Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 September	7 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punga People[edit]

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

A low-content page that seems to exist only to promote a minor tourist attraction. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inadequate sourcing to establish notability. Not sure how this remained hidden from other editors for 15 years.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been orphaned until a few hours ago. That's why nobody noticed it before. Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to have been started as a self-promotional page. No indication of notability. Fails GNG and SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 04:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability, does not pass criteria for reliable sources. Article history also seems to have COI issues.Netherzone (talk) 04:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. the best available sourcing are simply mentions of them in reviews of the lodge on tripadvisor. -- Whpq (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in agreement with above Mujinga (talk) 17:16, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is significant that these sculptures don't even merit a mention in the Marlborough Sounds page. The reason could be that there are no reliable sources and after an extensive search I can't find any. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 01:38, 14 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WH Smith Literary Award[edit]

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

Can't find third party coverage of the award. So it may not pass WP:GNG. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A search on ProQuest yields 304 results for "Smith Literary Award" showing that UK media routinely covered this award - and mourned it when it passed. Haukur (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Haukurth, in passing trivial coverage doesn't mean it passes the general notability guidelines, which requires in depth coverage.

And this is WH Smith literary award, not just Smith literary award. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 16:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there's no other Smith award to confuse it with. If I search for "WH Smith literary award" OR "W.H. Smith literary award" I get 293 hits. Here are 2 out of those 293:

DISMAY at the WHSmith Literary Award luncheon in Church House last week. After announcing that Melvyn Bragg's novel The Soldier's Return was this year's winner, Chief Executive Richard Handover went on to tell the guests that this was the last time the prize would be awarded. It would be replaced by a clutter of prizes for new authors, children's books and "lifestyle", which would be chosen at the final stage by WHSmith's 8 million customers. A sad end to an impressive award - but Arts Minister Alan Howarth tried to have it both ways. Handing the Pounds 10,000 prize to Bragg, he praised the judges for their decision, then went on to call them "gauleiters" and welcomed the new "popular" jury. The Times, May 18, 2000

THE peculiarly elastic literary calendar has an odd habit of elongating years. Last year's prizes continue to spill nonchalantly into 1999. Today we have the shortlist of the WH Smith Literary Award -not as much money as Booker or Whitbread (a mere GBP 10,000) but a distinguished list of winners over the past 40 years, including Patrick White, Nadine Gordimer, Seamus Heaney and, of course, Ted Hughes. ... At least the WH Smith judges have had the wit not to shortlist that peculiarly pointless piece of disposable entertainment which did win the Booker, Ian McEwan's woefully lightweight Amsterdam. Why then this egregious omission of Ted Hughes, this dastardly insult to his last and most loved work? After extensive journalistic sleuthing (all right, a quick phone call), a simple explanation emerges: no-one is allowed to win the WH Smith Literary Award twice. (Not even once when they're alive and once when they're dead? No? Pity.) Let Beryl Bainbridge, the perennial bridesmaid, then win at last, and let her quote a past Booker winner: how late it was, how late. The Scotsman, January 30, 1999

It was a reasonably prestigious prize which the papers took seriously enough to regularly report on. We may not be able to find long analytical articles about the prize as such but I think that would be an unreasonable expectation. Still, I'll see what we can do. Haukur (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what's seems to be a particularly detailed write-up of one award ceremony, though I only have snippet view: "Smith+Literary+Award"&dq="Smith+Literary+Award" Haukur (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of coverage of the award and the winning books in digitised newspapers, as noted by Haukurth above. We can certainly add references, and information such as the amount of the prize (£1,000 c. 1965-1971, £4000 by 1986, £10,000 at the end as noted above). The list of notable authors who have won it would surely have given some clue about its notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of coverage shown on searching. It can be improved instead of deleting. Hannakofasti (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained and overall consensus is that the topic is notable. Per concerns herein regarding the article's quality, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template atop the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium adhesive bonding[edit]

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

I can't see how this is encyclopedic. To quote the lede, " This article will discuss surface preparation for adhesive bonding to titanium." The examples and tone of the article are overly technical, and the subject seems extremely niche. Article needs TNT. If rewritten, I am not sure the subject is really notable or encyclopedic. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one of several student articles created by students in an engineering course at Ohio State University. While we have pure science and math articles that go into the fine details of very technical topics, we are lacking in good coverage of applied science and engineering topics. Engineering may not be considered quite as "sexy" as pure science, but it is equally valid that Wikipedia be an engineering encyclopedia as well as a science encyclopedia. It is good to see that WikiEd is helping to close the gap. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article does not seem to be about the use od adhesives with titanium, but the even more niche subject of the necessary surface preparation.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Narrow or niche topics are fine because it is our policy that "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content". The current state of the article is not important because it is also our policy that "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." All we need to confirm is that the topic is notable and the sources provided indicate that it is. WP:TNT is irrelevant because that is not a policy; it is disruption contrary to multiple policies including WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:CENSOR and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs going over with the encyclopedic-tone-alizer, but the topic is notable. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite The article is in dire need of rewriting, but the subject seems like something worth having an article on. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} 15:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced and meets WP:GNG. I have tagged for expert attention. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thein Naing Oo[edit]

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

He hasn't played in a WP:FPL based league which would make him fail WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No WP:BEFORE? NFOOTY passed, Myanmar's National League is listed at WP:FPL. GSA show he played in AFC Cup between two FPL clubs a few times, which Soccerway backs up, as well as Myanmar's cup competition so likely featured in the MNL too - very difficult to find online media for Burmese sources. Career still ongoing, the MNL list him; though not with current team Sagaing United, as shown by GSA. R96Skinner (talk) 09:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is, we don't know how many games if any he has played in the MNL that is why I put it up to ask the question. HawkAussie (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, I entirely get that and it's a fair/important question - but wouldn't a talk page discussion have been more appropriate; at least at first? Given he has played in the AFC Cup, Asia's Europa League equivalent, and the Charity Cup final, equiv. Community Shield, I'd say it's fair to assume he's played in the MNL numerous times; esp. as he's played for four clubs in five years. Added to the fact of the rather sizeable language barrier. R96Skinner (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn't a biography and shouldn't be kept unless sufficient sources with which to write an article are discovered, per WP:WHYN. ----Pontificalibus 12:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- it is common to give an exception to ongoing careers, per consensus within NFOOTY. R96Skinner (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like crystalballery in violation of WP:N and WP:V. We certainly don't keep any non-sporting biographies of non-retired living people simply because there's a chance the subject might become sufficiently notable later in their career.----Pontificalibus 15:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps so, but that doesn't stop the fact the exception rule exists - and going against it would be pretty disruptive, if you ask me. R96Skinner (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it exist as a rule? I am aware that the notability criteria for biographies developed within certain sporting wikiprojects are deficient in that they conflict with broader WP:NSPORT (per WP:SPORTBASIC) or WP:N guidelines. My reading is that consensus in Wikipedia as a whole favours WP:GNG per WP:WHYN over any sport-specific criteria (which really should have been developed to identify only those subjects likely to satisfy GNG).----Pontificalibus 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD/Mats van Kins, AfD/Sean Karani and AfD/Danish Irfan Azman, to name just three, show an NFOOTY pass with ongoing career is to be kept. I'm not saying it's something that is right/wrong per Wikipedia guidelines, just the fact it exists. R96Skinner (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those three AfD's don't represent a consensus which must be adhered to in future AfDs. In fact they seem to suffer from WP:JUSTAPOLICY, with people ignoring the fact that NFOOTY guidelines are to be "used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article" as stated in WP:NSPORT, and not simply an end in themselves.----Pontificalibus 06:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"to name just three", check the archives for more. Again, I'm not stating it's correct or incorrect but it is consensus - and an AfD isn't an appropriate to discuss your, even if valid, qualms with consensus and/or guidelines, as noted at AfD/Atantaake Tooma. R96Skinner (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consenus is achieved and maintained/changed by making policy-based arguments like those I set out here, not by pointing at previous deficient AfDs where discussion of the relevant policy is lacking.—--Pontificalibus 13:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The AfDs go like that because of the consensus, that's kinda how it works; or at least should. I can see you are coming from the right direction, but you evidently don't have an understanding of the current state of NFOOTY. Which is fine, but you should learn about it - as I would if I was going to participate in anything to do with WP:NACTOR, WP:NACADEMICS or WP:NMUSIC. R96Skinner (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NFOOTY is subservient to NSPORT, and shouldn’t be viewed in isolation as already explained above. These arguments need broad input and shouldn’t rely on people only familiar with particular areas.--Pontificalibus 13:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the third time, I'm not saying it's right/wrong - just that the exception exists, and going against it is disruptive as it leads to inconsistency. An individual AfD isn't the appropriate place to discuss this, also already mentioned. I can see we're going round in circles, happy editing! R96Skinner (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral He passes WP:NFOOTY, but the article itself does not pass WP:GNG. In favour of improving it, but mostly just commenting as if this is deleted there shouldn't be any prejudice against recreating it. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – fails GNG. "No sources, no article". I'm not finding anything beyond a routine transfer report [1] (from the Ministry of Information, sounds friendly) and brief mentions [2] [3]. There is nothing out there from which we can write an article. – Levivich 02:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As you know, NFOOTY pass with ongoing career is more than enough to be kept - as shown at AfD/Mats van Kins, AfD/Sean Karani and AfD/Danish Irfan Azman. You even alluded to it at AfD/Dobrica Tegeltija - at least try and be consistent. R96Skinner (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't so much "allude" to it as explicitly say The "young and playing" exception–which I disagree with and think is contrary to policy ... Seems pretty consistent to me. If I renominated those three articles you listed, and they all got deleted, would that change your mind about anything? – Levivich 17:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're going against consensus which is disruptive, and leads to inconsistency. As mentioned numerous times, it's cool that you disagree with it but an AfD isn't the appropriate place to change it. R96Skinner (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK let me ask a different question: if you were the only person !voting "keep" in an AfD, would you call that "going against consensus which is disruptive"? (I would not.) – Levivich 02:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        It depends on the context and rationale, obviously. If I was constantly going against the 1app/vanished consensus which favours deletion, e.g. AfD/Cristian Gorgerino, - you'd be questioning me, and rightly so. This discussion between us has run its course, I'm sure we will discuss things further on a future AfD. R96Skinner (talk) 09:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NFOOTY is currently playing for a WP:FPL team in Myanmar where Football is the most popular sport and also as per WP:NEXIST as coverage in Burmese and Shan language is not available .SNGs including WP:FOOTY exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs particularly for a player currently playing and only 24 years old.Subject has played at the 2016 AFC Cup as per this for Ayeyawady FC against Bengaluru FC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination is erroneous, as easily meets WP:N. We wouldn't be having this discussion in any English-speaking nation where football is the number one sport. Ergo to delete this article is a clear example of WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although it appears this article passes NFOOTBALL due to a handful of 2016 AFC Cup matches against clubs from fully-pro leagues, I struggle to justify an article about a person who has such insignificant online coverage (since I don't know how to evaluate potentially extant offline sources in Myanmar). Basically, we have this which tells us his name and birthdate, plus a few databases (including the reliable Soccerway which cannot even determine if he has played in the local league for his club). With so little to go by, I don't think we can write enough for an article or be comfortable that the information is accurate. Jogurney (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep meets WP:NFOOTBALL as represented Myanmar at the 2015 Southeast Asian Games. 103.200.134.149 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)~~ CU blocked. – Levivich 05:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, with a reminder that those assessing consensus can only apply policy as written. Unwritten rules and undocumented consensus, especially when arrived at within the confines of a single project without being subject to community scrutiny cannot be generally applied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Statistics websites, game reports, and transfer reports are all primary sources. Is there even one secondary source upon which we can base this article? Without it, I don't see how this article can be kept and yet comply with core policy WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Here, we seem to be basing an article entirely on primary sources. – Levivich 15:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Hannakofasti (talk) 16:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't fail NFOOTY, as discussed above. R96Skinner (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. Article fails WP:V and WP:BLP. BLP and V are policy and trump any guidelines. Absent reliable sources to back up the claims of fact made in this article it cannot be kept, period. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liquipel[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria laid out at WP:ORGCRIT specifically the in-depth coverage required, not just a few industry trade rag mentions or nn awards. The only thing coming close to coverage in a big-name RS is the Popular Science "gadgets award" (the one labeled LA Times is actually their blog platform) and that's not sufficient to sustain an article. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing comes close to WP:ORGCRIT. In fact, even Popular Science award isn't close to ORGCRIT. It may be a good company, but the references do not add up to notability for Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP.
Delete - per nomination - MA Javadi (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination context.Abtehas98 (talk) 18:53, 12 September 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. Possibly not there via WP:NPROF, but has enough coverage in general for WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liselle Terret[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, no evidence that the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. When nominating for PROD, Onel5969 said Her highest citation count is 290, but that was for a work in which she contributed a chapter (Applied Theatre). Without that, her highest citation count is 9. However, in my own search, it appears that the book has received 290 citations--it is not clear that the chapter specifically authored by Terret was cited. DePROD by Rich Farmbrough. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her "neo-burlesque" work appears to pass GNG as notable, at first glance. See:
- https://burdy.co/featured-act/doris-la-trine/
- https://royalcourttheatre.com/cast/doris-la-trine/
- Naked Exhibitionism: Gendered Performance and Public Exposure Chapter "Cross Dressing and Grrrrly Shows".

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. As a side note, citations are usually a poor indicator of academic notability in the humanities, and one has to look at other factors. In this case I feel that most of the subject's notability comes from her theatrical work, and thus she should be primarily evaluated on WP:GNG grounds. There are examples of in-depth detailed coverage of her personally and her theatrical work. E.g. pages 127-129 in this book [4], p. 3 in this journal article [5], an interview with her in this scholarly journal [6]. The latter interview is conducted because the program she lauched, The Performance Making Diploma, won the 2015 The Guardian University Award for Student Diversity and Widening Participation. (I have added the relevant info, with refs to the article.) Overall, I think there is a reasonable case here for passing WP:GNG, taking into account the other sources already in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find the first two examples provided here to be good examples of significant coverage and would now consider myself to lean keep. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:03, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Certainly no pass of WP:Prof. Notability will have to found elsewhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Like Rosguill, I am persuaded by Nsk92's findings. XOR'easter (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these new sources have established notability. Mujinga (talk) 17:44, 12 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Labour International Film Festival[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a film festival, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for film festivals. As always, every film festival is not automatically entitled to have an article just because it exists, but must be shown to clear certain minimal standards of sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG and/or WP:ORGDEPTH for an article to become earned -- but the referencing here is entirely to the self-published content of either the film festival itself or organizations that were directly involved in staging it, not real reliable source coverage in real media independent of the film festival. And while the external links section does include one real media article amid its linkfarm of additional primary sources, it takes more than just one article to get something like this over the bar -- but even when searching for other sources, all I've been able to find is event calendar listings and press releases rather than actual journalism about it. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not see SIGCOV in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this festival was a worthy effort but it simply hasn't had the depth of coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Char Seawell[edit]

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

Non-notable; coverage is WP:ROUTINE concert announcements etc. PROD removed by creator with explanation that her songs are on Amazon and Apple Music. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing reliable sources establishing notability at this stage Mujinga (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, no charting singles or albums released by major labels, etc. - the coverage on her band, Windfall, in the HeraldNet from Everett WA is one writeup, but does not satisfy WP:AUD which says "attention solely from local media...is not an indication of notability" - Epinoia (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AUD refers only to companies and organisations Atlantic306 (talk) 18:12, 13 September 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 20:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Wehder[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is the only non routine coverage I can find. Dougal18 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources are added. For me it's a bad sign that there isn't an article on German wikipedia. Mujinga (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A speedy tag was applied. I might have hesitated if I had seen that it was applied by an IP address. But it is done so the author can go to deletion review if they object. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Michael[edit]

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

Run of the mill HR manager. Article is more of a CV, and makes no real claims to why he might be notable. The sourced, though many, are weak - lots of primary sources, blogs, articles by Michael and not about him, or articles that barely mention him. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:BIO. Hug^syrup 15:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources add up to notable. Definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This belongs on LinkedIn, not Wikipedia. Simon Wright (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article's tone is like a blog WP:NOTRESUME and obviously fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO as there was no any clear mention why the subject is notable.--Wakowako (talk) 13:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has now been speedily deleted by RHaworth. Hopefully either they, or another admin, would now be willing to close this discussion accordingly. Hug^syrup 12:17, 9 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khapri Alston[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Simply doesn't meet WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG per [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] -- Dammit_steve (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He definitely doesn't meet WP:NHOOPS. The coverage I find looks like routine local sports reporting--local for his high school, college, and pro teams. There's also a blog listed. I don't see anything to convince me that WP:GNG is met, but I'll wait to see if better sources are cited. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Fails to meet WP:NHOOPS. Coverage is routine sports coverage and local coverage which is typical of any player at the level he's played so the GNG is not met.Sandals1 (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources have been added since my original comment, so my original reasoning is unchanged and I believe he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 17:28, 13 September 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 Sinestro Corps. RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arkillo[edit]

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

Time to flood AfD even more because of staunch inclusionism. Non-notable fictional character, all primary references. TTN (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no real world notability, fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sinestro Corps, which has plenty of info on the character. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Thanks to you-know-who for continuing to waste people's time, but since most of these were created over a decade ago yet still can't garner independent sources of substance, I'd hope you wouldn't encounter too much resistance to the classic ATDs of redirect and selective WP:BOLD merge just mentioning range of appearances. Reywas92^Talk 19:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'd think so, but I must have BOLD merged at least a few hundred trivial fictional characters a few years ago. The grand majority were slowly reverted over the years, so there is little chance any process outside of AfD can produce a mostly permanent result. Besides that, I do feel deletion and a new redirect are the best choice for most of these characters anyway. TTN (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sinestro Corps. The character has no real-world notability demonstrated in any reliable sources. Coverage in non-primary sources is pretty much limited to plot information and comic book recaps. The character's information is already present on the main "Sinestro Corps" article, and as there is no non-primary sourced information in this article, there is nothing worth merging. Rorshacma (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sinestro Corps per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Vision[edit]

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

Delete Notability is not inherited. No doubt this label has released material from notable artists but Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and topics must be notable in their own right. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Lots of references that are PR or mentions-in-passing based on announcements or artists launching albums but nothing else. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, notable record level in Bangladesh. ~~(The Daily Star describes the company as "one of the top record labels of the country".)~~ That line is certainly promotional and has removed from the article. -Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 06:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response If it is notable, there should be lots of references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Where are they? HighKing⁺⁺ 18:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing out there meets WP:ORGCRIT. While the Daily Star appears to have editorial oversight, the articles about the company there are brief mentions or one that looks more like a bio you would find in Bloomberg which certainly doesn't qualify as significant or in-depth coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably notable WP:COMPANY. according to this source [1 2 3 here]. Based on these sources I think generally this article pass on WP:GNG. a large number of notable song albums in Bangladesh, published by this record label. this article should not be deleted, Thanks.--Nahal^(T) 08:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No doubt that a record label will release albums - maybe even a notable album or an album recorded by a notable artist - but it doesn't follow that the record company is therefore notable and notability isn't inherited. References should also have an journalist attributed as the author of the article yet none of those references have one. Leaving that aside, this Daily Star reference (1) contains no information on the company and discusses upcoming albums marking Eid, both the songs and the artists. Notability isn't inherited - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This RTV Online reference has the same problem - nothing is said about the company and the entire album discusses the released albums and the artists. Also fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, this somoynews.tv reference says nothing about the company and lists the upcoming releases announced by the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources per WP:ORGCRIT, WP:GNG - the sources cited, even The Daily Star article, are about the artists recorded and not about the company itself - no "overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation" required by WP:CORPDEPTH - notability can't be inherited from the artists recorded, the company itself must receive significant coverage and in this case there is none available - Epinoia (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing sources beyond mentions in passing and rewritten press releases. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 13 September 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. Sources brought forward to show notability. Sources do not have to be in English. RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Tesoro de Isla Alcachofa[edit]

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

Article about a video game from a small non-notable developer. Page consists primarily of quotes from primary sources and some small review sites. Nothing which puts it over the WP:NSOFT threshold for inclusion. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, the game has been covered by sources like El Mundo ([12]), Diario AS / MeriStation ([13], [14]) and Micromanía ([15]). It has been cited as a piece of Spanish software history and as its developer's "most ambitious" game by El Español / Vandal ([16]), recently named Spain's largest game site. Diario AS / MeriStation called it "especially remarkable" and its developer's most standout game by 2002 ([17]). The spotty preservation of reliable Spanish game magazines like Computer Gaming World Spain makes it hard to judge exactly how much coverage the game has. At the very least, if there isn't enough to keep the article mainspaced, I'd appreciate the thing being sent to draft for future development rather than outright erased. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to send the article into the Draft area, so anybody with the knowledge of Spanish software can improve the article in order to not get its sources listed lost. Roberth Martinez (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @JimmyBlackwing: Use the Template:Source assess table on the sources. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator - based on all the additional work I have put into the article I believe that demonstrates the game's notability. Spanish sources haven't been scrutinised as much within WP:VG as other language sources so I don't think any of these third party sources shouldbe rejected due to not being on the Reliable Sources list. I think together the sources tell a pretty compelling narrative, one which can be bolstered by some contextual sources outlining the state of Alcachofa Soft at the time and how its trajectory was affected by the title.--Coin945 (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Improve and Keep or Disambiguate Considering the abundance of Spanish references to makes it difficult to warrant this article on the English Wikipedia. Perhaps, if they were translated it would make more sense to Keep. Spy-cicle (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello there @Spy-cicle:, I have never heard the standard that to be in English Wikipedia the topic had to have enough reliable third-party English sources, only that it had enough reliable third-party sources in general. What is it about Spanish sources in your eyes that makes then less reliable than English ones?--Coin945 (talk) 23:27, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Coin945: English sources are strongly preferred over Spanish sources. Spanish sources are fine but when most sources are from Spanish it makes it hard verify and harder to meet WP:GNG Spy-cicle (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no reason to discount Spanish sources:

Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. WP:GNG

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. WP:NOENG

Good reliable Spanish language sources are sufficient to prove notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage in El Mundo and a subsidiary of Diario AS is enough for WP:GNG for me. Do not draftify as the article is presentable. Daß Wölf 06:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Reliable third party sources. Stop wasting time with drafts. - hahnch e n 10:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the RSes that have been dug up. Phediuk (talk) 19:25, 11 September 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) 15:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh (record producer)[edit]

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails WP:ARTIST and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:56, 13 September 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 20:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edip Ilkbahar[edit]

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

Article about a non notable business person who is a founder of a non notable leisure company. All references are just promotional pieces about the company and do nothing to establish notability per WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - most of the references involve the success of the company, not about Edip Ilkbahar himself - he has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - the Edip Ilkbahar article was created by a single purpose account - Epinoia (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG sources more about the company rather than the person.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:00, 13 September 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) 14:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Velied[edit]

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

Cannot see that any of the references are solid enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually in the process of nominating it myself. This individual is far below the required inclusion criteria, the claims of representing the Ukraine in Eurovision are patently false and I can find absolutely no sources to verify the content in this article outside of his own website etc...He has received absolutely no non-trivial, in depth coverage and the claims are well...I don't believe them. It's also pretty suspicious to me that one of the sources is supposedly the Guardian but redirects to YouTube. This is nothing more than a vanity piece that's been ignored and puffed up for years. Praxidicae (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually based on that last bit, I'm convinced this might qualify for G3, hoax. The sources they've chosen to prove he was "on Eurovision" are just completely fake, as are the certifications and literally every other claim that would avert an A7. Praxidicae (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually believe a speedy delete per g3 is far more appropriate now. An AFD would be fine to discuss the merits of an article that isn't completely fabricated. Praxidicae (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Blatant vanity page. Promotional. No RS. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Based on Praxidicae's reasoning, it wouldn't just be a G3 situation but also likely an A7 as the subject is a musician with no actual claim to notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was about to endorse deletion under criterion A7 since there is no credible claim to significance, but I see that an administrator has already declined a speedy. Might as well let the AfD run to its inevitable conclusion. decltype (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails all notability guidelines WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, etc. - the article creator is indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts, which doesn't bode well - Epinoia (talk) 22:19, 12 September 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 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyana Hansen[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable model. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Like the oft deleted Parnia Porsche she was part of a controversial advertising campaign but has no independent notability. Coverage is about that campaign or tabloid. Like that Porsche article this was created by an editor dedicated to promoting one individual and his business interests. The relevant business here is Ultra Tune, the business promoted in that advertising campaign. Pure PR. Probable UPE. See also fellow Ultra Tune model at afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lydall. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:NMODEL. Lacks independent significant coverage. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:40, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable model. Barca (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable model. WP:NMODEL#3. Playboy cover girl is notable. Wm335td (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - does not meet WP:NMODEL or WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 22:09, 12 September 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 HDR, Inc.. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Reid and Partners[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable business. Lacks coverage about them in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with primary, press releases and routine announcements. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into HDR, Inc which acquired Hurley Palmer Flatt which had previously acquired this business. Andrew D. (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into HDR, Inc per Andrew D. That page could also use a cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 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 HDR, Inc.. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurley Palmer Flatt[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable business. None of the "awards" are major. Company lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with passing mentions, primary, press releases and routine announcements. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment they exist, there is a tiny amount of coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into HDR, Inc which has acquired the business. Andrew D. (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into HDR, Inc per Andrew D. That page could also use a cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:07, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree merge into HDR, Inc. Alex-h (talk) 07:17, 10 September 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 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Flatt[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable business man. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Run of the mill chairman who gets quoted in press releases and routine announcements. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - "CIBSE claimed a membership of over 21,000, from 94 countries." -- Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers It's unclear how many, as is the subject a Fellow, but there must be at least 1,000. Bearian (talk) 13:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most of the references are about his company and stud farm, not about Flatt himself - no significant coverage of Flatt in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 21:54, 12 September 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 20:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Churumuri[edit]

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

Non notable blog. Most of the google search results in the recipe of the name on which this blog name was inspired. Looks like there is not much traffic for the blog, not much comments are seen either. Looks like self promotion by the author Crashed greek (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to be notable - no significant coverage in mulitiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG - popular does not mean notable - Epinoia (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer[edit]

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

Fancruft and self referential article not suitable for wikipedia.Gumlau (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Meltzers ratings are well known in the wrestling world among fans, professionals and other journalists/historians. I'd say there is enough coverage on this topic for a stanalone list. I also don't see how you can consider it "self referential", all lists cited came well before this page was made earlier in the year.★Trekker (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meltzer rating, as Treeker said, are well known in the wrestling world. Some databases, like cagemacth or profight, includes his ratings. Wrestlers like, Will Ospreay make proud of their 5 star matches. Some reliable sources, like Superluchas, even mention Meltzer 5 stars matches. I think the subject is notable enough for an independent article.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dave Meltzer is relevant for the wikipedia, and has his own page, but the information in this page is better served by specific fan sites (and already is, the main reference on the page is a link to a fan blog). I'm sure that many film producers are proud of getting high ratings for their movies, but that doesn't mean we need a page to itemise the top review of film reviewers. There's no "list of Roger Ebert two thumbs up" movies or similar lists for the hundreds of reviewers we have listed here, because it's the sort of material that's more relevant to fansites. Gumlau (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You do realize you don't get to throw a "vote" in an AFD you created right? That you want it deleted is already assumed.★Trekker (talk) 16:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commment I'm aware of this, I was responding to the people who posted in support of keep. Also, this isn't a vote, it's not about how many people go one way or another, it's about the argument, and so far there's no strong argument to support keeping this page.Gumlau (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware it's not a "vote" that's why I put "vote" in quotations marks. Either way, please reply directly to people or give your reasoning in the lead of the AFD, its more clear and less confusing that way. Also, there is a strong argument to keep it. It's a widely covered topic, you can say it's not, but the sources say otherwise.★Trekker (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meltzer himself disputes the importance and relevance of his rating system and his standards have changed with the passage of time. As Gumlau pointed out, no such articles exist for any other noteworthy critics in different media (movies, music, literature, etc.) Meltzer is one critic and these ratings are only his personal opinion, hardly an objective honor worth noting with a standalone list. Saget53 (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan crufty list with no encyclopedic value except for some wrestling fan boys (as a wrestling fanboy myself I can confirm this) MPJ-DK (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep - not that I particularly care about his reviews, but this is no different from other such lists such as something like List of films considered the best. This is a well-defined list regarding a Reliable source. If there were more wrestling journalists that had a reputation, it could be expanded. Regardless of what he has said (it would actually make sense to have a "detractors" section, the subject is notable by WP:LISTN Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The big difference between the linked "best films" page is that the page (which itself is a little crufty), is a combination of many different reviewers and awards, whereas this page is the opinion of one reviewer. If we were to host a page of the best matches according to different wrestling reviewers, then that might be suitable here, but publishing an arbitrary list of matches one person liked is more suited to a wrestling wiki than here.Gumlau (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that the point though? There aren't really any other journalists that could contribute. Like it or not, he is the closest thing wrestling has. There's no policy for this not to be a thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Meltzer ratings are his personal opinions. Due to the nature of wrestling, its impossible to provide an objective ratings on matches. Subjective opinions are not Wikipedia worthy. Meltzer himself has said that his standards for ratings have changed over time. A five star match 20 years ago is not the same as a five star match today and there is no way to quantify the change in standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajavel 2k12 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Dave said don t take his ratings to serious and his criteria changed, it doens't change th fact that are mentioned in reliable sources. Solowrestling, wrestletalk, and Superluchas make news when he gave 5 stars.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Commment For every reliable source that supports his ratings, there are reliable sources that don't. Even last week, he said he has different scales for NJPW and WWE; He also said watching NXT followed by G1 biased his opinions. So, it is not really a factual or fairer rating system and not Wikipedia worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajavel 2k12 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: dude doenst really even follow his own list. the scale is now 7 stars, and 5 means nothing due to that.Muur (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge with Dave Meltzer page. Meltzer is reputable and his ratings are important, but I feel it would be appropriate to have a section in the Meltzer page that states his highest rated matches. There isn’t a comprehensive list of four star reviews given by Ebert, but there is a brief section of his favorite movies of the year since 1969. That sort of brief mention of his highest rated matches on his wiki page seems more appropriate for Meltzer. Ducktech89 ^(talk) 17 August 2019, 2:11 (UTC)
Keep - Coverage in reliable secondary sources, including Sports Illustrated [18], Greg Oliver/Steven Johnson book [19], book by Bryan Alvarez [20], book by John Molinaro [21], CBS Sports [22]. As for the arguments provided above, there is no rule that prevents subjective opinions from appearing on Wikipedia--what is important is the coverage in reliable sources, which is demonstrated above. People's disagreements with his system also have no relevance in deletion discussions--the article meets WP:N. Changing or inconsistent rating scales don't matter--even if people write about their objections to the system, the fact that they discuss it is just more evidence of its notability. WP:CRUFT is an essay that the Wikiproject tosses out as an argument against all sorts of things, and it has no actual standing in policy or guidelines. Including the information isn't giving it Wikipedia's stamp of approval, as many people seem to fear--it's just following notability guidelines, which state that if multiple reliable secondary sources discuss it in some detail, it's valid for inclusion. That's clearly the case here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem with your links, yes some of them discuss Dave Meltzer's influence, and no one is arguing that, but there's nothing there to suggest that the arbitrary rank of "matches rated five stars or more" is a notable subject in and of itself. I agree with the other poster that this is the sort of subject that probably needs merging with the main Dave Meltzer article.Gumlau (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is. There is an article from Sports Illustrated titled "The History of Star Ratings". I'm thinking the bigger problem is that you might not quite understand WP:N. If a topic gets substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, it is notable. If anything, your arguments against his rating system demonstrate even more of a need for this page--based on your arguments, it should be expanded to include a criticism section. This works against any merge proposals, as a stand-alone article is better suited to handle this topic (perhaps a section on "negative 5 star matches" should also be added). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD was never added to the logs, so I'm relisting and adding it to today's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iffy★Chat -- 14:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is none other than pure WP:FANCRUFT. Somebody's personal opinions are not encyclopedic. Ajf773 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Wouldn't that mean every reception section ever made wasn't encyclopedic? They are simply a collection of personal opinions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. Once they have major publications reporting on the opinions, as mentioned in the above discussion, they're certainly encyclopedic. Sports Illustrated doesn't publish articles about the history of just anyone's opinions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - But merge with the Dave Meltzer article. As pointed out by GaryColemanFan, Meltzer's ratings are covered in reliable secondary sources. Even though they are the opinions of one critic, they are notable due to their coverage. However, I do believe that they should be merged with the Dave Meltzer article. Meltzer's ratings don't need to be on their own page; as Ducktech89 said, we don't have a separate page for Roger Ebert's ratings. Why should we have a separate one for Meltzer? Aguy777 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Arbitrary cutoff point (and what's the top rating anyway?) and fancruft. Possibly the rarer entries rated higher than 5 could be merged to Meltzer's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the argument. 5 stars is considered as good as it gets. That's historically been the top rating. In recent years, he's said that some matches exceed even that and given them ratings that are off the scale. It's still out of 5 stars, though, so it's not an arbitrary cutoff point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Dave Meltzer's 5-star matches lists are of greater importance to the professional wrestling community than casual people believe. Matches with a 5-star rating are generally listed in different wrestling web databases such as cagematch.com or profightdb.com, and these ratings are included in the profiles of the different pro wrestlers here in wikipedia being comparable to their titles or tournaments won. While some may consider these lists a personal opinion of Meltzer, therefore subjective and even inaccurate, the truth is that over the years he has always kept the attention on the wrestling fans and these qualifications are always mentioned and discussed on several websites. What I agree with is the fact that all Meltzer 5-star fights are duly referenced from reliable pages as data bases and not from fan websites as the page is currently. --El malatraza (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 5+ star ratings are a notable achievement in the pro wrestling world, and the notability is established by the rating's news coverage for matches rated as such. Therefore, GNG is passed and the list is established. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the page should stay because it's difficult to find a full list of 5 star matches, every list I've seen manages to miss a few matches. ItsMichaelRay (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a lot of commentary here that isn't based on WP policy. It doesn't matter that these are just his opinions (so is every award for something subjective - like the Oscars). It doesn't matter that he's arbitrary (so, again, are the Oscars). It doesn't matter whether this list is/is not useful or interesting. What matters is WP:NLIST, WP:NOT, and WP:V. That's all that matters really in this particular AFD. Based on these sources (1 2 3) I can see that they probably are since Meltzer's ratings for matches are discussed as a group in what appear to be reliable (at least passes for WP:NEWSORG), independent sources. FOARP (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm usually tempted to say 'this is one guy's opinion WP:WHOCARES'...but reading through the sourcing and that this man is acclaimed in his field as a news-breaker and writer, I'm inclined in this case to keep. We have articles for college sports like the Helms Athletic Foundation, Houlgate System, and Dickinson System where one person or group declared champions and it's been respected by scholars as for the most part a good decision, and this is equivalent to that. There's a fair case here made to keep this article, and I'm going to agree on this one; this isn't grading every single match since 1984, just a number of prime matches, as it should be. Nate • (chatter) 07:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading through the Keep comments I'm not convinced that any evidence has been presented to justify keeping this page. While it's true that a lot of the sources provided demonstrate the notability of Dave Meltzer and his work as a critic (and that is not in question here at all), none of them demonstrate the notability of these particular match ratings. The five star rating is seemingly arbitrary as his ratings go above and beyond that, I think we're moving to a consensus that some of the information here should be merged into the main Dave Meltzer page. Gumlau (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I'm fine with a merge.Muur (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dave Meltzer. I don't see the in-depth coverage in independent RS needed to meet WP:GNG. But to some extent that is secondary. The Dave Meltzer page is relatively brief and a merge in of this page would make a nice, full size article. Indeed, even if this page was kept I would support a merge on encyclopaedia building grounds. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 18:05, 14 September 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 Hellraiser: Judgment. If additional debate about the target of the redirect is required, it can happen on the talk page; but there is clear consensus to redirect, and not to keep this as a standalone page. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Corn: Runaway[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Direct to dvd film nothing found in a before search of any interest. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Children of the Corn (film series) There's no there there outside of a film studio with IP throwing out a film to sucker fans of the series in. Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Either to Hellraiser: Judgment (it was filmed alongside Judgment and the article contains BTS information about both films) or Children of the Corn (film series) (which contains almost no information about the film). Dark Knight 2149 04:42, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Valid article for recent film, widely referenced online. GarrettOrangeCow (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2019 (UTC)— GarretteOrangeCow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I added six reliable citations that discuss filming, release, and marketing. I can gladly add more to this page, if requested. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- With the citations I added, the film passes the necessities of WP:NFF. Filming has started, it has a set release date, cast and all are well sourced. If I need to add more citations, along with info, I can do this easily. Cardei012597 (talk) 07:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While more citations were added in terms of numbers alone, the article still doesn't justify its existence or tell us really anything about the film. I recommend redirecting it to its sister article Hellraiser: Judgment.

Judgment and Runaway were filmed alongside each other for rights retention reasons, and their productions were directly linked (sharing several of the same crew members and filmed in the same locations). The Hellraiser: Judgment article is currently a GA candidate, and it says a lot more about Runaway, its development, why it was made, why its release got delayed, ETC, then the actual Children of the Corn: Runaway article does. Dark Knight 2149 02:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- If you still don't believe this film passes WP:NFF, even though this article clearly does, maybe actually contribute, add more to this page rather than go the easy route by deleting. Clearly, I've proven there are plenty of citations that describe filming, cast, and release of this film. If you believe Hellraiser: Judgment has more info on this article, maybe find more extra citations that describe similar info from Hellraiser's page. Its obvious this page, at least, passes WP:NFF. This fact alone is good enough to allow this page to stay. I can gladly copyedit the info on Hellraiser's page, reword the info to satisfy our Wikipedia rules, and add it to Runaway. There is no basis or real reason, execept for the fact that it's easier, to delete this page. If I must, I can gather other editors who will follow WP:NFF rules. Cardei012597 (talk) 04:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a stub. The number of citations in itself isn't the issue. I'm also not convinced that the film is independently notable enough to stand on its own as an article, having seen the sources in the article myself. Dark Knight 2149 04:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fleshed out information for the page. Like I said before, the film passes WP:NFF, now with extra content and development information. There isn't any real reason to delete this page, information was found regarding filming, cast, and release; the essential elements to keep any film page in the mainspace. Many citations are from the most reliable news sources and companies (MovieWeb, The Hollywood Reporter, Bloody Disgusting, ect.). The film passes the basic requirements to keep on the mainspace, clear as day. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted User:Rusted AutoParts to come be the tie breaker in this situation. He is one of the best users who upholds WP:NFF rules. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t believe I can participate in this debate at this point, as canvassing can be taken into account and would come off inappropriate. The way the invitation to participate here is worded regards me as a “tiebreaker”. Rusted AutoParts 05:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just want your personal opinion, thats all. Do you believe this film passes WP:NFF? You can agree or disagree, I would just like to hear your opinion on the matter. If you wish to not participate, I understand. I only want to protect this page from wrongful deletion. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I have to agree with Rusted AutoParts that we are at the limit of Canvassing because without want to seem judgemental I don't agree with the statement "He is one of the best users who upholds WP:NFF rules". I checked out his afd stats [23] and in the 9 years he has been on WP he has participated in only 97 AFD discussions and 54% of his !votes matched the result (61% if we ignore the no consensus). In his last 8 !votes (which were on future films) only 3 of his !votes matched the result. Asking for a personal opinion in an AFD and qualifying the person as as a "tiebreaker" is looking to sway the result and I commend Rusted AutoParts for his decision not to participate. If the page gets deleted and you disagree and think it is "wrongful" you can ask for a deletion review. If there is no consensus then it will not be deleted so there is no need to ask for a tiebreaker. If you want their personal opinion for your own reasons then you can ask for it on another talk page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Certain sentences were copy/pasted from Hellraiser: Judgment without proper attribution. The article as a whole is still a stub. Dark Knight 2149 16:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll compromise with both of you. As a consensus, I'll add a stub tag to the film page, we close the discussion, and keep the film page on the mainspace. I will add more within the following weeks and months. I think thats more than fair for all of us and we can finally move on from this discussion. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even have to compromise with you. I am doing this to be nice. The simple fact that BOTH of you are choosing to ignore is this: Children of the Corn: Runaway passes WP:NFF. If you even knew what I was talking about, this film would automatically stay in the mainspace. I have not found experienced users who fail to understand WP:NFF rules. The fact is: this film is allowed to remain in the mainspace because it passes WP:NFF. I am being really generous by offering a compromise, allowing a stub tag on this film page. This discussion should close and my compromise become the clear consensus. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how "consensus" works, and the number of citations alone does not make it notable. WP:NFF only addresses what point an unreleased film should receive an article assuming the topic is notable to begin with. By your logic, any released movie with citations should have its own article on Wikipedia. Children of the Corn: Runaway received very little coverage outside of its announcement, release date & trailer, and horror sites. I'm still not convinced that there is even enough information out there to get the article to an acceptable length that justifies its own existence. It's also an entry in a franchise that has been going direct-to-video for decades, and even the first Children of the Corn isn't as famous as classics such as Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or Hellraiser. Dark Knight 2149 22:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this film page to others is really quite sad. I am not convinced you understand WP:NFF. Any and all films that can prove that filming, casting, and release was done, with many reliable citations, should be your number one priority, NOT whether or not this page is "like" other film pages. Your argument is very weak. We, at Wikipedia, keep film pages in the mainspace if they can validate filming, cast, and release. This film page has. You can't reasonably disagree with this simple fact. If a film page has proper citations that prove filming, cast, and release, than that page belongs on the mainspace. This is the most important Wikipedia rule upholded for film pages. I have upholded these Wikipedia laws time and time again on other film pages. Your argument is not sufficient enough to warrant deletion, plain and simple. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly understand Wikipedia rules and what qualifies for the mainspace. I have created over 20 reliable, well sourced articles, and garnered AUTOPATROLLED, NEW PAGE REVIEWERS, PENDING CHANGES REVIEWERS, ROLLBACKERS permissions. One of the articles I created is a GOOD ARTICLE, Kitbull, just like the previously mentioned Hellraiser film page. I don't even care about the Children of the Corn film franchise, but what I do care about is upholding Wikipedia rules and which page qualifies to stay on the mainspace. I am not your average wiki editor, I have learned, practiced, and understood the exact qualities of what a film page needs to stay on the mainspace. Your assessment and basis for deletion is inaccurate and weak. Any and all film pages that prove filming, casting, and release with reliable citations is automatically allowed onto the mainspace. In Wikipedia, this fact has and will always be upheld with EVERY film page, regardless of personal opinion of feeling. You can not prove this simple fact wrong, no matter what debate you give. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am done discussing this. You can not prove my facts wrong. You won't be able to convince me or many others of your position. I am moving on to protect more pages from baseless, wrongful deletions. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "compare it to other film pages" in the way you are suggesting. (My final sentence was meant to convey that this franchise has been going straight to DVD for decades, and even the original isn't exactly the most covered film out there) And this entitled, passive aggressive attitude is uncalled for. Other users are allowed to express their viewpoint in a deletion discussion without having to deal with subtle aggression, and I have years of experience and thousands of edits to my name. I didn't start editing yesterday, even if I haven't been as prolific lately as I used to be. As previously explained, if you think that every single movie that "validates filming, casting, and release" is automatically notable, then I'm afraid you have misinterpreted WP:NFF and should probably read more into WP:MOSFILM. Ask around if you find me untrustworthy. Dark Knight 2149 23:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest I am dumbfounded by the level of bludgeoning going on here and the lack of understanding of basic guidelines concerning AFD by Cardei012597. If I didn't know better I would guess there was a COI problem here and the fact that you are autopatrolled is very worrying indeed. If I were you I would step away and let the discussion continue rather than trying to negotiate a keep result by using your user rights as an argument. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside I shall be checking out you article creations to make sure that inappropriate articles haven't slipped through the net. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hellraiser: Judgment and protect. This film simply has not had the necessary attention or depth of coverage, in reliable sources, to meet WP:NFILM. As an obiter dictum I would note that only the major contributor and User:GarrettOrangeCow, an account created a couple of days after this AfD was posted, favour keeping. Having regard to the history of this article, and the nature of this discussion, I think that salting the redirect would be prudent. 2A02:C7F:4481:8300:90DC:E235:5074:54B0 (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 applies and probably WP:CSD#G11 as well. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yash Rai[edit]

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

Promotional page about a non-notable entrepreneur/wrestler/youtuber. All sources in the article currently are primary, and I cannot find any other sources, not even poor quality ones. There are no SNGs for wrestlers, so even if he is a professional wrestler, he would have to meet WP:ENT and there is no indication that he does. Hug^syrup 09:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Vanity page originally created as YashRaiOfficial, fails WP:BIO. His YouTube channel has fewer than 1200 subscribers, with fewer than 2000 views. Can't find anything about him online apart from his own social media. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 09:32, 6 September 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. Sandstein 20:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon[edit]

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

This article is subject to problems with WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE. This is, in essence, an article about an unverifiable religious text and historical and scientific problems in that text. As a religious text, it is subject to the principle of faith-based evidence. That, in and of itself, makes scientific verifiability virtually impossible. The article is, basically, a series of attacks by editors seeking to discredit historical and scientific claims by the religious text followed by believers seeking to substantiate the historical and scientific claims. The only "scholarly" literature on the topic is in faith-based publications (both pro and con). Since the religious text is not taken seriously by historians, there are no reliable sources that specifically address the issues of why it is not used as a serious source of historical information. Therefore the non-Mormon side of the issue consists of either original research or faith-based attacks. Sources on the Mormon side of the issue also consist entirely of either original research or faith-based defenses. None of the published sources on either side of the issue pass the reliable source tests of Wikipedia. If compared to other religious texts, there is, for example, no article on "Anachronisms in the Bible". Taivo (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems informative to me. Learned something new about tapirs. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But what you learned about tapirs is WP:OR in the context of that article. --Taivo (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems cited to an outside source. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are "outside sources", but they are not reliable scholarly sources. They are religious sources without independent peer-review that are dedicated to promoting the Book of Mormon. That's the problem with this article. Either the information is WP:OR or WP:SYNTH or it does not meet the standards of WP:RS or WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So if they're robust secondary sources, we say "The were no horses at this time.[source]".

If they're not adequate secondary sources, i.e. they're Mormons writing about Mormon interpretations, then we treat them as PRIMARY. We refer to them as "Mormon scholar <Dr Foo> explained this as a reference to tapirs instead.[source]". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Andy Dingley. If biased, expose the bias. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article needs to be deleted, the somewhat identical anachronism section needs to be deleted on the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon page. If this article is to be deleted and the other section kept, than information that is on this page but is not on the other needs to be included there in the anachronism section of that article. I think it might make sense to eliminate the article but am neutral. I do think it would be useful to only have one article or section of an article on anachronisms as now it requires the maintenance of two essentially identical topics on two different articles.Geneva11 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this arguably a WP:POVFORK of Historicity of the Book of Mormon, Archaeology and the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon? Can it be merged into those? Haukur (talk) 21:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly make more sense than a standalone article. --Taivo (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Criticism of the Book of Mormon to that list, it contains a section that attempts (badly) to cover the same ground as the article being discussed. There has been recent talk of either improving Anachronisms or merging it into Archeaology of.... I have a nasty suspicion that if they were merged, some future editor would helpfully split out a new "anachronisms" article to shorten some of the others. Pastychomper (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To insist that sourcing must be from "peer reviewed" sources has never been our standard. Those who publish in favor of the Book of Mormon are overwhelmingly much better educated than those who attack it, and trying to label people as "fringe" for a religious belief held by over 16 million people is over using the term. The attack on this article is basically an exercise in trying to exclude voices from Wikipedia that some editors disagree with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your point is other than to disparage authors on both sides of the issue. This isn't an "attack" on an article other than to point out that the article is not, by its nature, encyclopedic. The title itself is a veiled attack on Mormonism and is based on a subclass of anti-Mormon literature. WP:FRINGE applies not because of the number of adherents, but because historians give zero credence to the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. It's fringe because the views are fringe within the world of scholarship. --Taivo (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your user-page states that you are a Mormon - you ought to have appended this disclaimer, eh? ∯WBG^converse 16:26, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article is subject to problems with WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE.
Keep None of which is any reason for deletion unless they're insurmountable problems which can't be fixed by editing.

I see no sourcing problem here (at least, not ones that can't easily be fixed thus). We would need our usual standards of sourcing for claims about the historicity of tapirs etc. As to the Book of Mormon itself, then that's easily available as a (presumably authentically transcribed) copy. A WP:PRIMARY source. That's obviously a problem for WP generally, but A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. So we're fine to use the Book itself to state "The Book of Mormon describes horses", we need an everyday RS to say "There were no horses in America in that geological timeframe" and we need the slightly more esoteric secondary commentary upon this to say "Mormon may have been referring to deer or tapirs instead", which we do indeed have here.

Any specific problems (which could certainly exist) should be listed at Talk: and means found to resolve each one separately. There's no overall issue requiring deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is well sourced that e.g. the book writes about steel. Amazing! How could Joseph Smith in 1827 know about steel? Anachronisms would need to be about things more recent than the earliest evidence of the book, i.e. after 1827-ish. I don't see anything like that in the article, which means the useful anachronism content is exactly zero at the moment. What Smith claims about the book's age doesn't create anachronisms. If I write a book next year and claim the book would be from 10,000 years ago then no one will be surprised that the book talks about mobile phones, and no one would write a Wikipedia article about it. --mfb (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Misunderstood the article. Maybe the introduction could be improved. --mfb (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if you claimed your book was translated from one written 10,000 years ago?--Auric talk 12:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't understand your point here.

The anachronisms here are not as you describe, an anachronism between the text of the Book and Joseph Smith's time period of 1827. There's no claim that he's talking about mobile phones.

The anachronisms are those between Smith in 1827 (where steel was known) and the bronze-age period supposedly being described. As a critique of Mormonism (implying it's a fabrication by Smith) this is seen as a serious flaw: the sort of flaw one might expect in such a fabrication. A similar thing happens in the King James Bible (2 Samuel 22:35 [24]) where references to steel (rather than bronze) were introduced by 17th century translators. One would not expect the Angel Moroni to make such a gaffe. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, I misunderstood the purpose of the article. --mfb (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia cannot give credence in Wikipedia's voice that something published in 1830 was actually 4,000 years old. That's only one problem though. The article contains a tremendous amount of WP:OR, cited to material that does not even mention Mormonism and which has nothing to do with it. And "anachronism" is the wrong word anyway, even accepting Joseph Smith's claims; most of the items have nothing to do with time and are instead logical impossibilities, not anachronisms. This OR/SYNTH/ESSAY article has got to go. Softlavender (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix the problems mentioned. These logical impossibilities exist and need illumination. Improve the writing and referencing where needed or whatever. And yeah I would have a conflict of interest given my last name :) Vsmith (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the "logical impossibilities" ignores the simple fact that they are only a problem if the BOM is actually what it purports to be--a book from ancient America. But if it's just another work of fiction then there is no more need for this article than "logical impossibilities" in Lord of the Rings. Thus, the very existence of this article implies that Wikipedia is giving voice to a religious belief. Since no serious historian accepts this as a historical account, then it's WP:FRINGE to treat it in any way as if it were a serious historical account. --Taivo (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LotR isn't presented as fact and the inspired word of God. Now maybe you and I don't see the Book of Mormon as such, but some do. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But just because you have a belief (which, by definition, means that you don't require any proof or evidence to think it's true) doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to endorse that belief system when it violates the nearly universal opinion of the scholarly community of historians, archeologists, linguists, etc. Wikipedia endorses that view by allowing a pseudo-debate in its pages between pseudo-reliable sources (written, peer-reviewed, funded, and published solely by believers) and people of the opposite belief view who aren't scholars because scholars don't waste their time telling us that the moon isn't made of green cheese just because some community believes that it is. --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other fallacy that has been stated here over and over is that "we just follow all the policies and this article will be 'fixed'". That's false. It assumes that the BOM is an actual document from ancient America and serious scholarly discussion is needed (and exists) to clarify the problems. It assumes there there are an equal number of peer-reviewed scholarly works on both sides of the discussion and that the discussion is scholarly. That is a false assumption. Historians ignore the BOM as a historical text with "anachronisms" because they universally treat it as a work of fiction from the imagination of Joseph Smith. Therefore, just as no scholar of lunar geology ever has to write "the moon is not made of green cheese" in a peer-reviewed text, no historian of ancient American history ever has to actually write, "the narrative of the Book of Mormon is fiction". Thus, trying to "fix" this article by adhering to Wikipedia's policies leaves an article that is overloaded with Mormon "scholarship" from pseudo-academic sources that receive peer-review only from other Mormon scholars. It gives the appearance of legitimate scholarship that is overwhelmingly weighted on the side of Mormon beliefs and not on the actual state of affairs in the scholarship of history. --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But we can still have an article on Disproofs of a dairy origin in selenology, same as we do on Miracle Mineral Supplement, Vani Hari etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But when we have a "disproofs" article for something that is almost universally ignored without having to say that it's being ignored, then there ends up being no scholarly sources that actually say, "I'm ignoring this because its fiction/fake science/etc." In this case, that means that there are pseudo-scholarly sources, written by believers, peer-reviewed by believers, and published in works that are funded and edited by other believers, that appear to outweigh the actual nearly-universal scholarly view on the subject just because no scholar outside the belief system finds it necessary to say "I'm ignoring this because it's fiction". --Taivo (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP should be reluctant to "endorse" any particular viewpoint. The latest from WMF now seems to imply we have to give weight to the anti-vaxx viewpoint as well, which is probably time to wind up the whole project. We certainly shouldn't endorse any particular belief system, but nor should we claim that such a belief system is objectively wrong.

If a particular set of beliefs is based on canon texts which contain objective logical flaws or anachronisms, such as these, then it is legitimate for WP to produce an article such as this which describes them: the basis for why it's an anchronism should be given, any refutation or explanation of such (which is likely to be PRIMARY or SELFPUB) should be given too, making it clear that that's a subjective viewpoint. The effect all that then has on your belief system is up to the reader. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. I'll note that if this is deleted, material being moved into this article from other articles on the grounds it should be in this article and not duplicated needs to be reinserted in the original articles. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix, or failing that, merge into one of the related articles. The claim that all the "scholarly" sources are either from faith-based publications or OR/SYNTH seems to be based on the assumption that the article is a proof or disproof of the Book of Mormon as an historical text. The article is not (supposed to be) about that, it is about claims in the Book of Mormon that are (considered to be) anachronistic. WP doesn't shy away from discussing current thought within religions, or current criticism of religious texts. Saying "the Book of Mormon mentions elephants, this paper says there were no elephants, critics/apologists say this/that" is entirely within the scope of the article and (in my view) within the scope of WP. The problems arise if the article either says or implies "therefore the Book of Mormon is true/false" - that kind of wording should be removed. Pastychomper (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the posts above, argue whether the Book of Mormon is to be viewed as historically accurate. That is a separate question. This article lists a number of points, with varying kinds of documentation, that are anachronisms or have some logical flaw. The fact that sources are not peer-reviewed is not a Wikipedia standard for most articles (though it may be more logical on an article such as Vaccination). This article will offend many, cause some to dismiss it, but it is still a valid article. I do not intend to Watch or edit it, but it should be kept. Pete unseth (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There needs to be an independent source for this information. The top Google searches lead to this page and an apologetic LDS website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:A01E:B59F:C9CE:58B4:F62 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references show this is a topic that has been discussed in the literature - supplemental to Historicity of the Book of Mormon, which is a notable area of study - this is a valid WP:CONTENTFORK as including all this information in Historicity of the Book of Mormon would make that article too long - Epinoia (talk) 18:37, 12 September 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. Withdrawn by submitter, concerns about accreditation/degree mill were resolved (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre[edit]

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

Unreferenced stub. Fails WP:NSCHOOL/WP:GNG. With regards to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept", please note there is no proof this is an " independently accredited degree-awarding institution". This may well be a Degree mill. With no evidence for or against we cannot extend good faith to spam-prone topics. Article on such website-only 'schools' should be assume to be spam ads for degree mills, unless someone can prove otherwise. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Degree-awarding dental college accredited by the Dental Council of India.[25] Took me two minutes to confirm this. WP:BEFORE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. DCI is a gov't institution so my concerns about this being a potential scam have been addressed, hence it likely passes WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:27, 9 September 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. Insufficient sources found to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. RL0919 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Softarex[edit]

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

Promotional article created, No WP:RS, all sources are primary on the page, very clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was able to find one decent quality source that would help to establish notability[26], but only the one. Beyond that, I found various routine coverage and passing mentions, but nothing that seemed to meet the criteria for multiple instances of significant coverage required by WP:NCORP. Lowercaserho (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:00, 13 September 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) 07:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ar-T[edit]

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

There is very promotional. Fail to see how this musician is notable, nothing source and external links are primary doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. No chart placings, no official signings, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. A search brought up little else actually related to this person. VocalIndia (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only misses using myspace as a reference... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete Lack of significant coverage in given references and fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. Saint Ko Ko Gyi (talk) 20:16, 10 September 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 20:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Nadali[edit]

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

The page does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject & seems to have been self-published. (I edited it down some).

Zzledri (talk) 03:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm satisfied that a credible statement on the significance of the subject could reasonably be made with his writings, if only just. However, I'm not sure about the reliability of the one review present, and I wasn't able to find any more (though I'm open to someone better at looking in Italian than me), thus WP:NAUTHOR wouldn't be satisfied. The non-review sources couldn't pass GNG due to independent/reliable failures Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 13 September 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 20:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts Japan Kickboxing Federation[edit]

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

Kickboxing organization with no evidence of notability. Article has no sources. My search found no articles on the organization itself--just routine sports coverage of results and upcoming events. Sandals1 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT

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

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

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

California Gold[edit]

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

Non-notable team. Played in the fourth level of American soccer and lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG. Coverage is either about people associated with the team or routine sports reporting. There is no significant independent coverage of the team. Sandals1 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've already merged Stanislaus County Cruisers into this article, and the article already passes WP:GNG with the articles referenced. It's a difficult search term, but they played the Earthquakes in the US Open Cup in 2000. Don't really understand this nomination. SportingFlyer T·C 04:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging article A into article B means A is not notable, not that B is notable. An average attendance of 246 indicates even locally it wasn't very notable. I don't see evidence that "the article already passes WP:GNG with the articles referenced." Here's my take on the sources given:

1) article is about a local who coached the Cruisers for 14 games before being demoted and quitting and is now at a division 3 school. Doesn't make the Cruisers or Gold notable.

2) Quotes by non-MSL GMs about playing MSL teams. Passing mention at best.

3) Article about BYU soccer team and their loss to the Gold. Routine sports coverage.

4) Local coverage of a Utah team beating the Gold. Routine sports coverage.

5) List of attendance for lower level U.S. soccer teams. Passing mention.

Not a single source that is significant independent non-routine coverage of the team. Sandals1 (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the coverage is independent and there's more out there. This was a professional soccer team which performed in the country's top cup competition and was clearly covered by media. The fact Stanislaus County was merged into the article just means you have to do more of a before search than normal. Also, the attendance thing is a red herring - in their best year, 1999, the team averaged over 2,000. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Lamar Hunt Cup is open to all levels of U.S. soccer so competing doesn't seem to provide automatic notability. Of course the tournament is covered by the media, so are many sporting events. Even 2000 fans is not much--many high school football teams draw far more and they're not notable. I didn't say the coverage wasn't independent, just that it wasn't significant. Sandals1 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Competing in a cup doesn't provide automatic notability, but WP:FOOTYN implies teams which partake in the later rounds of the cup are generally notable. This was a professional third division team - it's not as if it's just some random amateur team. I've added an additional recent source to the article as well. An archive search of the Modesto Bee shows this clearly passes WP:GNG: [27] SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the Modesto Bee articles in the world would only count as 1 source, even if you overlook the fact that every pro soccer team on the planet is going to receive coverage from the local paper.Sandals1 (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to disagree with you on whether over eight years and 300 articles worth of sources count toward WP:GNG, especially since you only contribute to deletion discussions and don't have any vested interests in creating or maintaining content. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My editing habits don't impact the validity of my arguments. If anything, it means I understand those policies better than most. Quoting WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Quite willing to agree to disagree.Sandals1 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fourth tier in the US is really, really low, and the media coverage reflects that. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The team was in the third division for the first five years (as Stanislaus County), most fourth tier US teams pass WP:GNG, and as I've noted, there's plenty of sources behind a paywall. This could be a class C article if all of those get incorporated. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:23, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - played in national cup competition which is the standard bar of notability for soccer clubs. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 14:26, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the league page USL PDL per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I'm not seeing GNG met (see discussion above). The team played in the 3rd tier for the first few years with an average attendance under 1,500, then 4th tier with an average attendance under 500. Our article gets less than 5 views per day on average this year [28]. "Needs improving" is easier said than done. The sources we have will only support an article of the kind we have now: a sheer recitation of their statistics... in such-a-such a year, they had such-and-such a record, and in this game on this date, so-and-so scored this many goals. The article is a statistics table in prose form, and that's because the only sources we have are statistics tables and game reports. An encyclopedia entry about a team should answer some more substantive questions like: who owned them? What changes did they have in management and coaching? How did they manage their roster? What strategies and tactics did they employ? What formations did they favor? How did they compare with other teams in their league over the years? Who were their rivalries? Where did they recruit? What was their scouting operation like? Why did they change their name and drop down a league in 2002? We don't have the answers to these questions. There's no significant information we are presenting in this article that isn't already presented in the season-by-season articles at USL PDL–that's the best place to present the historical statistics for this team; it'll be presented in the context of the season. If someone finds some good GNG sources in the future, the redirect can be expanded back into an article. – Levivich 18:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Page views are irrelevant to notability. As I've shown, there's lots of coverage from the Modesto Bee over a long period of time that would answer all of the questions you're asking, but I don't know how to access those articles since they're behind a paywall. I thought the "why did they drop down a league" question had been answered in the article already, but I just added it to make it clearer, there is significant information in this article that's not already in the league seasons article, and even if there wasn't, the club still easily passes WP:GNG, and having the information organised under the club's name still helps the few people actually looking for this article. SportingFlyer T·C 18:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not arguing notability, I'm arguing redirect per WP:PAGEDECIDE. – Levivich 19:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - So basically you're not even going to comment on notability, you just don't want the article? Why? Because WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Because WP:NOBODYCARES? Those aren't reasons. Smartyllama (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - The first eight words of WP:PAGEDECIDE are "When creating new content about a notable topic ..." – Levivich 03:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've finally gone ahead and applied to a couple newspaper archival resources with the Wikipedia library card in an attempt to save this article from deletion, since I know (and have demonstrated) there are paywalled sources which definitively show notability. May be a few days before I have access, though. SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN, and with the sources, passes WP:GNG as well. Smartyllama (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:FOOTYN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:35, 10 September 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) 06:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Roeske[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability standards for actors or martial artists and I don't think the coverage is enough to meet the GNG. Her acting career was over by the age of 13 and she was never played the lead. Sandals1 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ACTOR and WP:NSPORT. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:NACTRESS, and WP:NSPORT. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet guidelines as above, no roles of significance, sports/educator status is non–notable.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 20:30, 9 September 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. No "keep" rationale has been forthcoming. Sandstein 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Wale Oke[edit]

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

Another minister with a church, and some local coverage--in an article mostly filled with fluff and primary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- It would be easier to judge this if there was an article on his church, for which the article claims a membership of 15000 at the HQ church. It depends on how much else there is of this church and thus whether it is a significant denomination. If it is, its founding bishop might be notable. However for the moment all I can say is that its notability is unproved. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: keep rationale coming soon. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HandsomeBoy: - just a reminder that this has now passed 7 days so is subject to immediate close - if you want to provide a justification you need to do so ASAP Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 13 September 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 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WISE Awards[edit]

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

There is nothing to indicate this award is notable. I found no significant independent coverage. The only sources are either from the organization giving it or recipients of the award and neither are independent. Fails the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Page is only references are self-published sources. Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:29, 6 September 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 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fireboy DML[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 still an up and coming artist in the Nigerian music industry. He only has four singles to his name and none of them are notable. Doesn't have a music career to speak of. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:TOOSOON - does not meet WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources - Epinoia (talk) 18:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Wrigley[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played 109 games in DEL and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. He also has no preeminent honours to pass #3 or #4. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted fails notability guidelines. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:21, 13 September 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. No "keep" rationale has been forthcoming. Sandstein 20:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Enenche[edit]

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

Please see the history for evidence of POV and possible COI editing; the dozen Amazon spam links are evidence enough. Subject is a run of the mill pastor, and nothing here proves he passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- There is nothing in the article to show that the church is more than a run-of-the-mill one. We cannot allow an article on a pastor who has done nothing but found a church, when there is no evidence that the church is also notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The pastor/founder of the largest Pentecostal [List of the largest evangelical church auditoriums|church auditorium] in the world does not seem to me like a "run-of-the-mill one". HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: keep rationale coming soon. HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bedo Brwynllys[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:POET Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He meets WP:ANYBIO#3 "The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication." RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try and expand the article a bit with more sources and citations? It would be useful for me because I plan to add it into fr.wiki next week. I'm sure you can make it. Genium . 00:10, Sep 6, 2019 (UTC)

Keep, as above. Genium . 00:10, Sep 6, 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - basically per RebeccaGreen, since apparently clearer consensus is needed. Hug^syrup 09:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO ie. entry in the DNB. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DNB entry = notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:13, 10 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nightbeat (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. The three "Top X" lists are completely trivial filler articles, and I'm not even sure if "Topless Robot" is important enough to count as a reliable source. TTN (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots like I did with several other articles. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Autobots Argento Surfer (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 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 20:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mulherin[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest league played was the ECHL which only grants notability for preeminent honours to but the subject has none, so ge fails #3. Also has no preeminent honours in college to pass #4 as well. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to have the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. He also fails to meet any of the criteria of WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 03:28, 11 September 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 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harryhausen: The Lost Movies[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NBOOK - the book is as yet unreleased and the sources are all directly connected with the author. There are also concerns about WP:COI editing Melcous (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links added I have noticed significant coverage of the content of this publication in recent weeks. To this end, I have added external sources to this article which show wider coverage and interest in the book, such as conventions and external events relating to its content; I hope that this helps RobertCJ (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)RobertCJ[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional material about a book that has not been published - the references are promotions for an unpublished book - the article creator has made few edits outside of John Walsh and Harryhausen - the John Walsh article has been up for deletion and there is a note on the John Walsh article that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" (same article creatory) so there may be WP:COI and sockpuppet issues here - maybe after the book has been published and has multiple significant reviews or writeups in reliable sources the article can be recreated - (WP:NFILM says we shouldn't have articles about unmade films, but this is a book about unmade films, so not sure if that guideline applies) - Epinoia (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Pearson[edit]

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

Not a person of note Gorginhanson (talk) 21:54, 22 August 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 August 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page does not exist, has not existed since 2009, and is SALTed. Please close this AFD. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Squeeps10: not sure why you think this page doesn’t exist, but it does. Why do you think it should be deleted? Mccapra (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: The AFD was originally transcluded with the placeholder "PageName". I have stricken the above comment. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 15:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeeps10: ok great thanks for explaining. Mccapra (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep perhaps the best argument for deletion of this article would be WP:ONEEVENT, but looking through the content and sources there seems to be enough here for WP:GNG. Also there is no rational put forward by the nominator, so it is hard to know what they are arguing against. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:12, 6 September 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 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyTap[edit]

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

Madeup references. Doesn't pass WP:ORGCRIT (Some press releases and some raised capital).

Also note: The author was blocked for sock puppetry and paid editing ref Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company received a substantial amount of funding (namely 9 million USD) and Sequoia Capital played a role. It got bonafide press articles too from sources such as Business Standard, The Economic Times, The Financial Express (India).[29][30][31][32] On top of it, it serves a market that can be tapped and it keeps people from from being gauged by the credit card companies. Furthermore, about 20% of India is still unbanked so their app will be very helpful to these people too. So the company is doing a lot of social good and worthwhile things via the service they are rendering to their customers. As far as awards, in October 2017 Moneytap as selected in the 20 Global Startups for The India Fintech Awards Demo Day by India Fintech Forum. India is still a developing country, but it has a lot of potential. And if it economically rises, it would lift a tremendous amount of people out of poverty. The Chinese lifted a tremendous amount of people out of poverty and India will probably be the next country to do so.And India is a democracy too unlike China. It would be tremendous thing to see India's economy grow fast and it would great if Wikipedia played a role in this matter and did not hamper it with being picayune about featuring its innovate companies that are getting press. I haven't look at the editors past edits, but I think this is a distraction as the articles has reliable sources and the company appears to have a lot of growth potential.Knox490 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Knox490: The Business Standard ref ([this) is coming from a syndicated press release as mentioned at the bottom of article. A google search on the title of the press release gives a lot of same results, which is possibly a scenario of bulk press release. Also their website (here) mentions all about their press releases, which shows all the places the same press release has been published. The Economic Times ref(this) is a raised capital article, which doesn't support WP:ORGDEPTH as it is a trivial coverage. As for other refs, I couldn't find anything but I doubt their legitimacy too because outreaching to these newspaper for certain amount is definitely possible, and the bulk press release history supports this claim. Again, keep in mind that the author was blocked for sockpuppetry as I mentioned in the rationale. Regarding being selected in top 20 Global startup doesn't qualify to be notable. There's nothing to be sentimental about the country here. If the topic doesn't qualify to be notable, it should not exist yet. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. References listed above are press releases. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage is limited to 'business as usual' press releases and their rewrites. Usual variety WP:CORPSPAM that we have to prune. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 13 September 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.