involved in hundreds of AfD I have never seen 3 suggested anywhere. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's worthy of clarifying. I certainly argue what constitutes "multiple" qualifying sources to be at least 3, not 2 as that is far too low to establish notability, and ideally at least 5.Doug Mehus (talk) 19:43, 25 October 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 Redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 San Jose State Spartans basketball team[edit]

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

Page is redundant to '2019-20 San Jose State Spartans men's basketball team' and is unnecessary Gzagona (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carey (singer)[edit]

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

A7 declined. There is literally nothing out there on this guy. A search for the song title + Michael Carey yielded nothing. The only source in the article has been robots.txt'd, making it unclear how distinct the coverage was.His name is mentioned passingly in sources on Randy Bachman (or in the context of other people entirely such as this), but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. American Radio History, Google Books, etc. all yield nothing of note when searching for various keywords. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total lack of sourcing and no allegation of general notability aside, there's zero indication this person would pass WP:MUSICBIO with criteria such as charting, awards, or touring. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable musician, the only claim is that he released an album. It only has 1 (inaccessible) source and I cannot find more with a quick Web search. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search yielded nothing. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Huq[edit]

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

Recently created, unsourced article that fails to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR which requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Since the article's creation significant changes have been made but the only link in the article is to imdb, which shows only 1 ~~significant~~recurring role in Married to Medicine. Because the article has one source it is not eligible for BLP PROD. A normal prod tag was added but this was removed by the creator, who has not added any sources but who has added copyright violations and keeps removing maintenance templates. AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no refs. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed an error in the nomination. According to this edit by the article creator, the single role that the subject has had is only recurring. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR and there is no references. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source. I still think we should create a speedy deletion method to rid outselves of the clutter of articles unsourced to anything except IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.fails WP:RS, i didn't find any WP:BLP source. this article should be deleted-Nahal^(T) 11:27, 22 October 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 sole keep arguments have been refuted, to say nothing that sockpuppetry is not acceptable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yivsam Azgad[edit]

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

not meet wp:notability Saff V. (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support most(if not all) of the sources are primary sources. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines and academic notability guidelines. Also there are a lot unreliable sources like Wikipedia in Hebrew. That's not a reliable source.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reads like a CV, and combined with the image, looks highly suspect in terms of WP:COI. Number 5 7 20:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yivsam Azgad is a well-known art curator, science fiction author, eminent journalist and spokesperson of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. He already has a Wikipedia page in Hebrew, which is well supported with links to reliable references and meets the Wikipedia guidelines. The article in English has been created in consultation with the above-mentioned article in Hebrew and with the references provided within the same. However, this article needs to be amended with regard to the references attached, which can be fixed via editing. The grounds on which this article has been opened to discussion for deletion is unclear to me and it seems a bit biased and suspicious, given that Yivsam Azgad has given a lot of service to Arts, Science, and Journalism including many science-based socio-cultural initiatives which are recognized worldwide and thus deserves a Wikipedia page in English.Q936 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: I have edited the page, corrected the references and introduced sections. The article is objective with reliable links and references and as such meet Wikipedia's guidelines. - More references will be added soon. Q936 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: The page has been edited. It is no longer reads like a CV. Also, a new image has been uploaded.Q936 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: Please have a look at the Wikipedia pages: Nano Comics and Science on Tap.

Yivsam Azgad is the editor of Nano Comics (a comic series in English, Arabic, and Hebrew) and he is the one who initiated and responsible for the social-cultural Science on Tap.
Israeli author: He is also a well known Israeli author (see his list of publications).
Israeli curator (including science-art): Yivsam Azgad has also been exploring the concept of combining art and science: displaying contemporary Art exhibition in research spaces at the Weizmann Institute and exhibiting scientific images in art spaces in Tel Aviv and elsewhere (see: http://www.weizmann.ac.il/Arts/en/home).

Thanks, Q936 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q936, Thanks for your efforts, the main issue of the article is lack of notability, unfortunately, sources which were added by you are not enough to confirm his notability for instance, this one is self-published source. It is better to let to know other users' votes instead of calling me.Saff V. (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete - Yivsam Azgad NOTABILITY:

To confirm notability, here is a link from the Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University: ^[1] Thanks Q936 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote for no deletion There should be hardly a question of notability here because Yivsam Azgad, as mentioned by user Q936, is a well-known journalist, writer, and art curator. He is the brain behind Science on Tap, which has been a great success in Israel and highly recognized worldwide. He is the creator of Nano Comics which is published in English, Arabic and Hebrew and is highly popular amongst children. Besides that, sources referred to confirm his notability are well established, for example, the article in Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University which is bagged only by outstanding individuals in literature in Hebrew and journalism. 0587 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)— 8570w (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Q936 (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. There is no evidence of notability through independent coverage. The whole page is like a CV with primary sources appended for every single thing he's done. Plenty of writers and academics produce large bodies of work, but Wikipedia demands that notability be proved through non-primary sources speaking about the subject exclusively, or interviewing him, or discussing his accomplishments. The Hebrew Wikipedia article is no indicator of notability either, being as it is littered with primary sources affirming every single thing he's done, and produced by the same editor as here. Please read WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That is not the case here. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to meet notability and overly reliant on primary sources. --mikeu ^talk 20:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while at first glance the references look good, a deeper dive reveals a Hebrew Wikipedia article, random web pages for places and organizations tangentially related to the subject, and self-edited websites. There's no way to verify any of the information about the person. I have been to several World Cons, and won an award for most humorous costume at a regional SF con. He's unknown as a science fiction writer in North America. The page from OSU is a staff-written page; anybody who works in academia knows they're essentially self-published. If it were one of several sources, that would be fine, but as the only source, and in Hebrew, no. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did extensive searches. He got many hits in my university library, but in all of them he was merely acting as the mouthpiece of the Weizmann Institute of Science and none of the articles were about him. The Hebrew wikipedia article yields nothing better in terms of sourcing. Both are clearly self promotional. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Arany[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. WP:BEFORE doesn't bring up much. Perhaps somebody could step in have a look. scope_creep^Talk 18:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's relevant. This track on Youtube has alone over 2 Million clicks. His own channel has over 19 Million video views ( Social Blade link), for medieval music, that's enormous. Therefore he is quite famous in the medieval music scene. --A11w1ss3nd (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For social media it is subscribers that important and he has 30k, or just under. 30k is not a lot. The figure somebody needs to reach to be stand-alone notable is 250k subscribers. Nationalistic songs tend to get played much more by definition, and on top that there is not much else. scope_creep^Talk 23:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liriel Baenre[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Forgotten Realms characters. Not a very active user (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, as suggested above. BOZ (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters. (non-admin closure) ミラ P 02:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yharaskrik[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Forgotten Realms. I agree with the nominator. The article is exclusively sourced to a single novel, which is not remotely sufficient, and I can't find any other reliable sources. However, as a potentially useful search term I'd personally have been tempted to just boldly redirect this rather than nominate at AFD. Hug^syrup 12:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Forgotten Realms characters. A possible, altough not very likely, search term. Not a very active user (talk) 05:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge, as suggested above. BOZ (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Forgotten Realms characters#Y, since the character is so unnotable as to not even being mentioned in the list article. Delete would be fine as well. Utterly fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krant M. L. Verma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG , WP:NAUTHOR as well as WP:ANYBIO.

Of dubious credentials; see this RSN thread. ∯WBG^converse 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for want of reliable sources showing significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there is very little written about this man, and little indication that he is notable.Strandvue (talk) 00:26, 24 October 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. While consensus is to delete, this AfD is closed without prejudice against someone creating a redirect. The lack of consensus of a redirect target does not seem worth relisting when there is a clear delete consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Young Sinatra: Undeniable[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems to fail WP:NALBUM ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 07:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete per rationale of first deletion. Nothing appears to have changed. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how this works, but deletion will be detrimental to informing about full discography AB365 (talk) 2:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@AB365: That's just bad luck, I'm afraid – Wikipedia only keeps music-related articles based on whether they pass the criteria at WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. As you state yourself in your last edit summary on the article, you have struggled to find sources. The Datpiff hosting site only shows the album exists to download, without any indication that it's notable, Genius is user-submitted work, and the Sputnikmusic review is from a user, not a member of staff. So the only source which would count as reliable per WP:RS is the Hot New Hip Hop website, and even there it's only a couple of brief paragraphs introducing a download link. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge - Do not delete this useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect maybe, but you can't "keep" just on the basis that the search term might be useful. Can you show how this passes WP:NALBUM? Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am not adamant about keeping the article, hence the reason I said "Keep or merge". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer my question, but never mind... Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reply - I can not show that it passes WP:NALBUM. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources cited are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Logic or Logic discography as this could be a viable search term and it would make sense for any information on this mixtape to be housed at the article for the artist or the related discography list. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 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 08:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taraneh Mokaram[edit]

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

Subject does not seem to be notable. References only support the existence of songs / books, and not why they are noteworthy. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I wish I could help out more with my initial reasoning, but the article contradicts itself numerous times with the information provided. The first sentence mentions that they were born in 2008, while it is subsequently mentioned that they were born in 2006, and it was mentioned later that they released their first song book in 2009. Whether they were 1 or 3 years old, this series of 4 sentences is pretty wonky. The article uses "he", "she", "his", and "her" to describe the subject, and is listed as a 1980s birthed male poet in the Categories. But even with all of this aside, notability STILL was not established in the article, and only talked about the names of the songs / books that were published, and not whether they were important. So while the first part of this comment has no bearing over whether the article should be kept or not, the lack of general notability does. Utopes (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:36, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’ve linked this article to its equivalent on fa.wiki to which it wasn’t connected. The en.wiki version is obviously a very garbled translation with messed up hijri dates. The refs are the same for both versions. I’ll see what others I can find. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching under ‘ ترانه مکرم’ clearly shows sustained coverage by multiple independent sources in Farsi. She is a current artist so a lot of this is in social media or blogs and there’s also a lot of interviews. AFAIK the press in Iran do not cover popular music of this sort because they avoid straying unto areas that might become problematic, so I don’t see mainstream news coverage. Allowing for major differences in how things get written about in Iran, I conclude that she’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is maybe famous between some fans of pop music but being famous doesn't mean worthy of an article in Wikipedia aka notable. Musicema.com which is the source for many music articles in Iran is not at all a reliable website (You can "buy" articles and interviews for yourself!)Farhikht (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.@Mccapra: Could you please provide links to the references in Farsi. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes: Lyrics of her songs on a popular news site, brief report on her wedding, Her commenting on the release of an album by another artist, 2012, Her lyrics on Iranian poetry site, Bio in Topnaz magazine. I ignored any that were blogs or listings. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:SIGCOV. Other than the Topnaz profile, the sources by Mccapra do not appear substantial enough to meet the basic reference criteria at WP:N. There just aren't enough quality sources to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If she were British or American I’d definitely agree. However I don’t think sources for an Iranian popular artist are going to be what we’d look for in the case of a UK or US artist. 1. All sorts of sources are available in English because it’s a world language with a gigantic volume of sources of every sort. Farsi isn’t. Because it operates at a much smaller scale and has much smaller readerships we’re not going to find the same range material to work from. 2. Mainstream media in the west covers popular culture fairly well, meaning that RIS are generated. In Iran I think that’s much less the case, so the ‘quality’ sources about pop culture we can find in the English speaking world may just not exist in Iran. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 06:20, 26 October 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 Transformers: Generation 1. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Targetmaster[edit]

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

Non-notable toyline TTN (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Transformers: Generation 1 as part of Headmasters and Targetmasters branding. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Transformers: Generation 1 per AngusWOOF. ミラ P 17:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Transformers: Generation 1, branding seems to point there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Blind (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, article from same COI editor repeatedly trying to promote British filmmaker Paul Atherton HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PR lacking independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no independent reliable sources in the article, or that I can find with a quick search of the Web. Those it does have are for the backstory and nothing to do with the film. Does not satisfy WP:NFILM. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article doesn't seem to warrant notability but as is of interest should possibly be considered for inclusion under the Producer's Paul Atherton's article Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bank of China. I see the merge-then-delete argument, but if stuff is merged WP:CWW requires that the old history be kept for attribution issues as there is a large amount of editors. Thus merge-then-redirect as with normal merges, although WP:RFD can discuss the redirect if people are so inclined. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of China (Canada)[edit]

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

Per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. It could easily be consolidated into Bank of China as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bank of China. As written, right now it fails WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Piotrus FOARP (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per above and then delete this permastub as there are no indications it meets the threshold for notability in its own right. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, By "delete this permastub," does that mean you'd like to see the redirect suppressed? If so, I'd favour that as well. I don't think we need to keep adding redirects for the sake of adding redirects.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dmehus, while redirects are cheap and easy, I only see the point if the name of this topic is likely to be a common or likely search term. In my opinion it isn't. People will search for "Bank of China" so there's no point in a redirect. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, exactly! I'm of the same opinion. The only difference in the latter is the parenthetical qualifier, which people are unlikely to direct type into the address bar or search for. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Note to AfD Closer: Please note HighKing's and my rationale on deleting the existing page URL if this closes as merge. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:35, 23 October 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 Vancity. If anybody wants to merge material, they can. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vancity Community Investment Bank[edit]

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

Per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. Its edits have been few and far between over the years, often limited to trivial cleanup or adding tags. It could easily be consolidated into Vancity, which wholly owns this small Canadian bank, as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. At the same time, it's worth noting this article is a textbook example of WP:Puffery. Thus, if strip out the sections of this article that are highly indicative of wikipuffery, you're left with only a few sentences and a WP:Permastub. As well, what's left is highly outdated or inaccurate. It's sold or substantially wound down its entire credit card portfolio, and is a essentially an micro-cap Canadian bank subsidiary offering only non-profit organization deposit and lending services. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to AfD Closer If and when this AfD is closed and it results in delete, Citizens Bank of Canada redirect will need to be deleted in tandem with this to avoid double-redirects. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As written, fails WP:NORG. Sources are all primary and press releases. Ouch. Ping me if there are new sources/arguments presented so I can reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Vancity in lieu of deletion. Here is a source I found about the subject:
1. Jones, Ellis; Haenfler, Ross; Johnson, Brett (2017). The Better World Handbook: Small Changes That Make A Big Difference. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers. p. 62. ISBN 978-086571-575-2. Retrieved 2019-10-20.
  The book notes:
  Citizens Bank of Canada & Van City
  
  Created by Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (VanCity), the largest credit union in Canada, Citizens Bank provides socially responsible telephone and Internet banking. Before they invest your money in a business, they consider the company's record on human rights, military weapon and tobacco production, the environment and treatment of animals.
Vancity Community Investment Bank (VCIB) was formerly known as Citizens Bank of Canada.
Cunard (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of Piotrus so he may consider this source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am always fine with soft delete through merge and redirect. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the subject does not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which is why I do not support a standalone article. But I support a retaining the article's history under the redirect to give editors the option of merging material to the parent company and to allow editors to easily reuse some of the material (such as the introduction, the history, and the infobox) as the basis for a new article if new sources surface in the future.

Cunard (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: With respect, I do not think preservation of the editing history and prior contributions is a valid reason for keeping in place an unlikely or unhelpful redirect when Vancity is already the parent article. As for the infobox, those are sooo easy to add and can be done in all of 10 minutes (less depending on how fulsomely one fills it out). Wikipedia was never intended to provide attribution to its contributions and editors need to realize this. We're editors; we do not have bylines. Attribution and ownership of our edits is to Wikipedia. Moreover, administrators can undelete articles, with editing history, and send them to the Draft namespace should this non-notable bank become notable at some point in the future. Thus, the editing history is not lost; it's just hidden and only available to admins, until such time as there is merit to restore the article, as I understand it. --Doug Mehus (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. I so no evidence of significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources and thus does not pass WP:NCORP. The source presented here strikes me of questionable reliability and even if it is reliable it's definitely not significant coverage. However, Vancity is a legitimate redirect target but this current piece of non-notable oncorporate promotionalism should be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, Thanks, I agree completely. It fails WP:SIGCOV and I don't see how Vancity Community Investment Bank is a helpful redirect to Vancity since it's sooo much longer and Vancity is already the article URL of the larger entity.Doug Mehus (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Vancity per above. It's a possible search term so a REDIRECT is helpful for those using outside wiki search engines.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Vancity, even if there isn't much to actually merge to there, at least not with WP:RS. There seems to be more results for Citizens Bank of Canada, although nothing strikingly notable. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Throttlebots[edit]

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

Non-notable toy line TTN (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chevvin 17:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION/WP:NPRODUCT, and has a good article on Transfomers wikia https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Throttlebot anyway, we are doing a disservice splitting readers attention between two sites.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:49, 18 October 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) 17:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Friday Night SmackDown ratings[edit]

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

No reason to have its own page. We never have ratings listed for weekly wrestling shows Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete complete statscruft. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I find these things interesting personally, I don't think it's encyclopedic.LM2000 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 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 08:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Mercer (actor)[edit]

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

First off, it is very difficult to find reliable sources for this subject, since looking up "Matt Mercer" on Google generates results on the far more notable Critical Role star Matthew Mercer, who is also known for his notable roles in anime and video games.

And when sources *were* found, they are just brief mentions of the subject, and barely any of them have significant depth. There is barely any coverage from credible news sources. So I'm convinced that the subject fails WP:SIGCOV.

Furthermore, the subject is largely involved with indie films or really, really low budget productions, many of which have barely any notability nor coverage to speak of, so I am not convinced that the subject meets WP:ENT, either.

On top of that, I also think this subject also does not meet WP:WHYN. Quoting the guideline: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. From the same guideline: Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria. I'm not convinced that you could write very much for this subject due to the lack of sources.

PS: If you look into the subject's article history, you could see that the draft was declined several times, and that it is has never been approved by anyone. This means the reviewers never thought the subject meets our notability criteria to begin with. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as he does have some leading roles in films that might be independent but do have multiple critics reviews at Rotten Tomatoes which means they are notable. His roles can be confirmed in those reviews, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But do those reviews talk about the subject, or the films themselves? From what I could see, it seems to be the latter with trivial to no mention of the subject; hence failing WP:SIGCOV. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 00:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is only one keep vote which is weak keep, so an extra week should be given to allow extra time for discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 17:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not an easy subject to judge, but looking at the provided sources, two of them are 404 and the rest consist of mere mentions that fail WP:SIGCOV or interviews that also fail WP:RS and WP:IS. Movies where the subject stars in are low-budget productions and for the most part, barely pass WP:GNG on their own. Perhaps if more reliable sources were added to the article my opinion would change. — Centron X 11:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability; i.e. he's not famous and has not done anything particularly notable.Strandvue (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking at the article's sources, no WP:SIGCOV (sources are passing mentions, interviews) so doesn't pass WP:GNG. However WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films". The subject has had a role in various films we have articles on. Of those, Beyond the Gates (film) and The Toybox look notable, in comparison with the others that do not. Any film we have an article on must by definition be notable, no? Are these two films notable enough, and did he play a leading role? -Lopifalko (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think The Toybox is a particularly notable film; plus, there is no in depth coverage of the subject for that production. Failing WP:SIGCOV means that the subject is not notable enough to have their own article. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on lack of WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:BASIC, including in The New York Times as highlighted by others, and the lack of notability of the B movie horror films required to satisfy WP:NACTOR. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His performances in films have been reviewed two times in The New York Times (see here and here). If he's in leading roles in films being reviewed by major film critics he meets that criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Jason and the Golden Fleece isn't a film; it's a play. [1] Quoting the NY Times article: JASON AND THE GOLDEN FLEECE, a play by Arthur Perlman, based on Greek myth, presented by Theaterworks/USA at the Auditorium at the Equitable Tower, 787 Seventh Avenue, at 51st Street, Manhattan. Also, that NY Times article you linked only has a mere passing mention of the subject; that's not significant, in depth coverage. It talks more about the play itself than the subject. We also don't have an article of the play in question, so it's definitely not a notable theatre production.

So no, I would disagree on the claim that the subject meets WP:NACTOR. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:47, 25 October 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) 17:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sphere of annihilation[edit]

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

Just another D&D item violating WP:GAMECRUFT. Tagged for as in-universe for 21 months. ミラ P 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable, gamecruft item that fails GNG._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Definitely not "essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry." Tangurena (talk) 01:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let this article be fed into its subject. Rockphed (talk) 16:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 13:53, 23 October 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) 17:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ender's Game series planets[edit]

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

Just another list of planets sourced only to the books. ミラ P 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources in the article, making it entirely original research and fiction cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing is lost as this already is safe and sound at https://enderverse.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_Enderverse_planets --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The topic is not covered by any independent, reliable sources, making this article original research in its entirety. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic better suited to fandom. TTN (talk) 13:52, 23 October 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. Based on the discussion so far, it seems like none of the sources provided here actually satisfy WP:SIGCOV as they are either unreliable or connected to the subject. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence de Valmy[edit]

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

Not finding anything in this article or elsewhere that would enable it to pass WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see some RS coverage, but the article is pretty clearly an autobiography. That's my initial impression.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable". So the second one would not count as an RS. Edwardx (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edwardx thank you for reminding me about the unreliability of Forbes. There is still coverage out there, although it might be WP:TOOSOON. See for example this, this, this interview and this. Those are something, ~~but I am pretty Neutral on this at this point~~.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is an emerging artist who has had some attention with a series of works based on imagined conversations on Instagram. The article was (prior to attempts to clean it up, wildly misleading. Claiming coverage in publications that never published about her (Merkur, for example) and solo exhibitions that were clearly not. The remaining sources are mostly blogs, interviews or "contributor" pieces without editorial oversight. I see nothing that meets WP:NARTIST and no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Perhaps once the artist has a career and a body of work that has received significant critical attention we can reconsider having an article about her. Vexations (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As pointed out by ThatMontrealIP the article is based on some reliable sources. I checked the profile of the Forbes Contributor and she writes very frequently about the art market https://www.forbes.com/sites/natashagural/#727d07bf581b. This article is also a reliable source this, and I would add her interview on http://artdistrict-radio.com/podcasts/art-interview-rencontre-laurence-de-valmy-artiste-et-instagrameuse-886 Pauljrmillers (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2019 (UTC)User:Pauljrmillers[reply]
Pauljrmillers, Interviews are primary sources and do not establish notability. Vexations (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ok I understand. I would point out this sources this, and the article in Bunte magazine (published on June 14, 2018)Pauljrmillers (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pauljrmillers, that's a fair point and wsimag has been used in a substantial number of articles. See [31] It's a strange publication. It has nothing to do with Wall Street or the Wall Street Journal. It's published in Montenegro. The problem with Wall Street International is its business model: It's free and it features no advertising. They can do that because they get paid to promote their subjects. Vexations (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations Interesting about the WSI thanks. How do you know the contributors get paid ? BTW I checked and the coverage by Merkur is legit thanks for raising the question. it's not online because it was a print version of June 7, 2018. It's on the artist website and the journalist is working at Merkur see an article here https://www.merkur.de/kultur/muenchen-zeigen-sie-uns-ihre-love-fotos-10913795.html. Is this article considered a secondary source ? http://lostinsf.com/en/art-market-san-francisco-is-back-to-fort-mason-grab-your-invitation-and-plan-your-visit
The artist is showing during art basel miami. she might have additional coverage by then and it will be time to reconsider.Pauljrmillers (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pauljrmillers, I don't know if the contributors get paid. The owner and CEO does, I suppose. WSI is not a charity but a vanity press. They have no discernible source of income. Ruben Vergara Meersohn, writes on his own website Most of my time is dedicated to Wall Street International, a cultural Magazine written in six languages for which I'm the CEO and Founder. I enjoy running this Magazine as we touch several fields of interest while involving more than a thousand contributors. We banned constant negativity and chronicle news, bringing the pleasure of reading to the internet.

The problem with Merkur was that it linked to an article about a very serious publication, not the local newspaper, which is part of OVB, which still has the article available online.

Do I think lostinsf.com is a good source? No. They say about themselves: Written by two French women who have made San Francisco their home, Lost in SF contains useful local addresses and thoughtful commentary in French and English on all aspects of Bay Area life as well as a distinctive San Francisco Rolodex of boutiques, restaurants, services and cafés. It's a blog. Vexations (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

about Merkur, the article was published on that newspaper https://www.merkur.de/ only in the print version which was about the exhibition Bunte Art. the article online is another one, thanks for pointing it out. I contribute my time and money to wikipedia because I think it's valuable but I have a question since I'm relatively new. Why was the page approved and then there is this debate? I've seen pages about people with less press coverage so I'm not too clear about how this works. One argument that I will point out since the guidelines to be considered WP:NARTIST is the point 2: she created a new concept, the painted instagram of the past mixing painting and art history research. I tour the artworld and it was never done before.Pauljrmillers (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Most of what you say is included in arguments to avoid. Donating to Wikipedia does not matter, nor does the fact that page was approved and is now under deletion review. As to WP:ARTIST #2, she hasn't really created anything that new. Richard Prince has been reprinting Instagram pages, which is the underlying concept, for years. The key to notability arguments is finding independent reliable sources. If you have more of those, add them to the article. Also if she was in a museum collection that would be of great value. Independently published critical reviews are the most important thing! ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pauljrmillers, Why was the page approved and then there is this debate? The article was submitted at Articles for Creation and accepted by User:JL 09 on 4 November 2018‎. I can't speak for them, but the central question at Articles for Creation is something like "Does this article meet our criteria for inclusion?". Editor's opinions, as you may have noticed, can vary a great deal, but in the end, a closer will try to find consensus in this discussion and make sure it is based on policy. Vexations (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There are many sources in the article but they are by and large interviews, primary sources or low-grade publications of the type that can be gotten by sending out press releases. If there were one or two sources from more notable publications I would be convinced. It is close, but I am not convinced yet. The promotional aspect of the sources, and absence of true independent critical commentary, is less than desirable.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks for the additional information I understand better how it works. I would point out that Richard Prince copied instagram posts already existing. She imagines something that never existed since it's in the past but ok. I do not know if she's in a Museum collection yet. She's in private collections of some notable collectors but that's all I know. I would point out that Bunte and Merkur are notable publications. France Amerique as well even if it's an interview.
I would still recommend to give it a bit more time instead of deleting and then publishing again when she has additional press since she's on a growing trend but I dont know who gets to decide.Pauljrmillers (talk) 22:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pauljrmillers: we are deciding via this discussion. If the result is clearly well-argued keep votes, it will be kept, and vice-versa. I agree she is on the verge, we sometimes call this WP:TOOSOON. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks !Pauljrmillers (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I checked her press page here, and looked at dozens of sources. Lots and lots of short announcements and interviews, but there are none that are independent WP:SIGCOV, which is what we need. Many of the items mentioned look impressive, but when you check the actual source it is just a few sentences. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pauljrmillers, OK, the thing issue with Merkur is this. In earlier versions of the article, it said "Her work has been featured in Forbes, Bunte Magazine, France Amerique, Merkur , ..." That's a big claim, because Merkur the magazine is a very serious magazine. So when I read, in the lead, that an artist has been featured in such a publication, I understand that to mean that there is a feature story about the artist. But it turns out that the publication where the article appeared was Münchner Merkur, a local newspaper, and the article, referenced on the artists' website as Katja Kraft, "Sind Sie Kunst oder konnen Sie weg?", Merkur Munchen (June 7, 18), available as https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/714d89_5839a5d4e397499ea45583cc4b001baa.pdf, but still available online as https://www.ovb-online.de/weltspiegel/kultur-tv/sind-kunst-oder-koennen-weg-9953553.html does not mention Laurence de Valmy at all. I don't know if such counterfactuals are intentional or innocent mistakes, but there are many such errors. Group exhibitions were listed as solo exhibitions for example. These make the subject look far more notable than she is, and I am concerned that this article may be an effort to promote her work by misrepresenting her accomplishments. Vexations (talk) 23:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is excellent research. I'd say that I am concerned that this article may be an effort to promote her work by misrepresenting her accomplishments. sums up the problem when I look at her press page, as the treatment of minor coverage as serious coverage makes me skeptical of overall notability. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok I understand about merkur, I did not know the difference between Merkur and Merkur Munchen. I do not know what you mean about the solo shows that were group shows but never mind.

it is maybe too soon but i've seen pages with much less so I was genuine when I created the page, being in the art world and trying to identify artists who are promising. Once again, I would vote for Keep to avoid deleting and then having to repost when possible. the stakes do not seem big to me but I might be wrong. thanks for your inputs.Pauljrmillers (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pauljrmillers, in this version of the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurence_de_Valmy&oldid=921669106 it lists four solo exhibitions. Two of them, at the Museum of Urban and Contemporary Art, Munich and the Barnes Foundation are absolutely not solo exhibitions. The artist, somewhat deceptively, list her exhibitions under two headings: SOLO & MUSEUM SHOWS and GROUP SHOWS & ART FAIRS. But the shows she lists under SOLO & MUSEUM SHOWS are not solo exhibits at museums, they are solo shows OR group shows at museums. For us to list those as solo exhibits is an error. One of those exhibits listed was at a restaurant. But to a casual reader, it looks as if she's had 4 pretty major exhibits, which isn't remotely true. Vexations (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok I see. Pauljrmillers (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what about this mention ? https://frenchmorning.com/peintures-instagram-de-laurence-de-valmy-a-san-francisco/ it's not an interview. maybe not enough but wanted to check with youPauljrmillers (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not worth anything as it is an event announcement. See WP:SIGCOV: " Even a large number of news reports that provide no critical analysis of the event is not considered significant coverage." ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:10, 23 October 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) 17:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

O. E. Price[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:JUDGE being at most a state court of appeal judge. Page created by serial copyright violater. Refs 1 and 10 are uncited notes; 2 and 3 paid/not-indep obituaries, 4 is routine, 9 is broken, 5 makes no mention, 9 lists too many people at once, and 7 and 8 are WP:BIO1E involving a criminal conviction against him that was dismissed in the end, so GNG is not really satisfied. ミラ P 16:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:JUDGE as Price was a district appellate judge. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a very long line of articles on non-notable Lousiana government officials.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JUDGE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:49, 20 October 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. Lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Washbrook[edit]

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

The person's only major role is in one TV show, and the sources are either filmographies, related to the show, or in one case, his brother. A case for a redirect could be made, but this was made by a serial copyright violater, so it would make for deletion of the revision history. ミラ P 16:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. ミラ P 16:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. He only has a significant role in one show, and a handful of minor appearances in other ones. He hasn't made any standout contributions to entertainment, and, unless you count Billy's socks, doesn't have a cult following of any kind, thus failing WP:NACTOR.💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 13:29, 21 October 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 ; speedy delete as copyright infringement. ... discospinster _talk 15:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haruna Maamah[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of reliable, independent secondary sources with significant coverage to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yew Kam Keong[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Notability tag has been present since August 2013 and never been removed. Some minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this in-depth article on him in Malaysia's The Star newspaper. In addition, 31 search results at Google scholar. And when you read the article, it is apparent he is a man of accomplishment. For example, he is officially acknowledged as Distinguished Talent on Creativity & Innovation by the Australian government in 2007.[32] Knox490 (talk) 02:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. scope_creep^Talk 12:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was the minor coverage I mentioned. The Google scholar citation counts are too low to be meaningful. I have not seen an h-index but suspect it will be very low as well and won't establish notability scope_creep^Talk 11:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a "distinguished talent visa" is not an accomplishment or an award, it is a class of visa the government offers. I can't see how it can establish notability, even if were able to be verified, which it currently is not. Melcous (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there is one seemingly WP:RS (noted above) but nearly ever other link in the references of current article is dead, won't open for me, does not mention him, or mentions him in passing. Most of the content is not verifiable. It seems like a puff piece and notability is not clear. There might be a claim to notability based on book authorship See World Cat, although these may be self or vanity published? and don't appear to meet the criteria at WP:NAUTHOR. Melcous (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment also noting that this was a paid article created on behalf of the subject, which I overlooked as it wasn't disclosed anywhere on this article's talk page or in edit summaries. Melcous (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that @Melcous: Your a gem. scope_creep^Talk 00:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The section on Yew Kam Keong#Books in the article on Yew Kam Keong seems to contain texts that are self-published (feel free to strike this if I am wrong about it though). Additionally, none of the sources in the Yew Kam Keong#References besides The Star [33] meet WP:RELIABILITY. The article in the Sarawak Tribune that is cited is dead [34] and others such as Mindbloom are not notable. [35] Bmbaker88 (talk) 02:35, 19 October 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) 17:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Vyasmaan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO; no significant coverage of the subject. Ran a hate-site, that was blocked by DoT and the site (as a result) got some coverage, most of which consists of trivial one-liners. ∯WBG^converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is not contextualized enough to go beyond news level coverage and there is no show of true notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are just trivial mentions about the subject in News reports which are not enough to pass WP:GNG. And this more looks like promoted article. Thus, it must be deleted. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:13, 22 October 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) 12:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dione (ice cream)[edit]

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

non notable ice cream. Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You beat me to it, Theroadislong. I was about to make the same nomination. The references are either to routine coverage or to the company's news releases. The only claims to notability are:

that one of the brand's flavours won a 'GrandGold award' at the international Monde Selection awards. However companies submit their products for evaluation (at a cost of €1,200) and 412 such awards were given in 2019 so they're not exactly exclusive.
in 2013 they won a 'best new brand' award at Gulfood Awards 2013.

I don't think these awards are significant enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. This seems to me to be pure promo. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why was the article - at this stage, after being declined by AFC with no changes since, moved into mainspace. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
pinging @Kavear: ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In their edit summary they wrote it was to 'avoid draft', i.e. to bypass the AfC process. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP. No reliable sources can be found. Created by WP:SPA and is essentially promotional in violation of WP:PROMO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be a WP:NCORP failure due to a lack of in-depth, independent coverage surrounding the topic. SamHolt6 (talk) 22:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Career-oriented social networking site[edit]

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

Inconsequential personal essay. Rathfelder (talk) 09:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO and WP:DICDEF. Also a WP:GNG fail. FOARP (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Beck (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Stuff is about the company he co-founded, Bluemercury, with only passing mentions of him. Anything of significance could be added to the Bluemercury article. Edwardx (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; this appears to differ from the version I submitted through AfC, although some of it might have been borrowed. Beck is notable, and redirecting to Bluemercury would be a bad idea given he's no longer at the company. Here are some sources that should attest to his notability claim: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], among others. JaneStrauss (talk) 00:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every one of the 6 additional refereneces just listed talks about him primarily in the context of the company. DGG ( talk ) 08:32, 21 October 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) 12:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dacia Unirea Brăila team results[edit]

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

A long list of team results for an at the time second, now third division club. Match results for matches with often only a few hundred visitors, lacks notability. Fram (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete International teams have lists of results not clubs. If editors managed to add every single DUB result then the article would be an unholy mess.--Dougal18 (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yeah this is probably a page that isn't really needed as it seems to feel Wikish and almost WP:FANCRUFT if you know what I mean here. HawkAussie (talk) 08:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as NOTSTATS and no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Really useless. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:07, 19 October 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 Maia (Middle-earth). Redirecting to Maia (Middle-earth) since no better target seems to be around. Tone 07:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eönwë[edit]

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

This article currently fails to establish notability. The topic does not seem to be mentioned in any capacity outside of in-universe lore anywhere. TTN (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 10:44, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NEXIST what matters is not the state of referencing in the article at the moment but whether it is possible to sustain notability at all. Tolkien's legendarium is quite possibly the most over-analysed literary work of the 20th century so it comes as no surprise to see some referencing for even this minor character - see the following: 1 2 3 4. As an alternative, if this referencing is thought insufficient, I'd propose merging to Maia (Middle-earth), but I don't think this is necessary because the above referencing seems sufficient. FOARP (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, it's not mentioned outside of the in-universe context. Simply existing as a mention in a reliable source is not sufficient. TTN (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are analytical works, not in-universe works, and therefore these are "outside of an in-universe context". Particularly, one of these analyses the linguistic roots of the name Eönwë whilst another traces the emergence of the character in Tolkien's work. Admittedly a couple of these require an academic log-in to access, but you can get an idea of their content from the Google snippet. FOARP (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the text of a book is simply summarizing a character's role within the fictional world for context, then that is simply in-universe detail on the character. I'm not sure what you're seeing that I'm not, but all of those sources just show trivial mentions. TTN (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concentrating specifically on Ref. 1 ("The Evolution of Tolkien's Mythology: A Study of the History of Middle-earth"), this describes Christopher Tolkien's editorial role in highlighting the characters battle skills, and the evolution of the way in which the character is described in different versions of Tolkien's text. This is clearly not an "in universe" reference, but instead literary analysis of how the character was written. The same kind of thing is seen in the other three references. Something similar is also described in "Arda Reconstructed: The Creation of the Published Silmarillion". "Historical Bias in the Making of The Silmarillion" from the Mythlore journal also covers similar ground (see p. 164). TL;DR - pretty much every character in Tolkien's legendarium has been the subject of painstaking literary analysis in reliable sources as to their linguistic origin, literary tropes, and the editorial/drafting process by which they were arrived at, and so nearly all of them are notable. FOARP (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're commentary on the works/overarching fictional race using the context of trivial mentions of the character to reinforce that. None of these are meaningful commentary on the character. I agree that the ratio of notable to non-notable minutiae for Middle Earth is going to be much higher than most any other franchise, but this is a major stretch. TTN (talk) 15:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That these characters are a relatively small component of Tolkien's legendarium is not proof that they are not notable per se. Tolkien's work emerged over a period of decades and the characters within it underwent large-scale revision, including the subject of this article. Specifically the references describe Tolkien's Eönwë character morphing from being a member of one group to being a member of another, from being a character of importance to being (especially under the later edits of Christopher Tolkien) of less importance. Of course intelligent people can differ on such things, which is why I suggested merging as an alternative, but in my view the balance falls in favour of keeping since the coverage extends beyond trivial mentions. Let's see what others say. FOARP (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're definitely putting too much weight on some of the most trivial notes possible, but I guess we'll agree to disagree. TTN (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. Not seeing a anything but mentions in passing. Leave soft redirect if delete, Tolkien trivia is still more searchable than most, even for scholars of literature. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, although, to be honest not sure what the best target is. This is painful, having read the LoTR trilogy over 20 times, and the Silmarillion almost as many, I love trivia like this. But WP is not a fan magazine. I don't think redirecting to Maia (Middle-earth) is a good option, since I'm not sure that target is itself notable. There are quite a few books about Tolkien and his work, but most are focused in-universe. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:05, 24 October 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 Bea Miller. Tone 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Song Like You[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, no charting information and no standalone coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Likewise, I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the notability guidelines as well:

Some obscure EPs and an album, for which I could not find any coverage in reliable secondary sources either. She did give a few interviews promoting them, but those don't count towards notability as they are a primary promotional push rather than actual album review/coverage:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? They all have secondary sources (except "Feels Like Home", which I created before the song's release expecting it to receive coverage however it failed to do so.) Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Bea Miller, no individual notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eluta.ca[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company, lacks significant in-depth source from WP:RS, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 09:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly speedy delete, another in long line of non-notable businesses, whether brick-and-mortar or Internet-based. Wikipedia is not a directory. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Fails WP:GNG and article's tone is promotional as it was written like an advertisement WP:Advertising --Wakowako (talk) 09:16, 20 October 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. Delete votes seem pretty clear that despite significant searching, no sources could be found to support GNG. The fact that he passes nfooty is not relevant if GNG cannot be substantiated. Fenix down (talk) 06:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Khalvan[edit]

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

Despite playing limited game-time in the UAE Pro-League, the search for his name in the articles doesn't seem to be in any of the articles that I've searched which might make a case for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Soccerway confirms at least 13 appearances in the fully-pro UAE Pro-League (meaning he meets WP:NFOOTBALL) - plus 9 cup games - and I refuse to believe, given his youth and ongoing career, that there are no sources out there. There are 3.25million results on Google for "سالم خلفان" (his Arabic name, apparently) - has nominator complied with WP:BEFORE and searched? GiantSnowman 15:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Yes I did do a WP:BEFORE and those results for that particular football player didn't show up as it had either the first or the last part of the name but not together that isn't a passing mention of him. HawkAussie (talk) 23:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey GS, remember when you recently nominated an article for deletion and it was kept because other !voters found GNG sources? Nobody asked, "Has nominator complied with WP:BEFORE?". Maybe you could extend the same WP:AGF to others? – Levivich 18:20, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note his name is Khalfan not Khalvan as per this.The page needs to be moved.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am struggling to find coverage of this footballer in English- or Arabic-language sources. There are many Emiratis with Salem and/or Khalfan in their names, and even when I limit the search by adding football or Sharjah, I continuously get results about the referee (Ahmed Salem Khalfan) or in an Al Bayan article a line about a former Ahli Dubai player with the same name. The Sharjah footballer certainly exists and has made several appearances in the UAE Pro League (I can find Arabic and English language database entries), but I'm troubled that it's so difficult to find substantive coverage (adding Saif to the search typically yields nothing). Jogurney (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – "no sources, no article". I'm not seeing/finding any sources. – Levivich 20:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a article in Arabic Wikipedia here ,subject passes WP:NFOOTY is 24 years old and has a ongoing career and as per WP:NEXIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, the Arabic Wikipedia article is sourced only to Soccerway and Scoresway. I don't understand how that would contribute to notability? – Levivich 02:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've tried to find Arabic-language sources other than the UAE Pro League's website (which just has a database entry), and completely failed. Perhaps there are offline sources, but until someone finds them, I don't think we should have an article. Jogurney (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L.R.B I[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page:

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

First and second cassette of a non-notable double album. Redirect to band L.R.B. is a possibility, although because it's eponymous I don't see the point. None of the cited sources are reliable, so there's no reliably sourced information to merge.

The deepest coverage found by searches of the usual types is [42], just over 100 words. The remainder are brief mentions of existence such as [43]. The amount of reliable information available could easily be covered in the band article (which currently cites, for this 1992 release: a book about classical music in another country, published in 1977, with no page number given, and no hits when searching within the Google Books version; a malicious website; and two unreliable sources). Fail WP:NALBUMS. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 04:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searches for sources yielded nothing of value. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NALBUM. I too see no value is a redirect.4meter4 (talk) 18:30, 23 October 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. Tone 07:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonso Bassey[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is only known for participating in The Voice Nigeria, a single event. Keep in mind that he did not even win the competition. He has released only two songs since he started his music career and none of them have been discussed in significant detail. Per the article, he has been making music since 2015. An artist who has been making music for 4 years with no album and only two singles to his name cannot be notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: EDIT: Changing my recommendation per HandsomeBoy comment. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: per The Headies nomination for a major category. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Battleground is a notable television series by Wikipedia standards, article says he was a major castmember(WP:ACTOR). Voice Nigeria is a notable music competition, article says he was a top 8 participant. Headies is a notable music award, which he had a best vocal performance nomination([[WP:MUSICIAN). You can argue that all these are not strong claims of notability, but no one will deny that they are at least credible claims of notability. Summing it up, to a Weak Keep. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my recommendation to Weak keep per this. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per HandsomeBoy.4meter4 (talk) 18:28, 23 October 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. Tone 20:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana Badanina[edit]

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

Likely fails WP:NBIO. A resume like article with some claims that are hard to verify; same creator at for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vladimir Nasedkin (2nd nomination), where an editor (User:Netherzone) already noted a failure to verify some assertions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I hope you don't mind me saying this Piotrus, I think you're being overly trigger-happy in nominating stuff for AFD. This artist was profiled in a long article on Isvestia (a Russian WP:NEWSORG, was covered in Taday (another newsorg), and on UGRA-NEWS (another newsorg). Passes WP:BASIC.FOARP (talk) 07:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @FOARP: I certainly don't mind anyone who makes a valid argument, and if you show me I was wrong, I am happy to withdraw my nom or reconsider my vote. I don't read Russian, which limits my searchers, but using machine translation I can review sources presnted. [44] calls them both world-famous, but other than that it's a WP:INTERVIEW. [45] devotes a single paragraph to each (as well as to a number of other artists who took part in this event). [46] sadly refuses to work for me with GTransalte, but it seems to be another interview. I don't think this is sufficient for me to withdraw this, as interviews and mentions in passing are IMHO not sufficient, but it is a start. Feel free to comment in the other linked AfD, particularly if you can help find more Russian language sources. What I'd love to find to convince me to keep them would be an in-depth article about their life and career, instead of just a brief note about one of their note in some exhibition or interviews (which per linked essay are problematic as a source). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the first ref states or would lead you reasonably to conclude that it's an interview - briefly quoting the artist does not make it so as it also includes a lot of description of the artist's work written by the author of the article. Regarding the second ref., a paragraph can still be WP:SIGCOV so long as includes detail and in this case, it does. Regarding the third, the introductory section is clearly not interview content and substantiates notability. WP:BASIC is met. Finally, I note this is one of ~30 articles that you have nom'd for deletion in the last ~24-48 hours. FOARP (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I also note from a very quick search on GScholar that the artist appears to have been the subject of a substantial piece in the Chiba University Humanities and Social Sciences Research Journal. FOARP (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have to agree this is a bit quick on the trigger and should be withdrawn. Assuming the museum collection claims are true, the bar of WP:ARTIST 4d is very clearly met with many museum collections. @Piotrus: it would be good to withdraw this as it needs cleanup, not deletion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right, but... is this really something that merits cleanup and not just WP:TNT? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly am right: the museum collections make her notable. If you want to do TNT, then cut the article down. Don't nominate it for AFD, as you know it is not meant a cleanup process. There is significant good material in the article that could be cleaned up in ten minutes.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Comment~~- ~~Two~~ several collections checked out to be verifiable. I don't have time this morning to check ~~the others, nor~~ the shows. It's problematic that the sourcing is so poor~~, as she might in fact be notable~~ as she is indeed notable. Nevertheless, the article is a resumé and there is a COI and needs significant improvement. Netherzone (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the COI? FOARP (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both she and her husband, who edits as Владимир Наседкин (which translates to exactly his name) have worked on the page, and the page creator (a SPA) is most likely COI as they created both she and her husbands articles in the same unsourced resumé style. However, I do think her article should be kept and improved rather than WP:TNTing it. Netherzone (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Perhaps a legitimate page could be written, but that one was clearly written as an advertisement and created by an account with obvious WP:COI. My very best wishes (talk) 04:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NARTIST, works held in several notable galleries/museums as brought out above. ps. any WP:COI issues can be resolved with relevant notications/tags/cleanup editing. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criteria #4 of WP:NARTIST. The article can be tagged as needed for any issues.4meter4 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Não Faça Isso Comigo[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG. When I originally came across this article, two of the three sources were outright fakes. While the article's sourcing has been improved since I originally placed a PROD tag, it still doesn't meet GNG:

Source #1 appears to be a press release: it is published without a real byline and includes a disclaimer at the bottom that the material was sent to them (which is not included in other articles published under the Redaçao byline)
Source #2 is an interview with the film's director and does not contain independent coverage of the subject.
Source 3 is a database entry
Source 4 is a database entry

I was not able to find more coverage online, searching in English and Portuguese. There is also reason to believe that this article was created as a promotional piece by an editor with a COI, see the related deletion discussion of another article created by the same editor. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rosguill's investigation. The article's creator has a username very similar to the 6.5-minute film's director/producer/writer/lead actor, and has been blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry. Also, one of the socks in the AfD for Douglas Ferregui used word "notoriety", much like the IP above me. Clearly promotional. -Crossroads- (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 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) 03:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Kritzman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page appears to have been created to promote the proprietary interests of Windham Capital Management (which Mr. Kritzman Founded). Mr. Kritzman, while an accomplished businessman has a page that does not meet the criteria for WP:NACADEMICS or WP:NAUTHOR Calebu2 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Authors

The concepts of Turbulence and Systemic Risk do not belong in a biography, are not evidence of notability and furthermore are entirely based on the prior Mahalanobis distance and PCA - their appearance here is as branded proprietary products^[2] of Windham Capital Management.

The journal publications listed are practitioner journals (rather than academic journals) on which Mr. Kritzman serves as an editor^[3]. With those self-referential pieces removed, the page fails to demonstrate sufficient independent evidence of notability.

And the book publications are insufficient for notability as WP:NAUTHOR.

As a benchmark for notability in this field, the following pioneers of risk management, while important to the field and each contributing significantly, do not yet rise to the level of notability for a broad encyclopedia:

Peter Zangari, creator of the RiskMetrics framework.

Barr Rosenberg and Walt McKibben, founders of Barra,Inc.

Andrew Ang, Professor at Columbia_University, BlackRock consultant and factor investing expert

Marcos Lopez De Prado, Professor at Cornell_University, Former AQR_Capital exec and leading expert in financial risk modeling.

The page appears to have been created from material directly from the About Our Founder page^[4] - the original listing by 200Boston contains a verbatim lift from this page.

Calebu2 (talk) 02:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC, though there's issues with that notability guideline - looking through the sources, they're all links to lists of people on boards and don't discuss him directly. Fails WP:GNG, agree with the promotional concerns. SportingFlyer T·C 02:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with SportingFlyer's analysis of the sources. The sources, though seemingly numerous, are all pretty trivial. Reyk _YO! 06:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not accept CVs as biographical articles.—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Calebu2: Prior to this, you've had a total of maybe 20 edits, the most recent being six years ago. I'm curious why you picked getting this article deleted as your first thing to do when coming back to wikipedia after such a long absence. Do you have some sort of relationship with the subject? I closed the related DRV so I'm remaining neutral here, but I can't help but wondering about this. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Reasonable question and I hope I can give some clarity on my background, my knowledge of risk management and familiarity with Prof Kritzman and his research. I work in risk management and was doing research on risk measures, including the turbulence index when I found the page. Based on what I knew of Prof Kritzman and the techniques mentioned, I was surprised that they were presented in a biography, particularly (as I mentioned above) given other notable research/researchers that isn't highlighted in a broader encyclopedic setting.

I have no relationship to Prof Kritzman, his firm or other similar institutions (or any of the other academics/practitioners mentioned above). I am cognizant of the work of all the authors I mention above, and have been at conferences where I have seen most of them present (including Prof Kritzman). In the early 2000s, I did work at MIT but outside the business school where Prof Kritzman teaches and did not know of him when we overlapped.

Prof Kritzman's ideas are presented well in the research, are easily accessible to both technical and non-technical audiences (they are simplifications of more rigorous risk management techniques practiced more widely) and are definitely presented in a way that promotes a business product rather than a pure scientific discovery (this is common of most practitioner-based research in finance). As a business endeavor, I think that's fine - no different from the frameworks that MSCI Barra and Moody's put out - but I'm wary of this as concept that needs promoting on an encyclopedia, and warier still of promoting the author as notable contributor in this space. I'm generally a passive participant in Wikipedia (Mainly because figuring the interface out confuses me) but jump in if I see something that doesn't make sense or seem fair (e.g. I flagged what I knew to be plagiarism on a bio of Larry_Mullen_Jr. based on what I knew from the U2 fan community). I also learned about the importance of notability from my own submissions and am more attuned to this when reading Wikipedia. Calebu2 (talk) 02:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Kritzman is not a professor but a (non-tenured) senior lecturer. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 09:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The opening line alone is promotional instead of being encyclopedic. While editing might fix some of the issues, there is just no sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly a business promotion text, unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. -The Gnome (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University
^ https://www.windhamcapital.com/press/press-release-boston-investment-firm-windham-capital-launches-new-approach-to-risk-that-addresses-turbulence-in-global-markets/
^ https://www.windhamcapital.com/meet-our-founder/
^ https://www.windhamcapital.com/meet-our-founder/

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 Puppigerus. RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pappigerus[edit]

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

One poor source. Couldn't find other sources WP:GNG Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 02:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do realize that the "notability" guideline does not apply to taxa, right? Wiki-girl, she's a Wiki-girl! (talk) 02:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:GNG is probably the wrong angle here (see WP:SPECIESOUTCOMES etc.), but it looks like the issue might rather be that there appears to be no other mention of this genus anywhere - which is pretty unusual even for fossil genera. Edward Drinker Cope being who he was, this genus might well not have survived long beyond the first publication, and thus not constitute a recognized taxon. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 03:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c - Re: Sun Creator) Actually, the notability guideline does apply to taxa, but the scientific report that coined the name is considered to represent sufficient reliable sourcing to satisfy that guideline. The problem here is that this appears to represent a persistent spelling error. See Puppigerus (Cope, 1870). The Pappigerus spelling does appear in several 19th century publications, including some attributing it to Cope, 1870, but I see no indication he confusingly named two genera Pappigerus and Puppigerus and editorial error/confusion is likely to blame for the Pappigerus spellings. So as a persistent/likely misspelling . . . .
Redirect to Puppigerus. Agricolae (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to highlight the confusion, an editor has just added a citation to the Pappigerus article, citing a Cope 1882 publication. However, though the reference in this articleis indexed/OCRed as Pappigerus by both JSTOR and Google Books, a look at the original text shows it to be Puppigerus. Agricolae (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. In light of this, I concede a redirect is objectively the best approach. Wiki-girl, she's a Wiki-girl! (talk) 04:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect seems the best way to go here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a misspelling. Plantdrew (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. --mikeu ^talk 19:36, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puppigerus, as a misspelling. Nice detective work on the OCR misspelling, Agricolae! --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 21:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puppigerus, OCR misspelling. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 06:15, 20 October 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 Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. There is a clear consensus that the article should not exist as is, and the next most supported option is the proposed merge and redirect. bd2412 T 00:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our London Lives[edit]

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

Non-notable film. Promotional article created and inflated by COI editor whose many edits focus on promoting London filmmaker Paul Atherton. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author of the article Amanda Paul declared her COI with the editor ReaderOfThePack whilst drafting the article and before the experienced editor published from the "Articles for Creation" process. The over-riding criteria for this being accepted by Reader was that it was taken into the permanent collection of the Museum of London as cited and on that basis is therefore notable. Itsallnewtome (talk) 20:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, feminist (talk) 02:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks independent coverage. If the museum thing was that significant you'd expect to see coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The film was taken into the Museum of London's collection through an exhibition entitled "Recording A Life" where it was screened, and did receive coverage in the media including on London Live News. Though press coverage in this instance would seem irrelevant to notability as it would simply be a measure of popularity as the notability would have been established by the institution. Itsallnewtome (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about your own film is not independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely if the show "Recording A Life" wasn't of news interest, Atherton wouldn't have been invited onto the News. Any Independent Third Party coverage of the event is going to focus on him, it's his Video Diary, It's his and his son's life. Video diary incorrectly in my opinion, redirects to Vlog on Wikipedia and should in fact redirect to Diary the absence of such a redirect would suggest that such an invention is, as yet, not widely recognised, which further complicates the issue of Notability as this would appear to be a first.Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. On its own, the work fails WP:SIGCOV as a search yielded nothing of significance. The fact that an individual work of art is in the collection of museum does not in itself indicate notability because there is no guideline on wikipedia that indicates this. However, having the information about this piece being in the museum collection in the article on the artist would help that article by showing he meets WP:NARTIST, so the content would be valuable on the article on Paul Atherton.4meter4 (talk) 17:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 4meter4 At Girth Summit's suggestion, I am attmepting to tidy up Paul Atherton's article and researching offline material. Coverage was previously found in respect to Our London Lives in Time Out Magazine & the Evening Standard but the online links are dead now, so hopefully going to retrieve the articles from the libraries of both. Would that be deemed sufficient press coverage? I also take your point about being insufficient details on Wikipedia about Museum Collections and Notability an interesting article on the subject back in 2010 "There is as yet no specific Notability guideline written for museum objects or artworks and I believe this to be one of the greatest issues hindering greater Museum-Wikipedia collaboration." makes the issue clear, though it surprised me that there have been no further developments on this issue for nine years?Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that these sources would help. It really depends on how significant the coverage in those articles is, and if the art work is the main subject of a review or not. If it's only tangentially mentioned as a part of a larger show or if it is mentioned in the context of a press release and not a review than it would not count towards WP:SIGCOV. One of the main issues with the article as it stands is it's use of primary source material (which is not good) and its use of highly inappropriate references like twitter. If you have questions about sourcing, please read WP:VERIFIABILITY.4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

4meter4 The nature of the event, means it wouldn't be reviewed it would be reported upon, The Showcase show (as mentioned above) was to acknowledge the collection of Atherotn's Video Diary into the Museum of London. It was covered with an interview with Atherton on the news, which is cited above. Duffbeer seems to thik that isn't Third Party coverage of the event which seems extremely odd to me. As you've rightly pointed out, notability of an individual can be established by having work collected into a Museum, but it doesn't then follow that that work is notable? As for the Twitter reference, why is communications from the institution of the Museum of London, either on Social Media or elsewhere not recognised as a valid reference within the context of the article? Especially when that reference links Atherton to the @LondonersLondon twitter account, which establishes the connection between him, the twitter account and the museum and places his diary in the exhibition and contextualises its import by using the image of Samuel Pepys diary? It would seem to be applicable according to WP:Twitter-EL Itsallnewtome (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsallnewtome: WP:NARTIST had broad consensus to use the inclusion of a work in a museum as confering notability on the artist, but it is not transferable to the artwork itself. I agree that wikipedia has a policy gap in this content area, and I personally would support an official guideline for the inclusion of artwork in museums. However, that is not the policy currently in use and, in the absence of a consensus based guideline, we must use WP:GNG as the standard which requires a certain level of sourcing. Unfortunately, announcements about a work are considered standard PR for the museum and do not contribute to WP:SIGCOV. The artwork being reviewed would count.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I think the problem with this, is the object can be interpreted as three things, a diary, a film or an artwork. As a film the Museum of London could then be seen as a Secondary Source in it's own right under the inclusionary rule "Some films that do not pass the above tests may still be notable, and should be evaluated on their own merits" WP:MOVIE. As this is the only Video-Diary in the Museum of London Collection which houses over a million objects, it thus makes it a unique proposition and therefore made notable by the academic acceptance of selection. Itsallnewtome (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsallnewtome:That's a stretch. Let's continue by putting that guideline in context with the next sentence "The article's ability to attest to a film's notability through verifiable sources is significant." In other words, there has to be some sort of significant tangible pieces (emphasis on plural/multiple) of evidence of the work's importance as dictated by other core policies like Wikipedia:Reliable source, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:GNG. If you really feel strongly about the Museum of London inclusion being seen as a Secondary Source, I suggest you start a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and see if others would support that interpretation. Who knows, you may find consensus to support you there.4meter4 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: Which appears oxymoronic to me. The statement opens with "Some films that do not pass the above tests" which includes the tests of WP:GNG, WP:Reliable. Are there are any excpetional films, that do not comply with the "above tests" and if so what were the conditions they passed on?Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Itsallnewtome: I don't know if I am the best person to answer that question. I am well versed in policy, but you are digging into an obscure area. I suggest you ask this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. The editors there will know the answer to that question. Hope that helps.4meter4 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton per User:4meter4. This is a direct indication that the article does not warrant stand-alone status so if this option is not deemed viable I will agree to Delete. Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments; I feel that I am "well versed" in policies and guidelines but that is sometimes subjected to bold changes and interpretations sometimes not actually vetted. I am among those that feel guidelines like NARTIST work with those such as GNG and not in opposition or exception to them. When it seems or is deemed there is a lack of policy or specific guideline coverage to me there does not become a "gap", or hole to be possibly exploited, but we fall back on the general notability guidelines or others that are relevant. I do agree that bringing up issues in this area at WikiProject Film a good idea. "The fact that an individual work of art is in the collection of museum does not in itself indicate notability" is true. A museum reporting or covering a piece of artwork or article on display, even if Tweeter was accepted, would be a primary source (Museum of London) that does not necessarily advance notability. A source on an object or item can be perfectly acceptable to support content without advancing notability on itself yet give credibility of the subject to which it belongs or is attributed to. Not to mention that creating articles is a worthy goal but we should not do so when it would be better served in a parent article that would expand and enhance it. There are literally millions of artifacts and items in museums around the world. Those that receive multiple reliable and independent sourcing is deserving a stand alone article. Also, Twitter is among those considered as an unreliable source as a social network and generally removed. Another factor is I seem to have run into more than one dead link (action for M.E.) which doesn't help advance notability. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: I've found myself embroiled in a lot of debates, when my focus was originally just on Atherton's article, but in tidying that up, it's triggered all the AFD's by HouseOfChange on his associated films which had been left alone for in some instances for over a decade. It appears to me that the articles are being penalised by having been unattended by wikipedia editors for years. As you make note here, all the links are dead and it was poorly put together to begin with. That said, I've already found offline sources on Atheron's article to back-up dead-links and exxpect to do the same on all these too. Did the news article I posted above warrant coverage for notability's sake by the way? I realise I don't think it's referenced in the article? Itsallnewtome (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Itsallnewtome (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Merge/Redirect to Paul Atherton. He seems to have a different film in the BFI archive (also pretty large), and this film is in the Museum of London's collection. I wouldn't call it being included amongst 5,000 hours of material -too- notable. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 18:01, 26 October 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 00:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Parkinson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Notability. Lavishly referenced, but references seem to be about his companies rather than himself. TheLongTone (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Peapod. He is not notable but the company he founded is. Sonstephen0 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did my research properly before writing this page. I discovered, the topic passes the notability guidelines as stated in WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I found significant featuring of the topic in most of the references used. A few of them that caught my attention include
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161201/NEWS07/161139970/itemmaster-a-peapod-spinoff-expanding
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140118/ISSUE01/301189980/peapod-launches-business-deliveries-opens-chicago-tech-lab-pickup-sites
https://privatelabelretailer.com/founders-stories-featuring-andrew-thomas-parkinson-peapod/
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/node/781896
https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2015/03/17/whats-your-customers-refrigerator/

The above and others are mostly organic. They are not sponsored. Yes, most of the references feature Thomas and Peapod which is a company he founded alongside his brother Andrew. He's featured in most of the references because he is at the center of it all. I believe, with the above, the topic meets the notability guidelines as I read from WP:BIO and WP:GNG Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 20:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:54, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant coverage is found in the sources used. This scales through WP:GNG et al Catorce2016 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most Sources show the topic is notable to great extent. WP:BIO is established hereMariah200 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References on page feature the guy in accordance with WP:GNG as already opined above Quarterto500 (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's a bit odd that all "keep" opinions are by editors with very few edits.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For same reason as sandstein above
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK, let's get this over with: the first two Chicago Business refs are basically only about the company Peapod with no apparent WP:SIGCOV of the the subject of the article. The last one is a profile of Andrew and Thomas Parkinson, that just barely gets over the line for WP:SIGCOV. The Private Label Retailer piece is a summary of a video of an interview and thus not sufficiently independent/not a secondary source. The Digital Commerce 360 piece is largely verbatim quotes from a speech given by Thomas Parkinson, and thus does not sustain notability for the same reason as the Private Label Retailer piece. Conclusion: only one piece of potential WP:SIGCOV cited, and that's not enough to sustain notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank u for the analysis. But a critical look at the references you mentioned reveals that significant coverage is fully established especially that of Chicago Business which is a well known reference source. Take a look at the following secondary sources again.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20161201/NEWS07/161139970/itemmaster-a-peapod-spinoff-expanding
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20140118/ISSUE01/301189980/peapod-launches-business-deliveries-opens-chicago-tech-lab-pickup-sites
https://privatelabelretailer.com/founders-stories-featuring-andrew-thomas-parkinson-peapod/
https://www.digitalcommerce360.com/2015/03/17/whats-your-customers-refrigerator/

There are other references as found in the article. The above are organic references earned. They were never sponsored. Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per FOARP's analysis of sources. A redirect to Peapod might be appropriate. Rockphed (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment*** same response as above. Significant coverage is established.Wat heeft Egbuel (talk) 04:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per FOARP. If there was just one more source where Thomas Parkinson was the main subject and not his company I would be inclined to vote keep. As it stands, it just barely does not meeting the threshold of the sourcing requirements at WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per FOARP's analysis of the sources and my scanning of all bar one of those FOARP listed. (I haven't checked but I read a comment recently that more than one source from the same publication does not count additionally toward notability.) -Lopifalko (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / Redirect to Peapod. All sources are focusing on the company itself, there doesn't seem to be anything about him on his own. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Scoma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable former minor league baseball player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails to meet WP:NBASEBALL. The usual reporting of transactions for minor league players does not show the GNG is met.Sandals1 (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandals1.4meter4 (talk) 17:04, 23 October 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. Presumed notable per WP:NHOCKEY. RL0919 (talk) 03:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yegor Omelyanenko[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player who fails to meet WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. AaronWikia (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. AaronWikia (talk) 00:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the article indicates, and the cited source confirms, he played four games in the KHL which clearly passes NHOCKEY.18abruce (talk) 11:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NHOCKEY by playing in KHL. -DJSasso (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I originally had WP:PRODed the article under the same assumption. But he did play in the Nadezhda Cup, which is his only 4 games of top-level experience. The question then becomes do we consider a post-season tournament for non-playoff teams top-level experience? They weren't regular season games, and weren't playoff games, so I personally would lean towards participation in a tournament like this is not notable enough (I don't know enough about it to know if teams treated it like an exhibition and played non-regular players, or something like that), but if the consensus is that this is top-level, then I won't argue. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Generally we consider tournament games as equivalent, as European leagues treat tournaments as equivalent to playoffs/regular season games as just being part of the season in a way that North American leagues do not since they typically don't happen over here. This particular tournament is literally the consolation bracket to the playoffs. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then my concerns have been addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 18abruce and Djsasso. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #1 by playing four games in the KHL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 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. Total keep. Withdrawn. Excellent work by AmericanAir88. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 23:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skiplagged[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 00:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A search on Google books shows books that explain the lawsuit and purpose of the website. A search onNews sites describe the method of the website and lawsuit. Google scholar shows plenty of reliable sources as well as does WP Refs. The article needs improvement, but it is notable for inclusion. Deletion is not cleanup AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Deletion is not cleanup. scope_creep^Talk 23:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a total miss. I will withdrawn it.scope_creep^Talk

@AmericanAir88: Thanks scope_creep^Talk 23:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris O. Jackson[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage. No secondary references. Nothing indepth that not been paid for. scope_creep^Talk 00:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of quoting the subject as a domain expert, virtually no actual coverage of the subject himself. There's also a lot of claims in the article that cannot be verified in the sources, raising OR and COI concerns. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is clearly a promotional piece of text, first uploaded by editor AdiyaanSK89, whose sole contribution has been a flurry of articles on persons and companies in the Indian financial-services sector, and then significantly fattened up by an IP who's only contributed to the contested article.

And the sources are entirely insufficient: A CNN article on "alternative investment" whose author asks around a half a dozen people, among whom is the subject; same thing in a U.S. News & World Report article; an alumnus portrait in the magazine of his California Lutheran University alma mater; a Los Angeles Business Journal fawining, sartorial portrait; and so on. I bet the article's subject will have better luck next time. -The Gnome (talk) 18:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 11:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hattons of London[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 00:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my WP:BEFORE mostly what I could find were brief mentions in coverage of the sale of specific coins, or equally brief mentions in the winning of minor prizes. Inclusion on this list and this profile piece in the same local paper was probably the closest in terms of WP:SIGCOV, but then there's WP:AUD to consider and even ignoring WP:AUD we still need coverage in different publications. Such is the popularity of numatism that I'm pretty sure they'll become sufficiently notable enough to warrant an article at some point in the future, but not now. Fails WP:CORP. FOARP (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice the company is doing TV adverts in the UK. I saw one last night. I thought it was the British mint advertising the coins, but it's them. They have been doing it for a good while, same format. By the end of this year they will probably be very well known, certainly in the UK. scope_creep^Talk 10:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:PROMO. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for sharing your feedback, I contributed to article amendments during August. Whilst there are references to regional media titles such as Stoke Sentinel, however I have included the Sunday Times article as a reference. Sources were not limited to regional media – alongside the Sunday Times, I counted Real Business, UK charity SSAFA and Daily Record. I appreciate the above comments about the enduring popularity of numismatics and the impact of our TV advertising. I would like to counter these point - I think a company that has been profiled by the Sunday Times must be regarded as being of importance and notable. Of course, any further insight or guidance you could provide to help me publish the draft would be very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sala90 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 12:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt - paid-for spam tendentiously moved into mainspace. MER-C 12:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORGIND and is spam. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 20 October 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 08:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Alfieri[edit]

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

This is on a list of articles produced by machine translation, and was tagged with teh special speedy deletion criterion X2 for such articles. However, it does not seem to me to have the poor quality of text described in the discussions which authorized X2. What I cannot judge is the accuracy of the translation, both because of my limited language skills, and because no link to the original text is provided. However, a spot check of sources seems to indicate that they support the current test. There have been quite a few edits, many by experienced editors, since this was created, adding formatting and source citations, but the prose text is almost entirely unchanged from the initial version in the history. This is a procedural nomination. I express no opinion on whether this should be kept, deleted, or moved to draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Citations low for a very highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged this for X2 because it's a machine-translation of a BLP. The justification for CSD X2 is that machine translations can distort or in some cases even invert the meaning of the original text. It's not about the poor quality of the English (which isn't actually that terrible) -- it's the fact that no human editor has confirmed the accuracy of the translation. If a human editor with dual fluency in English and Italian is willing to confirm that our text means the same as this text then X2 would not apply. But until that happens, I maintain that it does. I feel that DESiegel has made an error of judgment in declining the X2. It doesn't matter that the English is plausible. What matters is whether it's correct.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Italian wikipedia. Not every Italian doctor is notable per the English wikipedia guidelines. The article itself is also of stupendously poor quality and is likely not salvageable in a way that meets English language sourcing requirements. 107.77.204.106 (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no wish to bludgeon this discussion but I do feel the need to respond to this one. Notability isn't country-specific on Wikipedia, and sources do not have to be in English. If someone's got two separate reliable sources for their biography, then the community considers that person notable -- even if those sources are in Italian (or German, as is also likely with Prof. Dr Alfieri, or indeed in Swahili). I think it's quite likely that this gentleman is a notable person and a perfectly acceptable article can be written in this space. This is one of those rare AfDs that isn't basically about notability. This discussion in which the community authorised speedy deletion of these 3,603 articles will give you a bit more context; it's all a bit outside the norm.—S Marshall T/C 14:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability indeed isn't country-specific on Wikipedias, but different Wikipedia have different standards of notability. If an article appears on one Wikipedia it does not follow that it is notable enough to appear on all of them. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Two seperate, reliable sources does not automatically make someone notable. However, the language of the sources has no bearing on notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NACADEMIC. He's the author of 59 peer reviewed journal articles in my university database and his position as Chief of Neurosurgery at a major Swiss research hospital would seem to meet criterias #5 as well.4meter4 (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just publishing stuff does not confer notability. Position is too minor to statisfy WP:Prof#C5. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Delete In terms of what is in the article rather than searching, does not meet the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC (in response to 4meter4's point, by my reading of #5's Financial_endowment#Endowed_professorships, "chariman" is not equal to "has held a named chair appointment") or WP:BIO and no WP:SIGCOV (only 2 primary sources) so does not pass WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACADEMIC. As a BLP the criterion is more stringent than just two reliable sources out of only three. If we are going to accept "machine translations" with no human oversight or as mentioned above that, "no human editor has confirmed the accuracy of the translation", so we are taking a machines proverbial word of notability, then maybe most of us can just retire and let the machines handle it all. I agree that something deemed notable in one country may not be seen as notable in another as the standards vary. There are of course "world notable subjects" but also "country notable" subjects. Any rationale short of that means we can just stop dancing around and merge all languages into a one world encyclopedia with a drop-down box for the different translations. We are digressing down to two reliable independent sources when three has been an acceptable community standard that shows clear notability. I also agree though, that some human intervention might sway things. Otr500 (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:56, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Eeza[edit]

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

This is an article about a non notable person. Fails WP:GNG. Kutyava (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 00:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 02:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clear fail of the general notability guidelines. The article lacks multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is evidently original work, unblemished by sourcing. Subject fails WP:NPERSON. -The Gnome (talk) 18:08, 22 October 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] Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University

[2] ttps://www.windhamcapital.com/press/press-release-boston-investment-firm-windham-capital-launches-new-approach-to-risk-that-addresses-turbulence-in-global-markets/

[3] ttps://www.windhamcapital.com/meet-our-founder/

[4] ttps://www.windhamcapital.com/meet-our-founder/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]