Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 April	28 April >

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. Sandstein 08:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA Christmas Day Games[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yet another abandoned list album stopped after a certain point; if you're going to make a 'list of holiday games' list, at least complete it in draft space before you ever post it. Nate • (chatter) 02:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment idk if i'd call the article abandoned yet as it was only started on april 27th, 2020. might want to wait until it has fully been constructed before nominating it for deletion. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Plenty of acceptable lists are tagged with {{Incomplete list}}. WP:NEGLECT (even if it was 1 year and not 1 day) is not a reason to delete.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already National Basketball Association Christmas games. Having a standalone list is excessive unless there was a relevant link to each entry e.g. List of National Basketball Association seasons has a link to each of its seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - information can easily be transcluded/incorporated into the existing page National Basketball Association Christmas games. giving this an artile of its own leads to watered down content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grmike (talk • contribs) 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy, to give the creator a chance to complete drafting (IMO too early to assume it has been abandoned). Although I personally don't see the point of this article, or why it needs to be separate from National Basketball Association Christmas games, I'm also not an expert on the subject and therefore not in a position to judge. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, this isn't a useful encyclopedia page. I don't really see how userfying could help, but I don't see how it could hurt, so if a user wants it then it should be given to them. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is the "Christmas Day Game" something that is talked about? I've never heard of that, but I'm also not a sports person. I didn't see anything that would indicate that this is a particularly noteworthy subsection of NBA games. Is it special for some reason other than that it's on a holiday? Is there something notable about the category of Christmas Day Games? Ikjbagl (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Blumenfeld[edit]

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

Article about a musician that was deleted via WP:BLPPROD and just undeleted via WP:REFUND with some sourcing. I don't believe the sourcing is enough to establish WP:GNG and WP:BEFORE brings up not much, just a couple of articles on his support for cannabis legalization and nothing about his music. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep - modern folk musicians are a rare breed. those with a high degree of fame even moreso. This one also graduated from MIT and became a doctor allthewhile recording albums with notable band players and going on tour overseas. Grmike (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Weak Keep - The sources in the article aren't great, but he does have four AllMusic entries, which sometimes indicates that other reliable ones exist. I think his two album articles could be merged into this one. Caro7200 (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as does have a staff written biography at All Music with some staff written album reviews, a paragraph or two in The New York Times and local coverage. Will look for more later, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find much on google except here where LA Weekly calls him a folk sensation and there are quite a few book hits. On his website here if you hit press kit then scroll down the page there are quotes about him from Boston Globe, Jerusalem Post, Aquarian Weekly, Playboy and others but unfortunately these articles do not appear to be on google, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - better documented than many other folk musicians today. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bocio[edit]

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

The SPA author moved this into mainspace without approval, which is why I'm going for AfD rather than draftify. Most of the sources listed aren't independent. The few that are don't mention him, specifically, but do talk about his dad and their foundation.The awards claimed, like the "National Solidarity Volunteer Award", don't seem to be notable, so there's no claim of notability. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was just in the process of writing up the AfD myself. Zero coverage in media. Has been a part of a few very non-notable panels. Is the director of a non-wikinotable organization that also has no media coverage or any sort of WP:SIGCOV. This was twice moved to mainspace after a draftify from me and David notMD. Fails WP:GNG WP:ANYBIO and doesn't meet any SSG I can think of. Sulfurboy (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete it First of all, let’s be clears David notMD just deleted information and references, he didn’t move it to draft. Secondly, One Young World IS NOT A PANEL IS A SUMMIT THAT GATHERS MORE THAN 2000 YOUNG LEADERS FROM ACROSS THE GLOBE, AND it is highly competitive to be a speaker in that summit!! Professionally, Benjamin uses his middle name but sometimes he is called by his first name Selin so that'ts why there are articles that use both names (Selin Benjamin Bocio) or one of his names (Selin Bocio or Benjamin Bocio). Aside from Premios Soberanos (entertainment world) there are no famous awards in the dominican republic, but those of the government do matter. Only two dominicans have had the opportunity to speak in ONE YOUNG WORLD, Rainier Mallol 2016 and Benjamin Bocio 2019, a young speaker have to compete with thousands to get the opportunity.... Humanitarian2 (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He cannot be judged as a simple dentist he is a social entrepreneur and activist that have provided healthcare to more than 70,000 poor people... that's why he is giving speeches.... BENJAMIN founded the foundation with 14 years of age and he has been recognized by the goverment several times. The NATIONAL SOLIDARITY VOLUNTEERING AWARD was bestow in the Dominican White house you can read it in the article, is an important award, it is not a PULIZER or a NOBEL but in the DR is important. Many of the media coverage comply WP:SIGCOV Humanitarian2 (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I was not one who converted the article to draft, that did happen twice, after Humanitarian2 moved the AfC Declined draft to mainspace twice. My input (reverted by Humanitarian2) is that listing notable people who spoke at the same event does not add to Bocio's notability, an opinion I stand by. NOTE: A brand new editor "Madeindomincanrepublic" added content ("He cannot be judged...") into the above paragraph signed by Humanitarian2. My guess is that "Made" does not understand the needs to separately make and sign comments. David notMD (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:PROF, and WP:MILL. He's a 24 year old recently graduated dentist. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:PROF. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Boulay[edit]

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

Non notable actor who has made cameo’s in few movies. Subject falls short of WP:NACTOR & doesn’t satisfy general notability guidelines. A before search turns up empty. Celestina007 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He never had a significant role. Totally fails notability guidelines for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get over NACTOR just for appearing in stuff — they have to have significant roles, which is not the same thing as all roles, and even with significant roles they still have to have some evidence of reliable source coverage about them in real media. But the only sources here are genealogical ones, not media — and not only are genealogical sources not support for notability in and of themselves, per our primary sourcing rules even articles that do pass our notability standards still can't use genealogical sourcing to support any biographical content not already placed on the public record in the subject's published media coverage. (That is, if you can't find any published books or newspaper articles about him that state his birthdate or the name of his wife, then you're simply not allowed to dig into civil B/M/D records to find them yourself.) Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I've found some sources at newspapers.com under the subject's pseudonym. I'm applying to have them clipped at WP:RX. While it's doubtful that the subject's TV and film credits will pass WP:NACTOR, there may be something more substantial in the sources in terms of WP:GNG, so I'll cast a tentative "Weak Keep" vote for the moment. Dflaw4 (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of the sources: here, here, here and here. The last two provide only brief praise, but they do show that the subject had what would appear to be main roles in theatre productions, which would strengthen the case for WP:NACTOR. I found another, more in-depth article that refers to the subject in a different capacity—though I'm not sure if it's really him or someone else. The age and location fit, but I'm not certain. It does not, however, refer to the subject in terms of his career as an actor. If anyone wants to see it I am happy to post it. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The sources listed by Dflaw4 are articles about the shows and not about the actor; the actor enjoys maybe a sentence of coverage in each of the four articles. In other words, the coverage is trivial and does not confer notability on the subject. There are no good sources in the article and I couldn't find any. Therefore, delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rocks in My Bed[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Unsourced since 2008. Merge proposal since July. Vmavanti (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect doesn't seem to have been any discussion about merge (only the tag), but makes sense as it doesn't seem independently notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are substantial references to justify the notability of this jazz standard. An even cursory glance at Google Books would have confirmed this. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per No Swan's arguments. Caro7200 (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and remove the merger proposal because nobody has discussed it. The song is a well-known standard. Due to the time period, it is less likely to come up in online sources, but a Google Books search finds that the song is often discussed with various levels of detail in jazz histories of the period, and also in biographies of Duke Ellington and other notable musicians who performed the song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I see that No Swan So Fine has expanded and improved the article since the nomination, so the WP:HEYMANN standard applies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN is an essay, someone's opinion. It's not Wikpedia policy or a rule we need to follow. No one is obligated to follow it or read it. Linking to it is pointless.Vmavanti (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment before reacting. I said it was a "standard" (as used on that page) and not a rule that is required. Either way, it is absolutely worth consideration because you nominated the article for deletion based on its state at the time. Now someone else has improved it, so per WP:HEYMANN your argument for deleting the article has become less viable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN doesn't apply to anything. It's an essay. That's all. It can be ignored. End of story.
Vmavanti (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my last statement on this matter. You have made an incredibly unconvincing argument for dismissing the improvements made by volunteer editors for the articles that you recently nominated for deletion. Here is another essay that you can falsely claim as irrelevant: WP:LISTEN. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your reaction. I really don't. You haven't addressed my points or the facts. You just keep linking to essays. Maybe that's worked for you before, but it doesn't make sense to me. You might want to take a look at the deletion discussion for "Confirmation" where I analyze how the sources have been used incorrectly.Vmavanti (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, No Swan So Fine has done a lot of work after an insufficient WP:BEFORE by the nominator. I dare say a pattern is emerging here. Chubbles (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a pattern, it's a pattern of mistakes, ignorance, stubbornness, and refusal to change or to follow the rules and goals of Wikpedia. "Keep by default" isn't how we are supposed to approach articles on Wikipedia. It is hardly impartial or tolerant or open-minded. You might want to read the deletion discussion for "Confirmation" where I analyze how the sources have been used incorrectly. There's a blues song called "Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself."Vmavanti (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I encourage everyone reading this discussion to look at the deletion discussion Vmavanti notes above - at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confirmation (composition). Please, by all means, examine Vmavanti's analysis and the ensuing discussion. Chubbles (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chubs. I look forward to seeing him add sources to the 4000+ other articles in the jazz backlog stretching back twelve years. It will be nice having someone other than two people work on those unsourced and badly sourced articles and get them in shape before some Philistine tries to delete them. You know, clean up the mess the deadbeats left behind. Maybe the two of you can work on that together. There could be a barnstar in it. I have faith in both of you, as you have demonstrated your vast expertise. Good job.Vmavanti (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY. With reliable sources added by No Swan So Fine, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. And so does theirs. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a Little Street in Singapore[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Unsourced for twelve years. Merge proposal for almost one year. Vmavanti (talk) 22:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Peter DeRose. Mccapra (talk) 05:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why didn't I think of that?Vmavanti (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why DeRose and not Billy Hill (songwriter)? wbm1058 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Rocks in My Bed, there are substantial references to justify the notability of this popular song. An even cursory glance at Google Books would have confirmed this. I've expanded it so @Doomsdayer520:'s evocation of WP:HEYMANN applies. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEYMANN is an essay of someone's opinions. That's all. It has no relevance here. It's not Wikipedia policy. It can be ignored. End of story.Vmavanti (talk) 02:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, overwhelmingly, 100% dead wrong about WP:HEYMANN being irrelevant just because it's an essay. The nominator has recently nominated many articles for deletion when what they actually needed was improvement, and is now telling us that the improvements made by other committed volunteers should be ignored just because something is an essay. If your fingers are capable of creating AfDs and false claims about things being irrelevant, those exact same fingers are capable of improving the articles. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure I said: "is now telling us that the improvements made by other committed volunteers should be ignored"? If I were you, I would be very careful about making false accusations on Wikipedia. I've seen people banned for it. Is it possible to disagree without impugning my character? Now that would civil. I would appreciate that. Thanks, mate.Vmavanti (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's possible that this article will not be kept because of the lack of sources, but I'd question the statement in the first line that it's now "obscure"... it's not like it was never popular, and I certainly think it remains well known among aficionados of this style of music. And seeing as it was covered by almost every big band outfit of the 1940s, there could well be more sources from an earlier era. Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these imagined sources?Vmavanti (talk) 02:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said there definitely were sources. I said there may be, because this was a well known song in an earlier era, with numerous recordings of it. But you'll notice I didn't vote keep, because I can't do so on a premise of WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST, and I'm not in a position to look for sources from the 1940s right now. Richard3120 (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, the article has been expanded and numerous sources have been added to it since this discussion began. [1] No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@No Swan So Fine: sorry, I wasn't being clear... I was referring specifically to any possible further sources from the 1940s that Vmavanti was challenging me on, not the ones that you had already added. Richard3120 (talk) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no worries! :) No Swan So Fine (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm good with it - it was sung by Sinatra, too. My first impression was keep until saw it on Dylan's album and lost focus. 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Redirect to Fallen Angels (Bob Dylan album) - it's #8 in the album and wikilinks to Peter DeRose and Billy Hill which covers it all in that one redirect. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An admirable amount of work was just done on this article by No Swan So Fine, demonstrating both that the song is discussed in myriad sources and that redirection/merging would be a poor decision. Chubbles (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and remove the merge proposal. The article has been improved by No Swan So Fine with reliable sources that the nominator should have found during a WP:BEFORE search. Per the WP:HEYMANN standard, which the nominator incorrectly claims is irrelevant, the deletion rationale was based on the state of the article at that time. Now that the article has been expanded and improved by others, the rationale for deleting has changed and the article can be evaluated on its current state. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:HEY. With reliable sources added by No Swan So Fine, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. And so does theirs. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding these sentences: "The song features a haunting, lazy hook in a minor key, with numerous diminished chords. The overall impression is both languid and wistful." Are they:

1) Opinion

2) Quotation

3) Paraphrase

If 1, then omit the sentences (Don't delete them, omit them; deleting is evil). If 2 or 3, then the sentences must be properly sourced. The other editor in the jazz project and I concluded long ago that we wanted to see the project follow the rest of Wikipedia by having every sentence sourced. That means every sentence should have a citation and footnote at the end of it. It's in everyone's interest to do it that way. I don't have a link to an essay, so course that invalidates the judgment of the two people who have done the most work on jazz articles. A few more points. Is sinatrafamily.com a reliable source? Exactly how many uses and definitions does the word "features" have? They must be numerous. How many items are in a "numerous" and why should I take your word for it? What's the difference between an impression and an "overall impression"? What's the difference between "lazy" and "languid"? Can a song be wistful? Or is a person wistful because of a particular song? Should there be unsourced figurative language in a Wikipedia article?Vmavanti (talk) 19:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've omitted that unsourced sentence. The sinatrafamily.com site is owned and maintained by the family of Frank Sinatra, and so I believe it to be a reliable source for creative works by Frank Sinatra. No Swan So Fine (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. That's probably true.Vmavanti (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in view of the additional sources now included. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2020 (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. There seems to be a good deal of support for the view that this mass nomination was ill advised and that separate nominations are required for a proper assessment of the individual articles. Therefore, there's no prejudice against immediate renominations of those articles not struck out by the nominator below. Deor (talk) 06:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boylston Junction, Wisconsin[edit]

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

These are railroad junctions that have been mislabeled as "unincorporated communities", have little to no coverage beyond their existence as a railroad landmark and do not have a suitable redirect target. –dlthewave ☎ 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: The articles should be developed, not deleted. Bagley Junction, Wisconsin in particular is already informative and well-sourced. The nominator is incorrect in stating that these are "mislabeled as 'unincorporated communities'" because they are all indexed by USGS as a "Community ... that is not a[n] ... incorporated place." The nominator appears to have compiled a laundry list of places in Wisconsin ending in Junction rather than focusing on any particular article. Doremo (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doremo: GNIS classification isn't alone sufficient to establish that a place is or ever has been a community. Based on the work I've done sorting through these sorts of articles and researching the localities in question, many of them are not and never have been inhabited communities. For particularly obvious examples, see Flourney, California, K Flourney, California, D Flourney, California, and R Flourney, California. All of these are individual ranches that somehow ended up on GNIS as "communities", when it is patently obvious from a few quick google searches and a glance at google maps satellite view that they are not and never have been. Likewise, a railroad junction isn't a community. CJK09 (talk) 04:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Geography for some of the massive mess we are cleaning up of articles mass-produced in the mistaken belief that the GNIS is accurate in its classifications and confers automatic notability. If "the nominator is incorrect" then WP:PROVEIT! Reywas92^Talk 04:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me elaborate on my WP:BEFORE process. I look for one category that often shows up erroneously in GNIS, which in this case happens to be rail junctions. Starting with the full list of Wisconsin "junction" stubs, I eliminated any article that mentioned a post office, general store, CDP designation or anything else that might show evidence of a settlement. I then checked topo maps, Google Books and newspapers.com for any amount of significant coverage beyond its existence as a rail junction. Out of the remaining articles, I merged any that were clearly associated with a nearby town and nominated the rest for deletion. Good luck finding any coverage of an actual settlement at any of these locations. The "unincorporated community" label appears to be original research; it's not supported by GNIS which typically uses "populated place". This is concerning because our descriptions show up on Google Maps, indicating that Wikipedia is creating and propagating misinformation. –dlthewave ☎ 04:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlthewave: The "unincoporated" label refers to Wisconsin municipal code. Basically, any community that is not incorporated as city or a village under Wisconsin law is an "unincorporated community." -- Dolotta (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, but we shouldn't be the ones to apply that designation, that would be OR. Somebody went through the GNIS database and made "unincorporated community" articles for every "populated place" without verifying the existence of communities at these locations. As Reywas pointed out, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susie, Washington is a prime example of why GNIS is not a reliable source for these labels since they routinely include uninhabited rail junctions as "populated places". –dlthewave ☎ 13:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: Why would it be OR to apply a definition made by the state when that is the legal definition? Which definition should be used for unincorporated places in Wisconsin other than the one used by the municipal code? Who decides what is applied and what is that based on? Djflem (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete all There is no evidence that any of these are or ever were "communities"; GNIS does not constitute such evidence, as it has too many mistakes. Examination of the topo maps which are GNIS's sources doesn't show any communities, and while there is a fair bit of text in the Bagley Junction article, all of it is either just the GNIS text elaborated, or a rather drawn-out explanation of where the name came from. None of the other goes beyond a GNIS dump. If you can show that they are notable as rail junctions, go ahead. But they are not communities. Mangoe (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Bagley junction is also just a railroad junction, not a community, see topo and sources in its article. The rest of that article reads as a WP:REFBOMB and does not establish why a generic railroad junction is notable, though some of that history could go in Escanaba and Lake Superior Railroad or a Railroads of Wisconsin. Reywas92^Talk 04:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not clear what the see topo link above indicates; on the topographic map Bagley Junction is marked in the same font and size as the neighboring community of Porterfield, and the map shows a small cluster of houses at Bagley Junction. Doremo (talk) 04:44, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's also in the same font as the Phillips Sch[ool], Sandberg Sch, and St Matthews Ch[urch] nearby, but in a smaller font than the actual towns of Peshtigo and Porterfield.
Consider them individually: I don't know about the rest of the locations, but Bagley Junction is widely mentioned in newspapers as a community where people lived or where they were from; for example, here ("her home at Bagley Junction", "moved to Bagley Junction"), here ("the 'mayor of Bagley Junction'", a jocular title), and here ("Leo Saduski, of Bagley Junction"). The locale is referred to like any other small community, and this list should be addressed on a per-case basis. Doremo (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for in fact now proving it as requested as a locale. Whether it's really a notable community is another question, as the neighborhood near the junction (GEOLAND2) can be covered with its township Porterfield, Wisconsin, but perhaps best to exclude this one. Mass-creator did not make these on a per-case basis so best not to waste on time on thousands of such one-liners individually. Reywas92^Talk 05:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foster Junction is probably another that should be excluded from the laundry list. Callary's Place Names of Wisconsin (page 98) refers to it as a community and provides additional history on its establishment and decline. Doremo (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep Bagley Junction for sure and I'd give the others their due individually. For instance, Laona Junction had a depot that could be covered [2] [3] and at least one person is mentioned as being from there in this, er, public interest story [4] and [5], it was also the destination of a tourist train in the 1960s and would be a valid stub. [6] These deletions are getting unwieldy. SportingFlyer T·C 06:41, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All Except Bagley -- I would merge them with the municipality in which they are located. If more information is located later, the article can be recreated. For a large proportion of these places, significant information is generally lacking. -- Dolotta (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Chicago Junction to Spooner, Wisconsin. According to this newspaper clipping, Chicago Junction was an early name for the town that became Spooner. (No opinion on the rest until I do more research.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bagley Junction per the sources found by Doremo, which establish pretty convincingly that it's an actual community and not just a railroad junction that was misclassified as one. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Laona Junction. In addition to the sources found by Doremo, there's this article which says it was a mill town in addition to being a railroad junction, and a small piece of local news about a resident. (Plus quite a few sources about the railroad, compared to the other junctions that have come up at AfD.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing here is a bit ambiguous (are the mills in Laona or Laona Junction?), but if they were located "a short distance from the C&NW Road" then they would have been in Laona which was on the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad. The majority of sources simply mention it as a railroad landmark, e.g. "between Laona and Laona Junction", which doesn't demonstrate the existence of a community or meet the level of in-depth coverage that would met GNG. A significant number of the newspaper hits are reprints of this, which describes a snowmobile trail "starting in Laona at Junction 32", completely unrelated to Laona Junction. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Foster Junction. In addition to Place Names of Wisconsin, this article mentions a family who lived there, and there are multiple stories about hunting near Foster Junction [7] [8]. (Failing that, merge it with Mellen, Wisconsin, which it was very close to.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the other three. I was able to confirm that they were all real locations, but I couldn't find evidence that any of them were more than railroad junctions. (Though Wisconsin Junction was really hard to search for, so if anyone finds better sources about it, please ping me.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 15:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Boylston Junction. Gmaps does not show nothing as claimed, there is a sprinkling of buildings there. An article in Defenders says "Wolves will often cross roads amd move through fairly densely populated areas. One female was seen at 2pm at a gas station in Boylston Junction, Wisconsin." The context implies that this is a populated area. It at least has a gas station. This book says "Today, Boylston is Bylston Junction..." implying that they are synonyms and a redirect is in order. The map pin for Boylston, Wisconsin is almost the same location, just the other side of the junction. The same source also says, "David Zearley was an old man of 73-74 when he left Iowa for Boylston, Wisconsin, to live with his son and grandson..." So at least three people once lived there. Perhaps because it has a convenient gas station. SpinningSpark 00:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge any that have been shown to definitely exist, but cannot sustain a standalone page. Merge all information per WP:PRESERVE, including the coodinates. SpinningSpark 17:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bagley, Foster, and Laona because they have signs of being real. Especially keep Foster as it once was a populated place but now a ghost town. Redirect others to the town articles and merge content into it (if any content). I have encountered some Michigan and Colonial East Coast states use the redirect method for short articles. On a side note, Forest Junction started as an railroad intersection in the woods and grew into a community - so it is possible that some of these rail intersections might become notable in the future. Royal broil 15:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I went ahead and struck Foster Junction since it's been shown to be an actual, if short-lived, community. I'm aware of minor coverage and the existence of buildings at some of the other locations, but I don't see anything that would meet WP:GEOLAND. Populated places that lack official recognition would need to pass WP:GNG. I'm not convinced that someone being "from" there or the fact that it was a destination for hunters are sufficient to establish these as distinct, notable communities. –dlthewave ☎ 16:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GEOLAND does not say that a place must be incorporated before we have to rely on GNG, it says "legally recognized" which is not quite the same thing. A place can be legally recognized without it having a town council. SpinningSpark 17:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, we've had discussion on the talk page if the presence of a post office or naming of a census-designated place is "legal recognition" and neither was conclusive – the law isn't involved! The talk archives suggest that enumeration in the census would count, and the page once noted that this would indeed vary by country, but this term is never defined and several concerns were raised in the RFC to adopt. It's very vague and should be revised. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep and merge - keep Boylston junction and merge the junctions which are not communities into a single other new article. As noted above there are populated areas that can only be considered part of the junction.Grmike (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
keep with with no prejudice for re-nom individually. Appears in insufficient Wikipedia:BEFORE was conducted, making this nomination too complex and confusing to properly evaluate.Djflem (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least two of these appear to be notable. The others would need to be re-nominated individually. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relist all individually - It's so hard to tell what belongs in a bundle AfD, and this might just be on the line of not belonging. I would relist these individually so people can comment and give sources or just say delete on each article. Ikjbagl (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo del Río Galnares[edit]

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

Non notable BLP. No substantial reliable sources in the article.

Article was deprodded without explanation by a single-purpose account which appears to share a very similar name as the subject. I will leave it for other editors to decide if this constitutes a COI issue. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is very strong consensus that film producers (especially co-producers and executive producers) are not notable and are run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2020 (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. The sources are all Greek to me, but they're sufficient to keep this article. (non-admin closure) --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 18:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonian Thrace Brewery[edit]

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

non-notable &in large part promotional -- a list of products and a list of social media links, cited mainly to its own web site. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Hello and thank you for your time.First,there is an article in Greek Wikipedia for this company and I thought it would be useful to non Greek speaking people to create one in English. I considered the reasons you refer above and I will proceed to some edits.I believe is a notable article as other big breweries in Greece have Wikipedia articles and as this company is the third or fourth biggest brewing company and holds around 5 to 7% of the market in Greece.It is also a notable exporter to many countries around the globe.I will replace where possible all reference links citing to its own website with ones from newspapers and third party websites and I'll remove the parts that cannot be verified. Gnslps (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have argued at various times that our inclusion of companies should be based primarily upon their real world importance, rathe than on sourcing. This has never been accepted, except in limited ways, and as secondary factors. We do take into consideration membership in major exchange (such as the companies whose stock price are components of the S&P500), and we informally sometimes consider the size of the company, and very occasionally the market share. We tend to give a preference for long established companies, and are very skeptical about articles on ones in the process of formation, or that have never actually produced a project. There are no formal standards for these factors. Personally, I have sometimes argued for acceptance of the company holding the predominant market share in a country, but even I have never argued it for 3rd or 4th. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it would be even harder for companies where most of the sources would not be in English. I was going to vote on this, but I think I could fairly due to not speaking Greek. Although, interestingly most of the sources in the article are in English. So, maybe I will anyway. More on topic, I think there was something in a guideline about having slightly loser standards for smaller "local" companies. Maybe the same can go for companies in places like "minor" (no insult) European countries. Where they have a large market in that place, but a small market compared to what it would be in a larger country. For instance there shouldn't be the same standard for a company in a place like Malta with a population of just under five hundred thousand compared to one in a larger place. Especially if they have a large market share there. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGG It's not a realistic argument whether a company is notable or not if it is a member of the S&P500.Even for the market of big countries like US is insane. Also,you have to consider some facts to understand the situation in the Greek market of beer.Until recently,a subsidiary of Heineken,Athenian Brewery, was holding more than 70% of the market share for 30 years,but it managed to achieve this percentage due to its unfair competition methods adopted, for which was found guilty and fined 30 million euros by a greek court.So, the remaining percentage has to be shared to many micro and mid-sized breweries.That's why I believe the market share matters in this case.I can give many proof of why this company is notable for the size of Greece, such as the fact that it managed to fulfill its needs for raw materials(malt) 100% by the local production,become the main supplier of them to the inland market micro and mid-sized breweries and start exporting it while of course being exporting the main products,the beers,since 1999.It has farming contracts with hundreds of producers of northern Greece and also managed to found a subsidiary company and all of these through the debt crisis Greece was suffering.One Last thing, in wikipedia there are articles for way much smaller breweries that have no special impact to the society they're located due to their small production rates. Some of them are: Peiraiki Microbrewery,Rethymnian Brewery,Santorini Brewing Company Adamant1 I agree with you! Excuse me for any mistakes Gnslps (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to be sure ,being a member of the S&P 500 is not necessary--I gave it merely as an example of where we accepted real-world importance. I personally am prepared to accept being the leading company in an industry i nany country as large and significant as Greece. r. aasa reason for notable , and had it been he largest brewer in Greece, I would argue for its acceptance. But thatmeans largest, not 3rd lrgest. DGG ( talk ) 09:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DGGAccording to your logic if you're not the largest in something, you don't deserve to have a WP article.For example,in the soccer,i suppose you believe that only the biggest teams deserve a WP article and not those which rank lower, even if they belong to a whole such as the league and so on.In our case this whole is the brewing industry in Greece (See also Beer in Greece). So,according to this I'm expecting from you to nominate for deletion every small brewery and in large scale every small company based in any country that is listed in the English Wikipedia so you can be unbiased. Gnslps (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you understand. The basic requirement is that the company meet [[the referencing standards at WP:NCORP. For companies, large or small, that are marginal in that respect, we can consider other factors. However, there are many hundred thousand articles in WP accepted in earlier years when the standards were lower that we need to either upgrade or remove. The least we can do is not add to them. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The only significant coverage I found in independent sources was related to a lawsuit against Heineken.

Greek City Times - moderate coverage of the lawsuit

Stibbe - good coverage of a ruling of the District of Amsterdam not to find jurisdiction over the case

Yahoo Life - some coverage in a public interest story

Reuters - brief mention by Reuters

We could argue about whether this confers notability for the lawsuit, but that is not the subject here; the subject here is the brewery itself, which does not appear to meet notability guidelines per WP:NCORP or even WP:GNG. Therefore, delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Greek version of this page should also be considered for deletion, unless there are Greek-language sources that make the subject notable (in which case I would change my vote here to KEEP, since notability doesn't depend on language). Maybe someone like Cplakidas or Encyclopædius/Dr._Blofeld from the Greek translation wikiproject can help. I'll also post this on the Wikiproject Greece page. Ikjbagl (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC) It turns out this was the case; see below for my updated vote. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree on removing some of the mention of awards etc but it looks notable enough in its industry in that part of the world. Companies don't need to be globally prominent to be worthy of articles on here. The transwiki project isn't active btw even though it should be.. † Encyclopædius 05:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is significant coverage also in Greek publications proving that is a notable company in Greece, in its industry and the community (there are citations in the Greek Wikipedia). P.S. in a quick search I found this article and I don't think that a non notable company would get visited by a European Commission member. Gnslps (talk) 09:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I originally voted delete on this, but after finding significant coverage in some Greek language sources, I think the subject is notable. Specifically these pages, which I have added to the end of the first sentence of the article:

(As far as Google translate tells me,) these sources seem to me to be independent and reliable, and they have significant coverage of the subject, so I vote keep. Ikjbagl (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the above provided Greek sources by user Ikjbagl (and others similarly covering the subject that can be found, too). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher and Kevin Graves[edit]

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

Non notable former child actors. Only external link is IMDb. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of any secondary sources that could help improve the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable children involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I haven't found anything other than mere mentions, so WP:GNG is not established. WP:NACTOR isn't met, either, with only a couple of recurring roles when the subjects were still very young. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iván Ramírez (boxer)[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. ².O.^Boxing 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Humberto Trinidad[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG ².O.^Boxing 22:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardo Rojas[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG ².O.^Boxing 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Felipe Ugalde[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG ².O.^Boxing 22:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 22:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business Matters[edit]

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

Non-notable magazine, article has horrible sourcing, no credible assertion of notability and tone is oddly promotional Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep plenty of source found by search engine. Cabeyi (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC) User blocked indefinitely as LTA, see log. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Courrecx (talk) 04:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Courrecx is a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"This" is a Google query. As indicated to you at several AfDs, please actually indicate what reliable sources you find. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing WP:GNG. The only sources available seem to be press releases and content from the magazine itself, but nothing actually about it to justify an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is supported by several valid references and is a noteworthy publication. Wikieditor600 (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - Have you looked at those "sources", 600? The first is an article about magazines on an obscure software products' help pages; the second is a press release announcement of a personnel change; the third and fourth are passing mentions in articles about something else entirely. There is zero, bupkiss, nada, zilch in the way of the requisite substantive coverage of the publication itself. --15:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
Delete Having a couple of notable people briefly write for a magazine does not make the magazine itself notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

César Gaytan[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG ².O.^Boxing 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2020 (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. Evidence has been presented verifying that Panthers-Seahawks has been described as a rivalry. However, there is also consensus, which has changed over time, that these sources do not establish notability per our guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Panthers–Seahawks rivalry[edit]

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

Two teams that occasionally meet don't automatically constitute a rivalry. No proof of it here. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate this is a rivalry and just a listing of games played. Nice research. But like another recent AFD, I believe this is also information best suited for a sports almanac and not an encyclopedia. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many sources presented at the previous AfD and while they discuss the nature of a "rivalry" they don't actually talk about a rivalry - most of the references are in passing or question whether the teams should be rivals, as opposed to talking about any hatred that may actually constitute a rivalry. WP:NRIVALRY says it must pass WP:GNG and I don't see WP:GNG being met in the sense that there's evidence these two teams consider themselves rivals. I think this was kept in 2016 because enough articles use the word "rivalry." Other articles discuss the rivalry between the teams' quarterbacks and not the rivalry amongst the teams themselves, and we see similar articles written and deleted for college football non-rivalries because some sportswriter, hungry to create content, decides the teams may be "rivals." SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as we have plenty of rivalry articles on Wikipedia. Cabeyi (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC) User blocked indefinitely as LTA, see log. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. USA Today said in 2016 it's "becoming a 'must-see TV' rivalry" (bolding mine),[9] but it's too lopsided and there are no really memorable games, so (from the vantage point of a longtime Seahawks fan) the emotion/animosity of a real rivalry just isn't there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There isn't enough reliable sourcing that refers to this as a rivalry. As it stands, the article is nothing more than a game log with a weakly-sourced history section that simply rehashes when they've met and under what circumstances. There is content, but there is nothing substantive to suggest that anyone considers this to be any more of an actual rivalry than any two randomly-selected teams in the league. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panthers–Seahawks rivalry was closed in 2016. Here are four sources published in 2018 and 2020:
1. Person, Joseph (2018-11-20). "One of the NFL's weirdest, long-distance rivalries: How Panthers vs. Seahawks became what it is today". The Athletic. Archived from the original on 2020-04-28. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
2. Wassell, Tom (2020-01-09). "Seahawks-Packers rivalry has some memorable games — these are the top 5". Bonneville International. Archived from the original on 2020-04-28. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
  The article notes (my bolding):
  You don’t need to be in the same division to have a true rivalry in the NFL. There are plenty of teams that have bitter histories with one another despite not having to play twice a year. Think of 49ers-Cowboys, Patriots-Colts, Giants-49ers, Seahawks-Panthers and more recently Saints-Vikings.
  On Sunday, the Seahawks and Packers add another chapter to their growing rivalry that has already seen them play twice in the playoffs and a handful of times in the regular season with exciting or strange outcomes. Let’s take a look at five of those games.
3. Finnis, Alex (2018-11-23). "NFL RedZone companion, week 12: Seahawks and Panthers renew rivalry in wild card scrap". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-04-28. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
  The article notes:
  
  The Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry over the past half-decade or so, one which really ignited when they split back-to-back Divisional Round playoff games in the 2014 and 2015 seasons (each time the winner went on to lose the Super Bowl). Sunday's clash in Charlotte is almost as important as those two games - the victor puts themselves into pole position in the NFC wild card race.
4. Lewis, Derek (2018-11-26). "Pete Carroll rejects notion Seahawks dominate Panthers rivalry". KIRO. 247Sports.com. Archived from the original on 2020-04-28. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
  The article notes (my bolding):
  Winning seven of nine games in a rivalry and two-straight certainly qualifies as a tremendous success but history tends to forget how those games were won. Carroll hasn't and although he's happy to get a season-changing road win that allows them to control their playoff fortunes; he's not ready to call anything "dominant."
  But then again, the Panthers probably don't care what you call it. In nine games, they have seven losses to one of their biggest non-division rivals. When they play next, that fact will undoubtedly dominate their minds if nothing else.
Here are two sources from 2016:
1. Person, Joseph (2016-01-12). "A look back at past 5 games in Panthers-Seahawks rivalry". The Charlotte Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes (my bolding):
  The Panthers and Seattle Seahawks have met so often the past four seasons, it’s almost like they’re division rivals – if not for the 2,500 miles that separate them.
  Sunday’s divisional-round game at Bank of America Stadium will be the sixth time Carolina (15-1) and Seattle (11-6) have played since 2012, including the Panthers’ playoff loss at Seattle last January.
  The teams will meet again next season in Seattle for a seventh time in five seasons.
  The Observer looks at the recent games in one of the NFL’s more interesting – and improbable – rivalries:
2. Condotta, Bob (2016-01-14). "The top 5 games in Seahawks-Panthers history". The Seattle Times. Archived from the original on 2016-09-28. Retrieved 2016-09-28.
  The article notes (my bolding):
  Carolina might not always be in the Seahawks’ minds, as James Taylor sang in the 1970s, but it does seem to often be in their way.
  For two franchises on opposite coasts and in separate divisions, the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years, crossing paths both with an unusual frequency and at particularly critical times, especially for Seattle.
  They will do so again Sunday when the Seahawks play at Carolina in a divisional playoff game, the Panthers once again standing between Seattle and the Super Bowl.
  In all, the teams have met eight times in the regular season and twice in the postseason — both of those in years in which the Seahawks advanced to the Super Bowl.
  Six of those meetings have come since Pete Carroll took over as the Seahawks’ coach in 2010, meaning they have faced Carolina more than any other non-NFC West team in that time.
  We could just list the games the Seahawks have played against Carolina. Instead, we thought we’d rate them in order of importance.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Panthers–Seahawks rivalry to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Daily Telegraph said in 2018, "The Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry over the past half-decade or so, one which really ignited when they split back-to-back Divisional Round playoff games in the 2014 and 2015 seasons (each time the winner went on to lose the Super Bowl)."
Bonneville International said in 2020, "their growing rivalry that has already seen them play twice in the playoffs and a handful of times in the regular season with exciting or strange outcomes".
In 2018, 247Sports.com in reference to Seahawks and Panthers called the former "one of their biggest non-division rivals".
The Athletic published an article in 2018 with the headline: "One of the NFL’s weirdest, long-distance rivalries: How Panthers vs. Seahawks became what it is today".
The Charlotte Observer said in 2016 that the Seahawks and Panthers are "one of the NFL's more interesting – and improbable – rivalries".
The Seattle Times said in 2016, "the Seahawks and Panthers have developed an unlikely rivalry in recent years, crossing paths both with an unusual frequency and at particularly critical times, especially for Seattle".
Multiple reliable sources have said that the Panthers and the Seahawks have a rivalry. The sources have explained how this rivalry started and continued.
Cunard (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panthers–Seahawks rivalry participants: Old Naval Rooftops (talk · contribs), Newyorksports38 (talk · contribs), Lepricavark (talk · contribs), UW Dawgs (talk · contribs), Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs), Smmurphy (talk · contribs), Rlendog (talk · contribs), and K.e.coffman (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep See the above examples. Nothing has changed since the last AfD aside from new sources that only confirm the existence of this rivalry. Here's one from The Athletic calling it one of the "weirdest long distance rivalries", here's one from Sports Illustrated calling it a rivalry. There might have been less coverage due to NFL scheduling rules: they have only played twice in the last four years. But when they do play (which is still pretty often), it gets covered. For posterity, here's the sources I listed in the last AfD in 2016:

The Charlotte Observer

KGW.com (again)

The Sports Daily (again)

Fox Sports

Charlotte Observer

Toa Nidhiki05 13:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see what changed from the last AfD that would make me change my !vote.Rlendog (talk) 18:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are there so many delete !votes when there are sources found? Because this isn't actually a rivalry. This says this "isn't really much of a rivalry." This implies they were once rivals but aren't anymore, which isn't really the definition of rivalry we look for. This calls it an "unofficial" rivalry, this uses the word rivalry in quotes. The Seahawks don't consider this a rivalry. Also, NFL writers use the definition of rivalry willy-nilly, this one calls Seahawks-Patriots the best rivalry in football and no one is claiming that's even close to a rivalry. SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words we have a ton of sources that consider this a rivalry and a tiny handful that either don't consider it one or think that the rivalry has faded (in which case it's still a notable rivalry for the period of time they were rivals). Not really that convincing. Toa Nidhiki05 19:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are any of the articles here brought over from 2016 that claim to make this pass WP:GNG. Many of them only use rivals in a passing mention, the best isn't an RS but rather a Panthers fan blog, several don't discuss the rivalry but rather the rivalry between the two quarterbacks. We're putting way too much emphasis on how sportswriters have described a few of the games these teams played against each other, mostly out of passing mentions. No one actually thinks of this as a rivalry in the true sense of the word - it's nowhere near Washington-Washington State, for instance - which is the very reason why it's been nominated for AfD twice. SportingFlyer T·C 20:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly no one thinks it's a rivalry because there are no articles about it and editors didn't say keep last time. Toa Nidhiki05 01:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not Pete Carroll, for one. And UW Dawgs had a pretty persuasive argument at the last AfD about the overuse of "rivals/rivalry" by American sports journalists. SportingFlyer T·C 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have semiprotected both the article and this AfD due to persistent sockpuppetry and harassment. I had been hesitating to do so, as I have !voted above and am thus involved, but enough is enough. If another administrator feels it fit to undo this action, then feel free. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly routine coverage which fails WP:GNG policy. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree with Kinu, no enough reliable sourcing that refers to this as a rivalry. Ms4263nyu (talk) 10:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not every combination of two teams that play each other semi-regularly is really a notable rivalry, nor does the use of a word sports writers love to throw around warrant an article that's merely game results even if a supposed rivalry exists. No teams are friends and anyone you play is your rival, this is how sports works. Reywas92^Talk 03:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard's sources make me convinced that this is an actual rivalry. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the series briefly became competitive in 2015 and 2016, resulting in some coverage invoking the "R" word, but the series lacks many of the classic indicia of a true rivalry, e.g., frequency of play (total of only 14 games [compare Bears–Packers with 200 games]), long history (series began 2000), geographic proximity (at 2,800 miles, about as far as two NFL cities can get), and competitiveness (Seattle has 10–4 record). Given everything, I think it's premature to consider this a notable rivalry for encyclopedia purposes. Cbl62 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no rivalry here. Teams that play against each other does not constitute a rivalry. Talk about past games between two teams is WP:ROUTINE coverage that always happens in a week leading up to two NFL teams playing. If this were considered a rivalry then any two teams in the NFL could be considered one. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marly (Almir Leka)[edit]

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

in the last 6 months i've been patrolling black hat seo fake news sources, i've never run across an article that used literally every single one as their sources. So obviously, some paid for spam with no reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 20:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there are more articles and materials that due to the space and content size could not be included, but given an opportunity to prove that to you I would be glad to link them. All the sources listed are from google news articles and their purpose serves as they are in English, but as I previously mentioned I'd be happy to provide other links that are not from google news, but from Albanian national websites. I'd be grateful if you consider not shutting it down by prejudice over the links and instead asking here directly what kind of other proof you need. I'd be more than willing to provide it immediately. Akelrimla —Preceding undated comment added 20:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Cabeyi (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC) User blocked indefinitely as LTA, see log. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found. Courrecx (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Above. Fabulouers (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. No reliable sources. Clearly an autobiography as it was created by User:Akelrimla (read the username backwards). --Kinu ^t/_c 07:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there seems to be plenty of sources in many platforms and websites. Plus, many songs published by the author have hundreeds of thousands up to millions of views.actual sources Lakepuppulake — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakepupulake (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: checkuser has confirmed that Lakepupulake is the same editor as the article creator Akelrimla. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kinu: Nice one; not been blocked though? ——SN 54129 17:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the checkuser admin was assuming good faith, but looking at this editor's contributions, they're a self-promoting SPA, so I've gone ahead and blocked. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the terms of use; Praxidicae, does the guy above get reported now. ——SN 54129 12:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this spam. Guy (help!) 15:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Emphasis on the “reliable sources”. Furthermore nothing makes me happier in this life than “spoiling business” for paid editors. Celestina007 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject has links that prove he is charted in Albanian Top Awards, apparently the biggest national event, held by the biggest national television Top Channel. Plus numerous google links that are not only from google news. On the side: there's nothing that makes me happier than proving wrong to wikipedia admins that never dig further than the surface and unfortunately cause damages to many public figures this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saralala123 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC) — Saralala123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Saralala123 Yeah? so you should have no problem providing a source for each of those statements. Praxidicae (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't have any problem at all: here you have three articles about Top Awards : 1.[10] , 2. [11] , 3. [12] , and here another bunch of articles: 4. [13] , 5. [14] , 6. [15]. There are more but i stopped myself here. Have a nice day everyone and be positive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saralala123 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saralala123 If you think any of those are reliable or establish notability, I've got a bridge to sell you. Praxidicae (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me sources about Top Awards charting and I gave them to you accordingly from the website of the official channel that holds that kind of Award Show. (I was even generous providing 3 more articles to a total of 6) On the side: If I had to buy a bridge from you I'd be bringing the triple of the cash, divided in three cases, all filled with authentic money, and you'd still leave two behind fearing they'd be fake... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saralala123 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic the award I won in third grade for spelling makes me notable. "Winning xyz award" doesn't establish notability, but good luck with that bridge, glad you agree that the rest of the sources are trash too. Praxidicae (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources. All musicians win some awards, collaborate with other musicians, and get some local coverage, even run of the mill ones. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2020 (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 moved to Draft:Chelsea Ricketts, pending potential resolution of notability concerns. BD2412 T 00:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chelsea Ricketts[edit]

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

Non notable actor, with only external link as IMDb. Deprodded by an anonymous editor, but with no reliable sources added since. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am seeing sources interviewing her about The Amityville Murders, which despite being a red link, has multiple reviews as seen here. She is also interviewed in her hometown as seen here -- not sure how to gauge local coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting any WP:NACTOR notability guidelines, having had mostly minor/episodic roles. Although there are 4 reviews for the above redlinked film, other than the reviews stating she had a role, they did not talk about her. Should her career blossom into something more noteworthy wouldn't object to reviving the article.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the other proposed source, interviews of the subject, cannot be used to pass GNG. She is not notable, and I suspect several of the works she appeared in are not notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the user who endorsed the PROD. Along with essentially being an unreferenced BLP aside from IMDB, my WP:BEFORE search couldn't come up with anything substantive, aside from your normal database listings. --MuZemike 15:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR, and there is no coverage that would allow for a WP:BLP to be justified. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep or Draftify: The subject has had several main roles in moderately notable films, thereby meeting WP:NACTOR, in my opinion. The source provided by Erik (which isn't strictly an interview-style article but merely contains quotes) provides significant coverage—although I do acknowledge that it is a local source. The subject does get a lot of hits in reliable sources, including thousands of hits at newspapers.com, but of the coverage I've sifted through so far, most of it seems quite routine. However, I do not see the point in deleting an article which may very well pass WP:GNG quite easily in the near future. An alternate solution would be to "draftify" it, which I think would be preferable to outright deletion. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that drafts expire at some point. I've had some drafts I've been slow to address that have gotten deleted and have required me to request undeletion and start keeping it in my userspace instead. So basically, if no editor is that interested in doing anything with this actor in the draft space, it may as well be deleted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly add your source to the article, Erik, and anything else that provides non-trivial coverage, keeping my eye out for future sources. If it goes to draftspace and is then deleted because the new sources do not meet WP:GNG—well, at least we'll have given the article a fair shot. Personally, as I said above, I would be happy for the article to remain in mainspace, but draftifying would give it a final chance. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Upgrading my vote based on more coverage (below). With some searching, WP:GNG might be satisfied. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just found some further coverage here. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as the article is not a hopeless case as the actress does have some prominent roles and an editor has committed to improving the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BD2412 T 01:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of organisations in Artemis Fowl[edit]

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

Very small article with no sources. TheTVExpert (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TheTVExpert (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article fails WP:LISTN, as it is sourced to absolutely nothing, and WP:PLOT, since it is written from an entirely in-universe point of view. I could find no useful sources, and the title is not a useful redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. Not a notable cross categorisation. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence this list is anything but a WP:PLOT summary in a list form. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete formatting an article as a list does not avoid a need for sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2020 (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. Any delete votes have been changed to keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucar[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. JTZegers (talk) 19:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately, there were no mentions found. Inside I kinda wanna keep it, but I can't find anything that could be considered a reliable source. Less Unless (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thank to the users who managed to find the sources, where I have failed, I am changing my vote as now I can justify my inner voice with the actual facts. Less Unless (talk) 20:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (sort of). It's mentioned in The Complete Catalog of British Cars 1895-1975, but there's not a lot of information about it. It could be added as an entry in a disambiguation page (along with Lúcar and Lucar (surname)) or hatnote (the latter if Lucar (surname) is moved here). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found three thin sources that confirm the facts. The middle source points to a June 1913 article in a publication called "Autocar", and also has a picture. It's not much, but small stubs on old items aren't hurting anyone as long as the facts are confirmed (personal view). I also removed the vernacular description of crimp terminals, as this is not a disambiguation page. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In general we keep models and marques of automobile. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It's not much, but just about enough to justify a stub, I think. And given the fan base for this kind of stuff, chances for eventual expansion aren't that bad. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:41, 1 May 2020 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Johnstone[edit]

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

Does not pass GNG or WP:NPOL. Elected to a single term as a local councillor. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I find it confusing and incorrect that you have flagged the page Oliver Johnstone for deletion. It does match the criteria in WP:NPOL, as he was a member of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council which is a province of Greater Manchester. It clearly states that if someone has been a member of a legislature at a province level they pass the criteria for WP:NPOL. This position that Oliver Johnstone had is similar to state house members in the United States, it is clearly therefore acceptable for this page to be in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheApollotd (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Stockport isn’t a province of Manchester, it’s a borough. Being a local councillor in Stockport is not like being a member of a US state legislature, it’s like being on the borough board of Queens or Brooklyn. Mccapra (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Boroughs of cities are not the same thing as provinces of the country, so a borough council is not synonymous with or even comparable to a provincial legislature. Borough councillors are local politicians under NPOL #2, not provincial or state legislators under NPOL #1 — so to qualify for a Wikipedia article, the test he would have to pass is having a hell of a lot more reliable source coverage about him in media than this. Greater Manchester is not an independent country, it's merely a city with boroughs and wards like any other city. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local councillors are certainly not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Even county councillors aren't notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete councilors at this level are just inherently non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Municipal councillors are not notable for only being councillors. Johnstone is a local politician that served one term in council and lost re-election. A majority of the citations relate to the election. A mere mention in a regional newspaper is also not enough. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 23:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As has been mentioned above, having failed NPOL we have to resort to SIGCOV, which in this case is nonexistent, therefore the person is non-notable for Wikipedia. PK650 (talk) 03:52, 3 May 2020 (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. While there is no support for deletion, there does not appear to be a consensus as to whether this should be kept as a standalone article or merged and redirected to an appropriate target (especially given the number of participants who have !voted "merge or keep" without a clear preference), even after the relisting after the original closure was overturned at deletion review. A discussion on the article's talk page would be the logical venue for subsequent discussion on that. Kinu ^t/_c 11:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lich (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Not particularly notable as a separate topic compared to the overall fantasy Lich which it could easily be merged into, as that article is rather underdeveloped. Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage in reliable sources. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Lich. Based on the nomination, I don't understand why this was not directly proposed as a merge. BD2412 T 04:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Light Merge to Lich, per above. Taking out all of the in-universe plot information, there is not a whole lot that would justify this being WP:SPLIT from the main topic. Its already mentioned there, but its entry could probably use some expansion. Rorshacma (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Lich per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification As per Sariel Xilo below, my preference is keep over merge and then merge over delete. BOZ (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lich. No sources here that would help establish notability, and really there is only one sentence here that should be merged. That can be accomplished instantly without any need for a merge recommendation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep: As the Lich article is closely related with the lich from Dungeons & Dragons, I am fine either way. There are secondary sources treating the topic in the article, which should be preserved. There's also some discussion about the lich in Dungeons & Dragons and Philosophy. Aside from the reception section, some content based on primary sources is also worth preserving. (Primary sources are not "bad", right, they just don't contribute to notability?) And actually the io9 source here provides a reference for some of the content in the introductory section of the Lich article which is unsourced. Daranios (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ - weak because I can't see the D&D and Philosophy book. I think this crosses the line. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to sources above, D&D liches were the subject of an article in Kobold Quarterly (an independent publication) issue 3. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or at the very least keep. The amount of verifiable content makes me think keep, but I see the rationale to merge information to other articles per other users. ClaudeDavid ^(talk) 02:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge given several WP:RS have been found per Josh Milburn above. It's one of 3 monsters specifically called out in the 5E Monster Manual review by SLUG Magazine (the review also highlights non-specific monster categories like devil & demon) so I added that to the reception section. Sariel Xilo (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification My preference is keep over merge and then merge over delete. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—¿philoserf? (talk)
KEEP Based on sources found and in the article's reception section already. Lich_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)#Reception Dream Focus 20:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 27
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Decent sources. I think the Geek & Sundry article is good — a non-fiction article specifically about liches that gives real-world information. The Kobold Quarterly article sounds promising. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Geek & Sundry article just shows that Lichs as seen in D&D aren't an original concept, there is nothing particularly special about them compared to other fictional depictions of the Lich, and therefore this information would be better off in an overall article about the Lich in fiction._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that article emphasizes the importance the D&D version of the lich for all other appearances since then. Or in other words, there would not be material for a Lich article on Wikipedia if the Lich (Dungeons & Dragons) had not been introduced by Gary Gygax in 1975. Daranios (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Geek & Sundry is a bit short, but certainly is commentary on the history of the idea. I hunted down the Kobold quarterly article. It has a little bit of out-of-game context, but mostly discusses how to use them and a bit of "in-world" ideas. Certainly a reliable, independent source solely on this topic. So yeah, neither is amazing, but those two are enough to scrape by on WP:N. There are a number of other better sources, but they aren't independent. There are also a number of "nearly news" sources with things like "top 10 D&D monsters" which isn't worth much, but probably tips this in. Hobit (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Lich. I don't know how this doesn't functionally fail WP:GAMEGUIDE (per Rorshacma's vote) and stripping it down would leave enough for a paragraph or two in the other article. SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you specify what part of GAMEGUIDE this is violating? Sources cover the history of the topic fairly well as well as the larger impact (basically how many other games have used this idea/name). From a WP:N viewpoint, we are there I think (if not by a lot). Hobit (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The vast majority article's sources only detail how the character was used in different versions of the game and are primary, which I think clearly violates the spirit of WP:GAMEGUIDE if not the letter of the rule (which is about video games.) Perhaps cruft is the better verbiage? This character is not really notable in its own right, and notability isn't inherited. There's some sources noting the character's reception, yes, but I think that can be moved to Lich. Maybe this can be moved to a different wiki? SportingFlyer T·C 04:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - We've got multiple independent sources, so I think it is notable. CRUFT isn't really a valid argument for deletion, it's a variation of IDONTLIKEIT. Now that said, I totally understand the cruft argument. I find our coverage of random soccer players is cruft (and I actually watch EPL and have gone to England mostly just to watch a game!). And I can see not wanting to have a page for every notable fictional element of a game or book series. But I think this meets our current policies and guidelines. Hobit (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC) (Edited 18:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC))[reply]
      - I think Lich is notable, but the secondary sources I see are either the Geek and Sundry (which I am assuming, but cannot confirm for myself, is reliable) or discuss the character in a list. I don't see anything here which can't be merged in with Lich. In terms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, many !votes on the Games AfD category come down to ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT. I also agree with you that CRUFT may be a IDONTLIKEIT argument, but I'm using it here to discuss the sourcing. I see an article which relies almost completely on primary/non-independent sources, with weak secondary sources, which could easily be covered in a different article, hence my merge !vote. SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I have the same question as Hobit —¿philoserf? (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep The Lich article is pretty sparse, and could easily fit the DnD page into it. Though it could also easily become a WP:COATRACK. Not sure why this was brought to AfD when it probably should have just been a merge discussion...? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:51, 29 April 2020 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Granite Siding, Arizona[edit]

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

Maps show an abandoned rail siding at this location. Newspaper search returned several hits which use it as a landmark and a few mentions of a farm, but nothing that would meet GNG or support the "populated place" claim. –dlthewave ☎ 16:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I found nothing more than the same newspaper mentions, all from 1909-1918, which refer to the siding on the Santa Fe, Prescott and Phoenix Railway. No evidence it was any kind of community, but since it was the most notable place in the vicinity (10 miles nort of Prescott at the time, today within the city - it would be called the area just north of the airport), it did seem to be a landmark in the 1910s. Redirect to the railroad article where it can be mentioned. MB 03:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable railroad siding. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Coval[edit]

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

Nonnotable professor Staszek Lem (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable professor; no significant coverage in secondary sources. The fact that a "working paper" is listed on his page makes this look somewhat like a WP:RESUME. His published works don't make him notable so far, so the working paper certainly does not... Ikjbagl (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Cruz[edit]

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

non notable actress, sourced to fake black hat seo "news" sites, no coverage in reliable sources and the claim that she "starred" in a show with a hundred episodes based on a 2 show appearance is laughable. if i removed the unreliable sources here, we'd be left with 0 sources. Praxidicae (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2020 (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 originally nominated article keep the others as their noms were rescinded ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cobalt Junction, Oklahoma[edit]

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

Non-notable railroad junction, no sign of a settlement at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rescinding additional nominations. I (Ikjbagl, not the original nominator) am also nominating the following related pages because they are extremely similar to the nominated page and, if the nominated page is deleted, they should also be deleted. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete - Cobalt Junction is unincorporated territory, which I think makes it a populated place without legal recognition under WP:GEOLAND. Accordingly, notability is to be established on a case-by-case basis, and I can't find significant coverage of it. Contrast this with some other unincorporated communities in the same county that have at least had post offices. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Comment: I think it is appropriate to bundle the other unincorporated and non-notable territories of the county into this AfD, so I will do so now. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment No opinion on Cobalt Junction yet, but the rest of the communities definitely don't belong in this AfD. Graham still has its own post office. Brock is referenced in several oilfield reports [16] [17] and had its own general store [18]. Dillard was once big enough to fill an entire newspaper column with updates on the lives of its residents (an article which also has a whole section about Reck). And that's without even checking sources for several of them. Places like that don't belong in the same discussion as a place that wasn't even clearly a settlement, especially when the original nominator didn't even add them. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cobalt Junction, Keep the rest It is entirely inappropriate to add all of the extra communities to this AfD. It is entirely clear from a quick glance that they are actual towns, unlike Cobalt Junction. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:28, 29 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Clark (project manager)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO - all the sources are about boats, not the subject. No SIGCOV Rogermx (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just one sentence. It doesn't go into detail. And, like the nominator mentioned, this article fails WP:GNG. I'm actually going to request speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTZegers (talk • contribs) 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article lacks any context to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. Honestly, this is a mess, and the subject's name is so common, I'm not going to attempt to to save it or even look for sources. Let's face it, a project manager is not notable, period. The external links ("sources") are pitiful. He's been in the news, as has millions of people. The page was created years ago by a SPA who only edited articles on Hornblower Cruises, employer of the subject. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 29 April 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Breisacher[edit]

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

Small-town mayor that only held office for one year. Does not meet WP:NPOL Rusf10 (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think we have looked at this before. WP:NPOL allows an exception for WP:GNG, but not qualifying for NPOL still leaves GNG. This pre-google historical historical subject even had a NYT obit, and was know for things other than being just a polititian. Enaugh to keep. Agathoclea (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably more notable for his banking career, but served in a number of positions, not just mayor. Is well sourced including a NYT obituary. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Four of the eight references here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all — Political Graveyard is not a notability-assisting source, and neither is the self-published documentation of any organization that's directly affiliated with the claim (such as sourcing his presidency of a local savings and loan to the annual report of the state division of savings and loan associations, rather than any evidence of real media coverage about his presidency of a savings and loan.) And for media sourcing, what we have is two obituaries, a glancing namecheck of his existence in a list of people, and a local history book: but the book is just being used to footnote the dates of his term in office, not any substantive content that might speak to his potential notability, and having your name appear in a list of appointments to a non-notable job is not a notability clincher, so the only sources that are relevant to establishing whether he's notable enough or not are the obituaries themselves. But one of them is the paid-inclusion obituary in the classifieds section of the town where he grew up, not a journalist-written news article, so it doesn't help at all — and while the other one is in The New York Times, the fact that a person has an obituary in The New York Times still doesn't single-handedly clinch his notability all by itself: even just to claim that he passed GNG, he would still need to have a lot more than just one non-primary and non-trivial source. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As he stands, not notable. The NY Times obit is a blurb and the town he served for was local to the newspaper's catchment area, the Altoona obituary is more about how people from Altoona visited his funeral - having done some historical family research recently, there were very common articles at the time. Does not pass WP:GNG, especially per Bearcat's source analysis. Perhaps other sources exist. SportingFlyer T·C 03:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the person being local to the NYT, having a short NYT obit is not a sign of notability. Political Graveyard tries to cover basically everyone who was ever a delegate to a paty national covernetion, which with thousands if not tens of thousands of delegates is not a sign of notability. THe sourcing here is just not enough to show the subject is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2020 (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. Fails WP:NPOL as a small-town mayor. For WP:GNG, the one book isn't quite enough to cut it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Santos (mayor)[edit]

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

Mayor that does not come even close to meet WP:NPOL guidelines. Rusf10 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kearny NJ is not large enough to confer an automatic notability freebie on all of its mayors under WP:NPOL #2, but this article is referenced 75 per cent to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and 25 per cent to a local history book which just glancingly namechecks this mayor's existence a few times without containing any content that's substantively about him. This is not how you make a smalltown mayor notable: the notability test for a mayor is the ability to write a substantive article about his political significance, not just the ability to locate the names of his parents. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just like what happened to the old Incineroar article (I made a new draft but he continued to blow), this mayor lacks notability. Kearny, NJ is a small city. Also, this article is really small. I mean really, he's just your average mayor! What's so special about him? NOT THIS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTZegers (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable small town mayor, no coverage outside the small town, easily fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 03:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - the mayor has an interesting life story which evolved into a book [19]. Not to mention being mayor of a city with almost 50th people for more than 20 years. surely there's room on wikipedia for immigrant family success stories. Grmike (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

That's not a book about Santos, it's a book about the town which just happens to passingly mention Santos a couple of times, which is not the same thing as a book about him. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in section ACKNOWLEDGMENTS - "I owe the concept of this book to Mayor Alberto Santos, who perhaps unknowingly suggested it with his letter to me about the first book. This project could not have been successfully completed without his personal assistance and the help of Ron Novis and others in his office and town administration. I continue to owe a debt of gratitude to Charlie Waller and George Rogers, who made the holdings of the Kearny Museum available to this project.Grmike (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

the book highlights the accomplishments and history of the immigrant communities of Kearny, NJ. The mayor was born in Venezuela - his testimony is a powerful one.Grmike (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Have you ever heard the expression "that and two bucks will get you a coffee"? (If you haven't, I'll give you a hint as to what it means: a coffee already costs two bucks as it is...) You're not saying anything that's "inherently" notable enough to make him eligible for an article in the absence of any significant reliable source coverage about him in media. Being mentioned in the acknowledgements section of a book is worth nothing in and of itself; where a person was or wasn't born is not a notability claim in and of itself; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are so many communities in New Jersey in the 40,000-50,000 popultion range saying this even suggested notability for being head of a community that size would open the flood gates. The sourcing is just not there to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment - 20+ years is a long time to be mayor. not to mention the article was created in 2009 and he is still mayor.Grmike (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

20+ years as mayor wouldn't even make him unusual. I'll grant that it's not as common in big cities as it is in smaller towns, but a person serving as mayor for 20 years is hardly out of the ordinary. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50th is not a small town. only about 600 cities in the United States have a population greater than it..Grmike (talk) 22:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

longevity does not equal notability. No one said Kearny was a small town, but at 40,00 its far from being a large city, there are actually more than 900 larger cities and towns in American (not 600).--Rusf10 (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the point is that it's not a small town and in some circles it's not that small of a city either.Grmike (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Mayoral notability doesn't hinge on a "population of the city" test, either. Larger cities can have mayors that fail the notability test, and smaller towns can have mayors that pass it — the notability test is not about the size of the city, it's about the volume of media coverage about him that can or cannot be shown to support an article with. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sina Bathaie[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim in evidence here is that he received nominations for (but did not win) a minor music award that is not significant or prominent enough to pass NMUSIC #8 -- that criterion looks for top-tier music awards on the level of the Grammys, the Junos or the Mercury Prize, not just for any and every small fry award that exists, and it requires media coverage about the awards to demonstrate that they're notable enough to make their nominees notable for getting nominated, but the award nominations here are referenced to the awards' own self-published website about themselves. And of the other 22 footnotes besides those, fully half are the self-published event calendars on the self-published websites of venues he performed at (whereas making a musician notable for live performance requires media coverage about the performances, such as journalist-written concert reviews, and not just technical verification from directly affiliated sources that the performances happened); two are his own self-published PR on his own website and the website of his management agency; two are blogs and one is IMDb.
And of the six sources left which are actually to real media outlets, even most of them aren't any better: there's a video clip of him performing a song, a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself in the first person, and two glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that aren't about him to any non-trivial degree. Literally the only two sources here that are actually worth anything at all are album reviews in a hyperlocal community weekly newspaper (Niagara This Week) and a limited circulation magazine (WholeNote), which is not enough coverage to get him over the bar all by itself if it's the best you can find. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just two hits of reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that this was moved out of the AfC process by a non-approved reviewer. Although not ideal, it's okay, however that user Zanimum might be interested in explaining the notability they saw established and why it was so urgent to remove it from the typical process. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP a Google search of the artist brings a dedicated Musical Artist box that has his Nominations mentioned and integrated as a notable award, Also in addition to Award's own website mentioning the artist's nomination, there has been multiple media coverage regarding the artist's nominations in reliable news outlet such as RootsMusic and FYIMusicNews that I added to footnotes ^[1] ^[2] The Award itself is in its 18th year and is an established award. I agree with the argument that the artist is not a Grammy winner and if we put the level in that height the artist will not pass, However the artist is notable in his music sub-culture of world-folk-root ^[3] WP:NMUSICOTHER . In addition to the review on the WholeNote Magazine, He has been written about on Montreal Magazine Son & Image in French which shows the artist in notable beyond local reach. Moreover, the footnotes are from the notable performances that artist had in his career in important and well-known music Festivals. Research shows that there has been media coverage with respect to these festivals where the artist has been labeled as the highlight and strong-suit of the lineup ^[4] ^[5] More notably four of the references are regarding artist's performance and appearance at highly respectable international music conferences particularly important in artist sub-genre of world-folk-root music. ^[6]^[7]^[8] CINARS, Mundial Montreal, Pacific Contact are international conferences with CINARS being one of the most important international showcases and networking events, gathering more than 1900 professionals hailing from over 54 countries including 433 show presenters ^[9] which makes the official showcase and performance notable and recognizable in this genre. The footnote references was given to the showcase announcement in the official website of these conferences, there are also other media outlets active in the world music genre that refer to the artist performance at these conferences that makes the references a Reliable source ^[10] ^[11] Also research shows that Wholenote Magazine is not a limited circulation magazine, the WholeNote magazine in the current era of digital world still publish and distribute in excess of 30,000 print copies of every issue to over 800 distribution points ^[12] and Its reviews are highly reliable in Canadian music scene, I think that is why the artist used a quote from that review in his bios. The artist had also appearances in TV and was featured at CBC radio Metro Morning and Big City Small World ^[13] ^[14] ; A deeper research suggests that the artist has songs on rotation in national radio WP:NMUSIC #11,12 however it referenced to artist self soundcloud channel of excerpts of the public broadcast of his music in radio which I didn't find a suitable reference to include. His music was also featured on Aga Khan Museum production of Light Up the Dark ^[15]. I believe this article has respected all WP:BLP WP:NOR WP:V WP:NOV and I agree that the article should absolutely not sound advertorial, It should be just a true reflection of the information currently in reliable media out there. I have already removed one of the quote as it sounded promotional. I have added more references from media with respect to award coverage and showcases and the french review and removed the link that referenced to his management team. If there is any part of the article that sounds advertorial , it should be removed or altered, Please help identify if there is any part that needs to be changed or removed. Nodet12000 (talk) 20:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Wikipedia's notability criteria for musicians have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether an infobox shows up alongside a Google search or not — a musician's notability lives or dies on the quality of the sources that can be used to support a Wikipedia article with, not on whether their name generates a box on Google or not.

Secondly, when it comes to the awards, RootsMusic and FYI Music News are not, in and of themselves, sources that can singlehandedly clinch the notability of a person just because his name has appeared in a short news blurb. Those are music industry PR newsletters, not notability-making music media — so they can be used for verifying a few stray facts after his notability has already been properly established by stronger sources, but are not sources that make him notable in and of themselves. To constitute support for notability, a source has to be about him, not just briefly mention his name. And the fact that a music industry newsletter prints a short news blurb happens to be about "Sina Bathaie gets nomination for minor award" does not mean, in and of itself, that the award has become notable enough to make him notable for getting nominated for it — that depends on whether the awards themselves routinely generate broad media coverage in a lot of sources about the awards, not just on whether you can find one blurb about one nominee in one source.

Thirdly, Son & Image is an unreliable WordPress blog, not a notability-supporting real magazine. Blogs are not acceptable or notability-supporting sources at all: if the only reference you can provide for any given piece of information is a blog, and not a real media outlet, then that piece of information does not bolster or fortify his notability at all, because blogs are not reliable or notability-supporting sources.

Fourthly, people are not notable just for attending conferences, or for giving any music performance that can be referenced only to that venue or festival's own self-published website about itself. For a musician, nothing speaks to his notability unless it can be referenced to media. Concerts aren't notability claims unless they're referenced to concert reviews in real media, having his music featured in a museum production isn't a notability claim unless it's referenced to a review of the production in real media, and on and so forth.

Fifthly, appearing on local radio and television as an interview guest or live performer is not a notability claim. Notability-supporting media coverage is stuff in which other people are speaking about him in the third person, and does not include anything in which he's speaking about himself in I statements, or which just features him singing without verifying any noteworthy information about his career.

So, to summarize, in order to support his notability a source has to meet all of the following conditions: substantively about him; from a real media outlet and not a blog or the self-published website of any organization or person directly affiliated with the statement; representing third person journalism and analysis by real journalists and music critics, and not representing him speaking about himself. So the only notability-supporting sources present here are still Niagara This Week and WholeNote, which still is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Firstly, to address the comment above that "Concerts aren't notability claims unless they're referenced to concert reviews in real media" , There is a full page concert review and article in media directly about the artist for his performance and appearance at the conference here. ^[16]

Secondly, the statement above that "Son & Image is a blog" is not correct. The review has been written and issued in the Dec 2017 edition of the magazine in Print, A link to the PDF page of the review from the magazine can be found here ^[17].This is a half page full review in French about the artist. The review has been written by Dan Breham a prominent music reviewer and journalist in french diaspora according to le Devoir ^[18]

Thirdly, I agree that appearance in an international conference by itself and single-handedly can not be a reason for a Wikipedia page, However it helps to reach a consensus about the artist. Each artist can only appear once in their career at these international conference, That is why they have been listed as notable performance in the page of many other artists including Juno Winner Quique Escamilla and Battle of Santiago

Fourthly, I agree that the awards themselves generate media coverage that can be picked up by music industry newsletters mentioning artists for nomination in a blurb, However this is not just name mention here, Kerry Doole from The FYINews particularly wrote about the artists and the recognition and the honour he was given to at the night of the award ceremony, This information can not come from Award press release, It needs a journalist following the award closely and find a news notable to write about it. ^[19]

Fifthly, regarding " having his music featured in a museum production isn't a notability claim unless it's referenced to a review of the production in real media,", Here is a review of the production in the media ^[20]Nodet12000 (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please note that you are not allowed to "vote" more than once in an AFD discussion. You can comment as many times as you wish, but you may not preface any of your followup comments with a bolded restatement of the keep vote you've already given. Followup comments are comments, not new votes.

Secondly, I already explained above why Roots Music Canada is not a notability-making media outlet. It is a blog, not an established publication — and even if it were an established publication, a person simply being included in a listicle is not notability-making coverage. And FYI Music News is also not a notability-making media outlet: it is a music industry PR newsletter, not a general market newspaper or magazine. So if you had already gotten Sina Bathaie over the notability bar on better sources than that, then you could use FYI to source a stray fact here and there — but you cannot assert that he is notable because of a short news blurb in FYI, because FYI is not a media outlet.

Thirdly, nobody said that conferences cannot be mentioned in the articles of people who have already cleared our notability standards on other accomplishments. But conferences do not in and of themselves make an artist notable — if an artist has so few valid notability claims that you have to lean on "he attended a music conference" as the reason he should have an article, then it doesn't accomplish that.

Fourthly, if Son & Image is not a blog, then how come its website is a WordPress blog whose front page is filled primarily with capsule reviews of stereo cables rather than any discernible evidence of journalism about anything? And "Toronto Grand Prix Tourist" is a Blogspot blog, not a real or notability-supporting media outlet.

You seem incredibly unclear on what counts as reliable sourcing for the purposes of a Wikipedia article, so let me spell it out for you. For a musician, what you have to show is coverage in national newspapers like The Globe and Mail or the National Post; major market daily newspapers on the order of the Toronto Star or the Montreal Gazette or the Vancouver Sun; the national (not local) news divisions of the television networks; Exclaim!, Canadian Musician, BeatRoute, Now, Voir and/or The Georgia Straight; and basically nothing else. Not Blogspot or WordPress blogs, not industry newsletters, not the self-published websites of directly affiliated people or entities. Coverage in the kinds of sources I just named, or no dice. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Thanks for the input, sorry it wasn't meant as vote just to separate the paragraphs, The magazine Son & Image is published 6 times a year in print and distributed to Quebec, Ottawa Region and NB, it's ISNN number is 1488-5115 and it has more than 16 editors ^[21]. How can we be fair and include and reference to the article when it is in print specially when it is written by a prominent journalist ?, you can see the full PDF version of review here ^[22]

To Summarize, I did lots of research before deciding to write this article and the Notability criteria that I think artist passes is based on Wikipedia WP:NMUSICOTHER "1- Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", Now the question is what are the publications devoted to World Music in Canada ? , I think it is our job as editors to fairly decide on that, since a particular music sub-genre might not appear on platform writing about main stream music. I think this artist with his review written at WholeNote Magazine, a prominent magazine in this genre, His review in French in Print version of son and image magazine by a well known music reviewer , His review on Niagara This Week, with him being talked about at CBC Radio Big City Small World a devoted world music radio program. and although I understand your argument for RootMusic, but that is one of the platform devoted to world music written by journalists, it is a go to place and this was a full page review of artist ^[23] (This was a new reference), I think all this along with his Nominations and other bits and pieces marginally passes him for Notability. However I respect whatever would be the opinion of the community, if you object please address how do you define the publications devoted to music sub-culture(World Music), What are they and how they are different from main stream publications Nodet12000 (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging Zanimum
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No compelling SIGCOV. No SSGs are currently met by the subject. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is made up of trivial mentions or items in low-grade publications. I spent a while looking for sources, and all I could find is low-grade items. if there had been two or three examples of real significant coverage, I might have said keep, but I really saw no coverage with real substance.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are from Montreal, Could you please help identify if the article and review written in French at Son & Image magazine is reliable source ? It says on their website that the magazine is published 6 times a year in print and distributed to Quebec, Ottawa and NB and has 16 editor ^[24] , The review seems also to be written by a prominent french music reviewer Dan Breham according to LeDevoir ^[25], I thought maybe someone who lives in that region and speaks French can confirm or deny the credibility of the source, Here is a link to the PDF ^[26] Thanks Nodet12000 (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The french Son et Image article is basically a short introductory bio, with the rest available in the printed version of the magazine. Even if it was a long profile, it would not be enough. The coverage through al sources is not on its face significant, as in WP:SIGCOV. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand that part, I was not actually talking about proof of notability and weather it is enough, I wanted to learn simply that if the full profile article that is written in print considered a Reliable source according to Wikipedia by itself or as another user mentioned it is a unreliable worldpress blog and worthless, What do you think? . Nodet12000 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an average quality source. Not great, not terrible. By the way, you have made your positon very clear and it will probably not help to write much more about how you think he might be notable. The editors who generally vote at AfD nominations have looked at thousands of articles in aggregate. We understand what you are saying. That said, the thing that would help is if you find more sources that cover him in detail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true, I respect whatever would be the outcome and don't mind if it gets deleted, Those were healthy conversations and I was adding new references that hasn't been there before with respect to comments, It takes effort to create an AOC and is good to know the reason and logistic of opposing opinions, at this stage I added all references and added my summary above and have nothing more to add and respect whatever would be the consensus of the community. Nodet12000 (talk) 18:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Here are the Canadian roots/world nominees for the Independent Music Awards". Roots Music Canada. 2019-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "Music News Digest, April 2, 2018". FYIMusicNews. 2018-04-02. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "Sina Bathaie • Ray Of Hope | Magazine Son & image" (in French). Retrieved 2020-04-25.
^ "Music News Digest, July 16, 2018". FYIMusicNews. 2018-07-16. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "Music News Digest, March 28, 2018". FYIMusicNews. 2018-03-28. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "2019 Showcase Artists | BC Touring Council". Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "CINARS Biennale 2018". cinars.org. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "FOLK MUSIC ONTARIO ANNOUNCES MAJOR SAVINGS WITH EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION RATE ON UNTIL JULY 31". SPINCOUNT. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "CINARS Biennale 2018". cinars.org. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ Department, World Music Central News. "Mundial Montreal Unveils 2018 Music Program | World Music Central.org". Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ afrikcaraibmontreal (2015-10-09). "La programmation du festival Mundial Montréal 2015 est dévoilée". AfrikCaraibMontreal (in French). Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "The WholeNote Magazine". www.thewholenote.com. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
^ "Sina Bathaie performs". CP24. 2017-10-15. Retrieved 2020-02-26.
^ Metro Morning (2020-01-09). "'It can bring a little bit of peace': Iranian musician says music can heal during times of sadness". CBC News. Retrieved 2020-01-09.
^ "Light Up the Dark at the Aga Khan Museum". Retrieved 2020-04-25.
^ "Global Toronto showcases Apr. 4-7, Part 1 (Audio/Video)". Roots Music Canada. 2018-04-09. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
^ "Sina Bathaie - Press Kit (EPK)". sinabathaie.com. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
^ "Mais qui est Dan Behrman?". Le Devoir (in French). Retrieved 2020-04-28.
^ "Music News Digest, April 2, 2018". FYIMusicNews. 2018-04-02. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
^ "Light Up the Dark at the Aga Khan Museum". Retrieved 2020-04-28.
^ "Joindre la rédaction | Magazine Son & image" (in French). Retrieved 2020-05-02.
^ "Sina Bathaie - Press Kit (EPK)". www.sinabathaie.com. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
^ "Global Toronto showcases Apr. 4-7, Part 1 (Audio/Video)". Roots Music Canada. 2018-04-09. Retrieved 2020-05-02.
^ "Joindre la rédaction | Magazine Son & image" (in French). Retrieved 2020-05-02.
^ "Mais qui est Dan Behrman?". Le Devoir (in French). Retrieved 2020-05-02.
^ "Sina Bathaie - Press Kit (EPK)". www.sinabathaie.com. Retrieved 2020-05-02.

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 Monmouth County Freeholder directors#Directors of the Board of Chosen Freeholders (1798–present). Sandstein 08:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William B. Conover[edit]

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

County freeholder, does not meet WP:NPOL guidelines. Only source is local newspaper. Rusf10 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 15:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county level politicians are not default notable. Someone at some point seems to have decided that somehow all the heads of the Monmouth County board were in fact notable. This is why we need to make it so it is at least as hard to create an article as to delete an article. This article dates back to December 2008.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The creator of this article gave us a lot of articles on Monmouth County Freeholders, articles on small waterways in New jersey, articles on streets in Brooklyn. We probably should revist some of the past kept articles on Freeholders from the county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County government is not a level of office that "inherently" passes WP:NPOL #2, but this article is referenced nowhere close to well enough to claim that Conover is more special than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors#Directors of the Board of Chosen Freeholders (1798–present). Clearly there is an Alternatve for deletion, which is preferred by Wikipedia.Djflem (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Monmouth County Freeholder directors. Valid search term, but seemingly not notable now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:38, 30 April 2020 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britt Bowman (photographer)[edit]

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

being in a relationship with a famous person does not equate to notability, nor does working for a band if there is no coverage of the subjects own work or subject directly. Bowman has no independent coverage and fails GNG and Ncreative etc... Praxidicae (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass notability criteria for WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST]]. After searching I could find nothing on this photographer other than social media. Netherzone (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2020 (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 under criterion A7. There is no indication of significance or importance of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paceloti[edit]

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

Autobiographical article of a non notable Nigerian rapper who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO & our general notability guidelines Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be used to post autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable subject with zero coverage in reliable or unreliable sources. The ref cited in the article isn't about him; I don't think he is even mentioned in it. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under criterion A7 - non-notable, no claim of significance. creffett (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2020 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Great Depression (book)[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article about this book from the late 2000s. Links referenced are both dead. This has also been mostly untouched until an image of the book cover was added in October 2018 and that was just about it. Pahiy (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2020 (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/2020 April 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I searched for other reviews of this book and found nothing different. The working link does not appear to be a reliable source. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insufficient coverage to support WP:GNG per nom and my own searches. W 42 19:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, alarm bells ringing with library holdings of around 20 libraries, a gsearch does not bring up any reviews from reliable sources, ie. bookseller sites, some blogs. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2020 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem domain[edit]

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

Basically a personal essay since its creation. There is no actual topic here, just a vague and jargon-y linking of unrelated concepts (like domain theory, information theory, and medicine); to the extent that an encyclopedic article could be written with this title, it would not use any of the current content. In other words, per WP:TNT. JBL (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~I also suggest Problem domain analysis be deleted, for the same reason, but I'm not sure how to incorporate that into this nomination -- help? --JBL (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)~~ Thanks David Eppstein. --JBL (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. The mathematical part of the first article is pure non-sense, very similar to the mathematical wording that some people use for hiding the vacuity of their speech. D.Lazard (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Content-free and badly sourced buzzword salad. I've added the AfD notice to Problem domain analysis. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per all the above. XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting, but we don't publish original research. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominator and others above. There is nothing reliably sourced or encyclopedic here. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - This is basically a seven paragraph essay about problem solving. Kori (@) 21:48, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Food and Life[edit]

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

brand new, non-notable journal Praxidicae (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:35, 28 April 2020 (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. How this article compared to other articles does not matter. What does matter is there is a consensus that this article does not meet our guidelines. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Active NFL head coach career Super Bowl history[edit]

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

Appears to be trivial listcruft, fails WP:LISTN. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nice research and content, but I believe it will be better suited for a sports almanac. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Eagles247 claims that the list is Listcruft. According to Listcruft definition, "In general, a "List of X" stand-alone list article should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. The list should originate as a section within that article, and should not be broken out into a separate article until it becomes so long as to be disproportionate to the rest of the article." So this list can, in theory, be a sub section in the list of super bowl head coaches article, but because it would be to long and disproportionate, it warrants its own article. What is the entire purpose of playing in the NFL? Winning the Super Bowl. It is important for people to be able to tell what coaches have accomplished what. It's not trivial information. How many Super Bowls a coach has won is a measuring stick for a lot of people of their success in the NFL. Zdawg1029 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to me the argument breaking out a list from an article that is too long is worthwhile consideration, but for me it doesn't overcome that this is more granular detail for such a list than is warranted for an encyclopedia. It's a good point.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that its listcruft. A redirect to List of Super Bowl head coaches would be preferable to keeping though. I fail to see why this deserves its own article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too trivial and not needed on the site. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You people are out of your minds. Too trivial? How about this:
- List of Super Bowl Records This is literally a page of stats, no content other than stats, hardy a place for encyclopedia material. ALL it is is a list of stats. How is this any better than the list of coaches? Very trivial information.
- List of Super Bowl Officials In this useless article solely about what officials officiated a Super Bowl, there is a sub-section of what officials have done the most games. Sort of like the coach page where it says what active coaches have the most games. Other than that, this is a useless article that is nothing more than a LIST of officials that have done Super Bowls. Why is this even a page? Why is the page that just has all the current officials good enough? Now we have to point out which ones did Super Bowls? Who cares, they are only officials.
- List of Super Bowl starting QB's Yet another article that is pretty much nothing more than a LIST! All of the information on this page is available on the teams own page, the games page, as well as others, so now we have to have a page dedicated to who started at QB for a game?

I can go on and on and on about other pages I see on Wikipedia that are similar to this. Whether you like the content of the coach page or not, it is worth keeping. Will you sleep better at night if this page is taken down? Does it effect your life in any way? And how is it hurting Wikipedia to be up here? It has been up for 7 years with no problems, and now you want to take it down? Why? Because you all think its too trivial? Yet you don't think other LISTS are too trivial? That is just playing Wiki God.Zdawg1029 (talk) 01:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone please explain to me how it falls under the category of listcruft. Zdawg1029 (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not needed and really trivia. Kante4 (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (for now, as I'm not familiar/experienced enough with the criteria to make an effective policy-based !vote) As I mentioned a year ago at Talk:Active NFL head coach career Super Bowl history#Edits to table format (and attempted to fix, but was reverted), the article content was not actually what the title suggests. I haven't dug into it deeply enough to see the current status of the issues I mentioned, other than I see the coach names are still not in the first column and still not in surname order. Nobody other than Zdawg1029 and myself ever commented further to break the deadlock. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, For the love of Pete, look at other articles in the Super Bowl list category. I mean List of Super Bowl commercials !! Who cares? What importance is it to know what commercials ran for the last 50 years..... And Super Bowl counterprogramming, is it vital to know what obscure shows ran against the Super Bowls? This article is more informative as far as Super Bowl info goes. But, if you are to be consistent, at least nominate the others for deletion. Those articles are just useless information. At least this article gives good info about current coaches. Just my 2 cents worth. Thanks Spparky (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Spparky (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff) Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:51, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per EditoroftheWiki: List of Super Bowl head coaches is a thing that exists and that article is much better than this one. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 05:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Borodale[edit]

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

No evidence that the subject meets WP:NBUILDING as a building of historic, economic, or architectural importance, or which has otherwise been the subject of significant coverage independent of the people (person?) who lived in it. For example, while the NUIG Landed Estates Database (a database of 5000 extant and former country houses of "landed families") has an entry for other homes owned by the Beatty family, it only makes a passing mention of this property. Apart from other similar passing mentions (like this one which mentions that a nearby woodland was once part of the Borodale estate), or other peerage/Thom's style entries (which mention the Beatty family's home address), I can find no sources which deal with the subject directly. To the extent that WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING would seem to be met. Guliolopez (talk) 13:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 13:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - on the basis of a good thorough WP:BEFORE, for which, many thanks.. Ingratis (talk) 15:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, not a notable house. Spleodrach (talk) 17:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Wilde[edit]

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

there is no prove of the subject notability. its sourcing includes: IAFD, an Article on VICE where he doesn't pass mentioning, gayeroticvideoindex which is unreliable and IMDb which again is not reliable. nothing in his sourcing can really support his notability. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete probably would have met WP:PORNBIO in the past but there are no reliable sources to meet WP:GNG right now. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Camechis[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. ².O.^Boxing 13:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason LeHoullier[edit]

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

Nom-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. ².O.^Boxing 13:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 13:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable boxer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Saint[edit]

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

No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove article’s subject is notable hence fails WP:GNG. There are just 2 sources and one of them is a youtube video not anymore available. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete. Won-an-award porn bio without independent RS coverage. References are a YouTube video and a standard porn star interview. An independent search for reliable source coverage yielded nothing. There is no supported claim of notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Sinz[edit]

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

No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove article’s subject is notable hence fails WP:GNG. Most of the statements do not have a source and there is hardly any source reported. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are several sources, of which reliability is arguable. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: If the source's reliability is arguable why should we keep it? I can see four sources, one of which is reliable but not good enough to prove notability. the other 3 sources are an interview, a blog and something that sounds much more as an advertise than anything else. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 4 references qualify as reliable secondary sources. The porn trade press articles are repackaged press releases. The gay.com article is consulting the subject as a contributor/guide for the local scene. The performer of the year cite is one of the studio's principals reporting an in-house award in his self-published blog. An independent search for RS coverage yields trivial mentions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT without reliable sources to support any notability claims. The article is rich in promotional fluff but barren of reliable references. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC, WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:ENT.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhandari Group of Companies[edit]

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

Non notable organization without WP:CORPDEPTH & invariably falls short of WP:CORP. Celestina007 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not seeing anything more than routine coverage Spiderone 00:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - not notable enough to pass WP:NCORP.Ninjaediator (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The listed references on the page cannot prove notability. Santosh L (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2020 (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 Mission: Impossible. (non-admin closure) SERIAL ^# 16:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible Missions Force[edit]

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

What makes this fictional organization notable? BEFORE fails to find any source that discusses the organization in-depth outside of some fan WP:PLOT summaries and such. If it had some decent refs some sort of merger with Mission: Impossible might be possible, but as it is, it is pure WP:FANCRUFT/OR with major GNG issues. PS. The best source I found is [20] and I don't think it is in-depth, and it is really just another PLOT summary, this one simply in a more reliable news outlet. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The organization is best discussed in the explicit context of the overall franchise. It doesn't, as stated above, really seem to merit its own article. I agree. I'd say that a merger would make sense except that the page at present has, as again stated above, major issues. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I mean redirecting over to the franchise's main page at Mission: Impossible. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mission: Impossible per above. The current article is nothing but a poorly sourced collection of plot summaries that are already found elsewhere, but it is a plausible enough search term, and redirecting it to the main hub page for the franchise would be the best place to direct users to find what they are looking for. Rorshacma (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2020 (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 per A7. Hut 8.5 21:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Kumar Yadav[edit]

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

Non notable politician who does not satisfy WP:NPOL & our general notability guidelines. A clear case of COI can be observed also Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't support WP:GNG and its seems like that this is an autobiography as you can see the user name is User:Cky.jdu and article is Chandan Kumar Yadav and also the political party is Janta Dal United(JDU). You can also check images that use in BLP is uploaded as own work. --CheatBeat (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fortwilliam Golf Club[edit]

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

Not notable golf course. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; cannot find anything to suggest this local sports facility meets notability requirements. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 11:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate anything other than local interest. Nigej (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there are some sources on Google news(papers), but often they are just passing mentions. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Life 6[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of short films, no independent coverage, per WP:NF, perhaps a merge would be good, but there is not a great candidate BOVINEBOY2008 11:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. A merge to the parent article would be wiser. And that’s if in fact there is no sources which seems quite doubtful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is high time Wikipedia stops being an IMDb mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS for this film. This should not have been created. --Kbabej (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable short film. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boys Life 5[edit]

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

Non-notable collection of short films, no independent coverage, per WP:NF, perhaps a merge would be good, but there is not a great candidate BOVINEBOY2008 11:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous. A merge to the parent article would be wiser. And that’s if in fact there is no sources which seems quite doubtful. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No RS to speak of. It should not have been created. --Kbabej (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable short film. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2020 (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. Housekeeping - article has been speedy deleted by TomStar81 following GPL93's tag. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Pablo[edit]

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

No significant reliable coverage. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 The subject was deemed not notable in the previous discussion; this new article has no sources at all, and no content apart from an infobox. I can find nothing online to suggest that the question of notability has changed since the last deletion - just social media profiles and the like. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable child actress. This runs afould of BLP sourcing issues. Which we should be very vigilant of when the subject is a minor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The creator initially draftified it, but created an article without "finalizing" it. It should remain as draft until there are enough sources to become a standalone article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, actually, the author has already moved it back into mainspace after someone else draftified it (due to the lack of sources and content), without adding any sources whatsoever. Draftification would allow them to do the same thing again and we'll have to have this discussion all over. GirthSummit _(blether) 06:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, then it's best that the author (and its IP address) should be blocked indefinitely for repeatedly removing the AfD template from the page. My vote still stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, I don't quite follow this chain of reasoning I'm afraid. Removing the AfD template isn't a good look, and the author will be blocked if they persist with it; my point is that last time the article was draftified, it was simply moved back into article space by the original author, with none of the issues addressed. We don't host unsourced biographies of living people - especially not minors - not in draft space, user space or anywhere else. Show me a single independent, reliable, secondary source that could be used to support notability and I'd be happy to drop this - but in the absence of such a source, there is no credible argument for retaining a draft. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, alright then. It's given that she's currently one of the leading ladies in an afternoon hit series. Here are among the sources I found: [21], [22], [23] and [24]. Those sources are indeed reliable (I should know). ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, the two GMA Network links are affiliated sources - they're advertising an upcoming star on their own network. PEP.ph is a celebrity gossip mag, speculating on the love life of a fourteen-year-old girl. The Journal.com.ph is a short interview (so primary), and it's with five people - Pablo gets a single sentence in that - a passing mention. None of these come close to establishing notability, or even supporting any content that we could add to a BLP. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, OK. I'll disregard the PEP.ph. But, there seems to be a lot of coverage when I search her name. The links from GMA Network and Journal.com.ph talk about her. Therefore, they are really notable enough for the subject to be kept. I rest my case. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me any further, don't bother responding. I already explained enough as I'm not looking for an argument. So, I won't reply anymore. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig, are you familiar with the requirement for sources to be independent? This is the opening sentence of the GMA Network piece: Sofia Pablo is one of GMA Network's most promising tween actresses. They are advertising their own content and stable of talent - it conveys no notability whatsoever. The journal.com.ph source is the briefest of passing mentions in an puffy interview - it doesn't even approach significant coverage. Out of all the hits you are getting on Google, can you point to a single independent, secondary and reliable source that gives the subject significant depth of coverage? GirthSummit _(blether) 09:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your second comment there - you are under no obligation to respond, I'm happy to leave this here. Presumably you know that this isn't a vote, in the normal sense of the word; the closer of the discussion will accord your !vote the weight it deserves based on the strength of its argument with regard to policy. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of any notability whatsoever, and has no sources.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4 I've tagged it but the article creator keeps removing it. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breakfast with Einstein[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no independent coverage, does not meet WP:NF, deproded with no explanation nor improvement BOVINEBOY2008 11:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite being associated with notable individuals, the film appears to have generated little to no interest. I agree. It just isn't notable. Deletion is absolutely the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article also fails WP:GNG, since there are barely any notable sources available. JTZegers (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; fails WP:NF and WP:GNG; no indication of notability. Ahmad^talk 06:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a dog of a film, pardon the pun. No coverage at all. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohana[edit]

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

Article was initially created referring to a place in Uttar Pradesh, then changed to refer to a place in Odisha, then some individual and now a non-existent place. Besides, there’s no proof that the place is notable enough (I couldn’t find any government sources mentioning this town and anyways, there are no other sources as well). RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 10:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article fails WP:GNG. In addition, and this is probably due to lack of experience, there are many grammatical errors. In fact, this should have been rejected as a DRAFT!. Wake up, reviewers! JTZegers (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2020 (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. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2001 TV series)[edit]

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

Anime series are usually notable per WP:NMEDIA and such, but here I have some doubts. First, no ja interwiki raise a red flag. Second, article has next to no verifiable sources, and my BEFORE fails to find any reviews, reception or such. The lead suggests a convoluted history (as well as quite a lot of unreferneced OR), this could be a season of something larger or some kind of mistake (it doesn't help that there is another series with identical name, Transformers: Robots in Disguise (2015 TV series) so please be careful with WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments...). Frankly, I have trouble verifying this show even existed under this name in 2001 (also, even this year is problematic, some dates in the article as well as [25] suggest year 2000 might be more correct). The best source I can find is [26] but it is not reliable, and in the end, we are not a catalogue of every show or such, only ones which got some reception/notability and as I said, I am not seeing a hint this one got it. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It actually does have an article on the Japanese Wikipedia, if you search under its Japanese name, here. However, a quick google translate shows that the sources its using there are pretty bad (mostly just on individual toys, and mostly just using primary sources), so they don't really help make the case for notability. Rorshacma (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NTV, which says "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." This show aired in Japan in 2000, and aired on Fox in 2001-2002 as part of the Fox Kids programming block. The nomination mentions "reception", but the actual rationale that Piotrus offers for deletion is "this could be a season of something larger or some kind of mistake." It is very easy to find sources that confirm that the show existed and aired in the US.
- To start with, there's the source currently being used in the article, from Business Wire (Sept 5, 2001): "TRANSFORMERS ROBOTS IN DISGUISE Returns! Hasbro Launches Product Line Based on Original '80s Theme; Fox Kids Series to Debut September 8th."
- Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, 1949-2003 by Hal Erickson (2005): "Of the subsequent Japanese Transformers derivations, two had been broadcast Stateside before the end of 2003. The first of these was Transformers: Car Robots, retitled Transformers: Robots in Disguise when it ran on Fox from 2001 through 2002."
- The Hollywood Reporter, "Transformers' TV Franchise Returns to Cartoon Network" (October 7, 2014): "Transformers: Robots in Disguise, not to be confused with the 2001 series of the same name..."
- Starlog Magazine, "Robots in Disguise" (July 2007): "In 2000, the Japanese unleashed the new cel-animated Transformers: Car Wars [sic]... imported here as Transformers: Robots in Disguise."
- Adweek, "A People's History of Transformers Cartoons" (Feb 23, 2015): "The last TF cartoon on broadcast tied in to a hodgepodge of foreign-market-first toys and was distributed by the now-defunct Saban. The redubbed Japanese show debuted just in time for 9/11."
- Newspapers.com has TV listings showing that Transformers: Robots in Disguise aired nationally on Fox from 2001 to 2002.

Television Cartoon Shows: An Illustrated Encyclopedia has significant coverage of the show and demonstrates notability, as does the Business Wire article. The others are passing mentions that I'm listing just to demonstrate that the show aired nationally in the US, which is enough to pass WP:NTV. I don't have sources here about reception, but per NTV, we kind of are "a catalogue of every show" that airs nationally on a major network. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Toughpigs reasoning. The show did exist, the nominators doubt about that have been proven irrelevant now. Dream Focus 18:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let this page stay. It is a good entry in the Transformers franchise. Plus, @Toughpigs: and @Dream Focus: are right about their claims. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. My concerns re notability have been addressed. Thank you for your participation. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sbatmi[edit]

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

A possible hoax; no references independent of Wikipedia; Mona Fandey allegedly conned Mazlan with a talisman containing sbatmi according to her article but the cited source does not mention sbatmi. ---Corsican Warrah (talk to me) 09:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in absence of reliable sources. Admittedly I would not bet on my ability to sift mentions of obscure Malayan terms from the internet, but there's at least SOME onus on the original author to make the case. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:58, 3 May 2020 (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) 08:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Manchanda[edit]

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

Notability issue. it seems that the article is drafted by an advertising/PR agency. - Hatchens (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person. Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for promoting oneself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment flying carpet productions rings a bell. I think there was previously an article related to the company, or someone connected with the company. It was also non-notable by the way. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - producers, camera operators, and assistant directors are run of the mill and rarety notable. The two New York Times references lead to the main pages of the sections and don't even mention him. Whatever he paid to post this page was money wasted. Bearian (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2020 (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) 08:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angelina Armani[edit]

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

I am not an expert in porn stars, but I do not quite see how the person passes WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. Note that some of the films she supposedly acted in have Wikipedia articles, but she is only listed on one of these. Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Few passing mentions, lack of independent reliable resources. Fails WP:NACTOR. Jai49 (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pronographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This person would not even have passed WP:PORNBIO before that SNG was superseded by WP:BASIC and WP:NACTOR. Independent reliable source coverage consists of cast listings. Despite claims of "starring" in notable mainstream productions, this actress is 10th billed in one and uncredited in the other two. Notability claims lack support from independent reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2020 (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. – bradv🍁 17:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addicks Estates, Delaware[edit]

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

Small subdivision fails GNG. No sign that this was ever a distinct or notable community, even before half of it was obliterated by freeway construction. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to county, along with the rest of the hundreds of articles on subdivisions that show no notability like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey. Reywas92^Talk 21:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This one's difficult. It's a neighborhood of Claymont, Delaware. This [27] calls it a community separate from Claymont, in 1955, but in [28] 1943 was still referred to as being within Claymont. It's been significantly covered a couple times, and people are referred to as being from there. [29] Probably should be redirected and merged into Claymont. It is almost certainly NOT a populated, legally recognised place, per our definition of WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 02:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first link says "adjoining Claymont center north of Darley Road" so I'm reading that as being next to the center of the the community (now CDP), not separate from it. It's this now but "center" must have looked different before the highway. That would be the best target for the neighborhood. Reywas92^Talk 20:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a plausible interpretation. Not splitting hairs, though. If there's anything which can be merged into Claymont, we should merge that into Claymont - definitely not suggesting an outright keep. Just getting exhausted with all of these AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 03:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We all are....well past time for bulk deletion or redirection... Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 07:03, 27 April 2020 (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. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Havel Medek of Valdek[edit]

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

Subject of the article is not notable in any way and seems like any regular person. He has no reliable sourcing and should be deleted. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 18:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Czech Wikipedia has nothing on him either. A single source is now listed: a genealogy website that does not establish that he was notable for anything. Fishal (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added a few new sources. I could not find a good source for his birth or issue, but he is mentioned several times as capturing a castle and ruling for 7+ years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbdfar (talk • contribs)
mbdfar, Just because he ruled a castle for seven years doesn't mean he is automatically notable. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 19:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koridas, All I'm saying is that his name survived 600 years for a reason. Mbdfar (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't think ruling a castle 600 years ago meets notability guidelines, especially since there is no page for the castle itself and as previously mentioned he has no page on Czech Wikipedia. Zoozaz1 (talk)
Delete - even if everything is true, he fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added by Mbdfar. Sourcing is a separate challenge, but it's difficult to imagine the 20th century version of this guy having his notability questioned. Capturing and imprisoning a lord for seven years doesn't sound like "any regular person", especially if we are still discussing it 600 years later. And regarding the Czech wikipedia, it is very patchy in coverage and whether or not it has an article is not a particularly good indicator of anything. Jdcooper (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs to be further commentary beyond the WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question (to which I have no answer) is whether the was a NN gentleman or a nobleman (who would probably be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, I believe nobleman would be more apt. The Medek (or Medka, Medkov) of Valdek (Valdeka) family is descended from the Buzic family, (more specifically a branch of the Zajíc family), an aristocratic house. The genealogy website cited in the article (admittedly probably not WP:RS) puts Havel as the great grandson of Vilém Zajíc z Valdeka, a notable aristocrat. Additionally, this source (page 190) alludes to Havel previously being landed at "Tejnice nad Sázavou" in 1349 (certainly modern day Týnec nad Sázavou as per this map and the castles cultural listing stating ownership of the Medkas of Valdek). Mbdfar (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 07:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Added additional info and sourcing. Mbdfar (talk) 18:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hard work by Mbdfar, but I still think he's not notable. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haha fair enough. I appreciate the acknowledgement! Mbdfar (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2020 (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. No consensus has emerged to delete this article from the English Wikipedia. (non-admin closure) SERIAL ^# 16:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Hospital at London Health Sciences Centre[edit]

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

Notability of article is established from sources provided and I see a lack of both sources and information for this article. Searches for sources reveal limited findings. Fails all aspects of WP:ORG Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article has some notability based upon Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hospitals/Tutorials Notability if accounting for sources and information yet to be added to the page and therefore should be kept. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 07:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is not established, nor can it be from a Wikipedia project tutorial - it offers no sources of any kind, and Wikipedia is in any case not a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Chiswick Chap, I don't think I understand the opinion you voiced here. First, notability is supposed to be determined by considering ALL the available references, not just the ones already included in the article. You arent saying you based your delete solely on the references the article used, when you left your opinion, are you? Second, who do you think said we should rely on wikidocuments as sources? Of course that would be a mistake, but I am afraid you misread Epluribusunumyall's comment if that is what you thought they said. Pointing at wikidocuments that summarize your position is what people do in our discussions, and it is all that epluribus was doing. Don't you agree WP:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Finding sources has very good advice? Nominator claimed they couldn't find any references - but that seems to be because they may lack experience at searching for references. Geo Swan (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to retract given the sources discovered. The link was extraordinary, and in hundreds of AfDs I've never seen anything so strange or misleading. Linking to advice is just odd, sorry, and the way it was worded gave entirely the wrong impression. Don't ping me again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is a separate entity from the London Health Sciences Centre. it is the only pediatric facility in metro london ontario, the 11th largest metro area in Canada. There are only 14 children's hospitals in Canada with articles. "Children's Hospital pediatric neurologist Andrea Andrade, right, with 14-year-old Ethan, the first pediatric epilepsy patient in Ontario to undergo a robot-assisted brain surgery to place electrodes in his brain."[30] Grmike (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Reply It is not a separate entity nor a freestanding children's hospital, it is the same building. It is basically just pediatric wards of the London Health Sciences Centre. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 03:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this nomination contains the counter-policy assertion "Notability of article is established from sources provided". No. Articles should be judged on the underlying notability of the topic. We are supposed to keep weak articles when the underlying topic is notable. Such weak articles are supposed to be improved, not deleted.

The nominator went on to write they "see a lack of both sources and information for this article. Searches for sources reveal limited findings." Okay, and I am going to do my best to be tactful in informing nominator that a large number of our articles have names that defeat naive google searches. I am working on an essay on this phenomenon. When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward. The google news search term "Children's Hospital" "Health Sciences Centre" London Ontario produced 1180 hits - definitely not the "limited findings" nominator claimed. Geo Swan (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'd put snow keep, on the grounds of a flawed nomination, if there hadnt been that single delete. Even weak articles required meaningful effort, and we aren't going to be able to continue to build a good wikipedia if impatient people try to delete every article they don't like, without regard to whether the underlying topic is notable. Many people respect the Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup essay. Geo Swan (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the delete opinion has been reverted, so I am stating a snow keep. Geo Swan (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If not delete, this article should definitely be merged with London Health Sciences Centre being that it is the same building and basically the same topic? What am I missing here, some of the references listed don't even mention the children's hospital by name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew nyr (talk • contribs)

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. – bradv🍁 17:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fresno Crossing, California[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and fails WP:GEOLAND. This is just a waypoint from an old stagecoach map, not a community. I no longer live here, but I still own land here and have never heard it called by this name. It is literally the Fresno River crossing of the old Stockton–Los Angeles Road nothing more, nothing less. Yosemiter (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am getting a number of historical newspaper hits such as [31], there was a populated camp at the river crossing with that name [32], and a populated trading post before 1911 [33] which was apparently founded in 1852 [34]. Passes WP:GEOLAND as a historic populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 03:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't look like it's been referred to as Fresno Crossing in years, but we don't require places to be currently inhabited. SportingFlyer T·C 03:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I'm not sure it was ever legally recognized, so does the depth of those articles contribute anymore than mentions to meet GNG? It mentions a trading post and that it once had an estimated population of 65 individuals, but that is all pretty common for what were mostly just mining camps along all the streams in that area. Some of the mining camps had centers (such as those that eventually merged into the town of Coarsegold, California). But agreed, if it ever was a place, it has not been since what appears to be the 1930s as the last mentions of an existing place. If the article is deemed to meet GNG, then it should at least be updated to reflect that is a historical entity like Newton's Crossing. The current community is considered part of Coarsegold, and the current common name would not be "Fresno Crossing". Yosemiter (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, our notability guidelines for places are very low, we've kept camps before, and articles like [35], [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40] support the historic nature of the community. At the very least it should be merged into Coarsegold, but I think there's enough here for someone to write an interesting stub. I'm not suggesting for a moment this is a current place. (Interestingly, it does not appear on topo maps in the 1940s.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a historically-attested camp. There is enough here for GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have just posted a notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 17:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conaway, California[edit]

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

Non notable railroad junction. –dlthewave ☎ 02:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:56, 27 April 2020 (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) 09:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bishnu Majhi[edit]

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

Promotional BLP from 2015 with weak sourcing. – Majavah ^(t/c) 06:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Majavah ^(t/c) 06:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Majavah ^(t/c) 06:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. – Majavah ^(t/c) 06:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:36, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—Meets WP:GNG (Sufficient:1 2 3; other:4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12). WP:NOTCLEANUP—An article that claims the subject "... has recorded over 10,000 songs" and won four "singer of the year" awards probably should not have been nominated without providing a valid deletion rationale; being a Promotional BLP from 2015 or having weak sourcing are not reasons to delete. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — One of prominent figure of Nepali music. There are plenty of sources out there The Folk Record of the Year went to Bishnu Majhi Best Singer Female Lok Dohori duet between prominent singers Badri Pangeni and Bishnu Majhi Celebrity dohori singers such [41] ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 12:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Usedtobecool and Captain Medusa. The subject appears to be notable in her native country. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Versace1608, subject indeed does appear to be notable. Celestina007 (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep she is the biggest folk singer of nepal. plenty of sources on google — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssapkota23 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 28 April 2020 (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) 09:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fluffy promotional article about attorney and failed candidate of dubious notability Orange Mike | Talk 06:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 06:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 06:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being unsuccessful election candidates per se — but this features neither credible evidence that she has preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy, nor any discernible evidence that her candidacy would pass the ten year test for enduring significance on the grounds of being somehow more special than everybody else's candidacies. Note also that this was deleted the first time it came to AFD, and then got recreated several years later with no discernible evidence that her grounds for notability had changed at all. Bearcat (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I will note, however, that the new article was not a recreation of the previous one, and thus not eligible for speedy deletion as a G4:Recreation of deleted article. This one fails on its own merits. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate for public office. Such people are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my standards. She's totally non-notable as an attorney; "Campaigning for public office, or managing a congressional campaign or office, by itself, is not sufficient for notability!" Bearian (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2020 (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) 09:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury (company)[edit]

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

Non notable company, Resources are just announcements of funding. no in depth coverage. Fails WP:CORP Jai49 (talk) 04:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a recent start-up venture, sourced to investment funding coverage which is classed as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also an audio interview with its founder but I am not finding the level of coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete there are a lot of companies with similar names that have coverage. This one does not. Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just dratified a content fork made by the same person with similar content: Draft:Mercury (financial technology). Going to inquire if they're a paid editor, since it's definitely suspect. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 16:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE not notable company page created by undisclosed paid editor. Ninjaediator (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2020 (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 (A7 + G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 07:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black45King[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, none of the sources indicate notability. Antila333 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 03:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this reeks of a blatant advertisement as well as the subject being unnotable. dibbydib (T ･ C) 04:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a normal A7/G11 article, and the article is already tagged for A7 deletion. I'll add a G11 tag as well. Java Hurricane 04:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly promotional and not a notable subject
Delete per above, especially WP:N and WP:NOTPROMO. Article was previously speedied for A7, and was quite possibly an autobiogtaphy as well. --Dps04 (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and CSD tags fixed. Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 05:43, 27 April 2020 (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 TSLAQ. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Tripp[edit]

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

Individual is not notable outside of controversial involvement with Tesla Inc. Article is only about the incident, not Tripp as a person thus shouldn't be a biographical article Springee (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nominator. Tripp isn't notable other than being a victim of Tesla. The company or Tesla fanatics have an ugly history of attacking those they see as enemies. This article was created by a brand new account and seems to only tell the Tesla side of the story. Tripp was only in the news because after he tried to blow the wistle with respect to things he was concerned about, the company or those working behalf of the company went on the offensive. [[42]] The biography of Tripp is solely focused on this one event and it's aftermath. The content may have a place in some other Tesla related article but not a stand alone biograph. Springee (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose a Merge with TSLAQ. Tripp content will need some work but is relevant. QRep2020 (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's reasons. While this person has been named in the media they are not themselves notable in regard to the reported events or indeed anything else. An article about them that outlines real-life accusations against them of a crime for which they must be presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law is not only not encyclopedic but also serves to hurt them in real-life. Lklundin (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC) PS. As such, I am somewhat surprised that our criteria for WP:SPEEDY deletion does not include articles such as this one.[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Tesla, Inc. or List_of_lawsuits_and_controversies_of_Tesla,_Inc.. Nominator notes that "The content may have a place in some other Tesla related article but not a stand alone biograph", which to me indicates a merge is more appropriate. I believe the events described in the article are important and relevant to Tesla, and should not be deleted. re: Lklundin, Tripp played a key role in the reported events, so I don't think it's accurate to say he is not notable in regard to these events. And if there is any objectionable or libelous content, it should be removed immediately, per WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPCRIME--I believe that is outside the scope of the deletion discussion.[Edited to add reasoning] Stonkaments (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC) 15:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to me to violate the not news guidelines. We need to think in broad, encyclopedic terms in creating articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about merge: What is the target article? Several editors have suggested merging the content. I agree that, if neutrally presented, much of this content could be used elsewhere (TSLAQ, Tesla Inc etc). If there is a way to preserve the content (someone's sandbox?), for what it's worth, I think that's fine. It would be helpful if there was a suggested location for the merge. As a negative BLP about someone who at best hasn't been convicted of any wrong doing and at worst is really a concerned whistle blower who has been attacked by Tesla et al this as a stand alone article should not exist. Springee (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:BLP1E and also the comment above by Johnpacklambert about not news. A brief mention in the Tesla article might work, but I don't think it warrants a merge. Maybe a forward. Probably not even that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - I'm confused why this is not a classic BLP1E case. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most suitable target article would be List_of_lawsuits_and_controversies_of_Tesla,_Inc., with possibly a short mention on the lawsuits and controversies section of the main Tesla, Inc. article as well. Stonkaments (talk) 05:29, 2 May 2020 (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) 09:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golems (Discworld)[edit]

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

Fictional race. It is a rather clear fail of WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION, and BEFORE does not show much to use as sources, only primary books and a bit of fancruft here and there. This is pure WP:PLOT summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure fancruft and not notable enough for its own article. Retain the Golem (Discworld) redirect and change target to Discworld (world)#Sentient species._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete any real discussion on the subject can be included in the article on Feet of Clay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2020 (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) 09:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Igor (Discworld)[edit]

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

Fictional race. It is a rather clear fail of WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION, and BEFORE does not show much to use as sources, only primary books and a bit of fancruft here and there. This is pure WP:PLOT summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced fancruft/Wikia material. Not notable enough for a standalone article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total failure of GNG. The article lacks the multiple, reliable 3rd party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A mass of unreferenced in-universe material that fails GNG and WP:PLOT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2020 (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) 09:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troll (Discworld)[edit]

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

Trolls exist in many fictional worlds, in very few of them they have stand-alone notability. I fail to see why Discoworld trolls get an article, it is a rather clear fail of WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION, and BEFORE does not show much to use as sources, only primary books and a bit of fancruft here and there. This is pure WP:PLOT summary. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect Pure, unreferenced fancruft. The fictional race is not notable enough for its own article. Can be redirected to Discworld (world)#Sentient species._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a mass of unreferenced in-universe material that fails GNG and WP:PLOT. A BEFORE search failed to find any usable sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one source listed is not even about this, but an off hand source about a tree one type of trolls is similar to. This article has existed for 16 years, and yet has no real sources. It is written way too much in universe, and lacks the real world contextualizing we would need for this article. This article belong on a fan wiki, not on Wikipedia. To be fair, in 2004 especially Wikipedia had been hijacked and turned into a fan Wiki. We have just in the last year begin to cut out some of these excessive fan coverage, right sizing our number of Silmarilian character biographies, cutting back a little on Narnia place articles, and cutting back on comic book superhere articles and D&D character articles, but we still have lots and lots of unneeded fancruft.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2020 (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 Globish (Gogate). (non-admin closure) SERIAL ^# 16:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhukar Gogate[edit]

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

This is a tiny stub about a non-notable person sourced only to his personal website. Best claim to fame is as the creator of an obscure constructed language that itself is probably not notable. I have been unable to find any better sources. Reyk _YO! 11:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Globish (Gogate), which is what the article was originally. There are some references to him in books[43] that could be used to expand the article on Globish. WP:WHYN says "If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic".-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Lent[edit]

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

This individual appears to fail WP:GNG, with most sources coming from self-published, dubious, or minor sources. His body of work appears insufficiently notable to achieve WP:AUTHOR, though it is possible that some of the sources here could be moved to pages on those specific works if this were to be deleted. Jlevi (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jlevi (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (nominator) There may be more sources than I initially found. If the source The Street is generally deemed reliable, then this article from 2000 might count for notability. And though Lent is not the primary topic of the article, he get over five paragraphs about him as an individual and his research in this recent Vice piece. These articles may still not pass standards, and I'd be curious to hear thoughts on the matter. From my perspective, it would be narrow. Jlevi (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've looked at the sourcing so far, I would appreciate Draftify or User-ify if the consensus goes for delete. Given that Lent has coverage both from his NextCredit days in the NYT and more recently regarding some climate-related issues, this is probably sustained coverage, and I think it's probable that I could find more sourcing if I dig. In particular, mention of the NextCredit story in the NYT means that there is probably more coverage is lower-tier or local papers, though (since it's from the early 2000s) I'll need to dig for it. Right now the sourcing isn't evident, but it might be soon. 14:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - overwrought, poorly-written, under-sourced mess. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if Lent passes WP:GNG, which the current sourcing does not indicate, best case scenario is that this article needs to be WP:TNTed. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:11, 30 April 2020 (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) 09:03, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technology of the Discworld[edit]

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

The topic is a collection of some formerly deleted/merged pure WP:PLOT and WP:OR subtopics (ex. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discworld gods which for some reasons has a subsection here, what's the connection between this and "technology" is rather hard to say...). Fails WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION as an overview topic and is de facto a very messing list of non-notable inventions and their inventors. Parts of the latter could be selectively merged to Discworld characters but right now they are pretty much unreferenced, so it's moving PLOT OR from one place to another anyway. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Entirely overly-detailed fancruft that lacks mentions in reliable sources._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is basically built on primary sources, which is not how Wikipedia is to be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (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) 09:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cobra Killer[edit]

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

No sources or claim to notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has quite a decent AllMusic staff written bio here, and four staff album reviews which normally indicates that more coverage should be available. Will search fully tomorrow, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update have found more coverage in reliable sources: PopMatters here,TimeOut here,Orlando Weekly here, Exclaim! here The Skinny here,German music site, Art magazine, and Tiny Mix Tapes here. There is also more coverage in German, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306's sources. Caro7200 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 17:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling Junction, California[edit]

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

This is a railroad junction mislabeled as an unincorporated community. 1912 topo shows the location to the Southeast at the junction between the Butte County and Northern Pacific railroads. In 1948, the label was moved to the point where the line splits to enter a yard. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 02:02, 27 April 2020 (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. Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. As BD2412 says, often in small partnerships the line between coverage of the company and coverage of its principal people is blurred. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob + MacFarlane[edit]

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

Looking like an advertisement. No Significant coverage on independent reliable resources. Tbt1849 (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This company can be verified as having won the Architecture award at Les Globes in 2007: [44]. AllyD (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This architecture firm have designed significant public buildings Cité de la mode et du design in Paris [45], Orange Cube in Lyon [46], and a restaurant in the Centre Pompidou [47]. They have also exhibited at the Venice Biennale of Architecture in 2008 [48] and designed an exhibition at the Musée du quai Branly – Jacques Chirac in 2012 [49]. They also have a work in the collections of the Victoria and Albert Museum [50] (though this may be donation rather than acquisition) and a retrospective at de:Architekturforum Aedes [51]. Add to that the awards listed in the article and I think there is enough for WP:CREATIVE #4 and possibly also WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were also the subject of an exhibition at the School Gallery in Paris. [52] Pichpich (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wrote the stub and made sure it met WP:NPOV (I have no connection whatsoever with the firm) so I strongly disagree that it looks like an advertisement. I created the article because we had three articles about buildings that the firm had designed which seemed like a good start. Accordingly, there is coverage about these buildings' architecture. The firm has received notable awards and Jakob has won a notable prize herself. Add to that the coverage found by AllyD above and this is an easy keep. Pichpich (talk) 16:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The appropriate guideline is not WP:CREATIVE as that is only for professional persons and not companies. Rather, the appropriate guideline is WP:NCORP which states that the criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Also, notability is not inherited so while some references may talk about the buildings architected by the firm, that does not automatically convey notability on the firm itself. Also, profiles on either Jakob or MacFarlane may provide a case that either or both of the architects are notable in their own right, but does not mean that the firm itself is notable. That leaves us with the award from Les Globes in 2007 where the firm won "Best Architect". I do not believe the awards themselves are notable and in my opinion this award doesn't push the firm over the line into notability on its own. What is required are sources that actually talk about the company and there doesn't appear to be any. There is more material to create articles individually for Jakob and MacFarlane that for this company. Since references fail the criteria for notability, topic is not notable, fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 01:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. In this case, it seems that the company is inseparable from the collaboration of the architects. Of course, we have plenty of articles on notable creative collaborations. BD2412 T 01:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BD2412, I don't understand your logic. I'm using NCORP as the guideline since the topic is a company - are you referring to any particular or different policy or guideline that supports this concept? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, your mistake is the assumption that only one guideline can apply to a collaboration. In the course of my legal career, I happen to have represented a couple of groups in various genres of music, and it may or may not surprise you to learn that most rock bands and rap groups are technically corporations. They have a corporate form drawn up to govern their commercial activities and distribute their profits, and file fictitious entity paperwork with the state that serves as their base of operations. However, it would not occur to most people to apply WP:NCORP to bands because they create music. Here, we have a collaboration that creates architecture, which is an art form, so WP:CREATIVE applies to them as a basis for notability no less than it does to a music ensemble. If we were talking about a band named Jakob + MacFarlane with an otherwise identical corporate structure, would NCORP even occur to you as an applicable guideline? BD2412 T 14:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: with fairly little effort, I was able to substantially expand the article and add reference to some higher-level sources. BD2412 T 15:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - BD2412, Thanks for the detailed response. I was already aware that many rock bands and rap groups are structured as corporations and there are a lot of other "creative" professionals in a similar situation, hence WP:CREATIVE. As I've said above, CREATIVE is for "architects". I have no real issues with the thrust of the argument you are putting forward in relation to the two talented individuals who just happen to be architects and therefore need to organize as a company in order to govern commercial activities and distribute profits. But the company is not just two individuals - they have offices and full-time employees (linkedin reports as employees as 11-50). I believe you are incorrectly applying CREATIVE where the topic of the article is not an individual architect (or even as you describe it, a "collaboration"). I think perhaps a question at the CREATIVE talk page might assist. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Successful rock bands may also have some number of full-time employees (i.e. non-musicians who handle promotional tasks, maintain instruments, etc.), although the lines can get very blurry there. Here, the entity has received some recognition for its creative work, as an entity. However, to avoid stretching the comparison too far, I am also reasonably satisfied that this entity has received sufficient coverage in relevant sources. BD2412 T 17:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No problem although you'll find that NCORP further explains the precise requirements of "sufficient coverage" and if you can point to *any* reference containing in-depth information *on the company* I would appreciate it. I've posted the question at this Talk page and posted a link to that at the NCORP Talk page. I think this question is an important one and it (and related questions) regularly crop up in one form or another (for example, should music labels fall under WP:MUSIC rather than NCORP) at AfD where the topic is a company and NCORP should apply. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I think this page of Interiors Now provides solid coverage. BD2412 T 04:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep notability should not even be a question - both the company and the buildings it helps to produce are highly regarded, increasing in popularity, and have other spheres of influence. [53] sources like that are plentiful. there are also books used for teaching [54]. leading a master class in montreal [55] the company has gone global.Grmike (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Keep - this firm designed major projects. Bearian (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article as it stands seems to pass WP:NCORP, the standard by which this article should be judged (which fortunately is also the stricter standard.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- {{u|SportingFlyer} have you any particular references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability of the company? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:42, 3 May 2020 (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 Reflection (computer graphics)#Glossy reflection. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wet floor effect[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can find nothing online about this effect short of a few how tos for creation, but no evidence this was a notable web 2.0 technique. Possibly coined by a red link for a redlink, unverifiable at any rate. StarM 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. StarM 01:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per books on the link. Seems to have been over-popular in 2006.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment are you seeing anything in the books beyond "Web 2.0 means more than design element like glossy buttons, large colorful fonts and “wet-floor” effect." and similar? I see literally no discussion of it. Thanks StarM 22:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reflection_(computer_graphics)#Glossy_reflection. On one hand, WP:NOTTEMP applies. On the other, GNG compliance is difficult to establish because most of the important sources originally given are 404 and what's left is a very limited selection. Seems to have been a short-lived fad in computer graphics and logos so the Reflection article is probably the best place to cover it, given what little remains. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reflection (computer graphics) makes sense to me. AfDs from so long ago don't carry much weight since our standards for notability (and others) have evolved considerably since then. Doesn't seem to be enough coverage for a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SIGCOV says that the general notability guideline is that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list, and that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. But this is not the case here. It is mentioned in passing by sources such as this.[56][57] -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Babyballet[edit]

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

Three sources, all pretty obviously press releases, and Google finds nothing other than puffery. Guy (help!) 00:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment - children seem to be growing up fast nowadays. perhaps it's not that far fetched.Grmike (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Delete - lots of local hits but nothing substantial above and beyond WP:MILL. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2020 (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 VITAL (machine learning software). The actual consensus is pretty strongly for deletion without redirect. However, because parts of this article have been merged to VITAL (machine learning software) while the AfD has been running, this article must be redirected rather than deleted in order to preserve the attribution. Since VITAL is now itself at AfD, the result of that AfD will effectively determine the true outcome of this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Knowledge Ventures[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Talk:Deep Knowledge Ventures

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

I renominate the article for deletion after a "no consensus". The article does not meet WP:NCORP guideline which has recently become considerably more restrictive about which sources are considered usable to show notability. Furthermore the article does not follow the criteria for establishing notability published by the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ms4263nyu: You’ve nominated the talk page, not the article... —Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Morris Ops! My apologies. Thanks to Serial Number 54129 for moving the page. Ms4263nyu (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails to establish why this venture capital is notable, nor can I find any sources that can verify if it is a real firm (eg. address, phone number). In addition, I am unable to locate any significant or substantial coverage with in-depth information on the firm and containing independent content. I have identified only cases of dependent or trivial coverage not sufficiente to establish notability.

Here's my assessment of the reliable sources:

Analysis of references
Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Bloomberg	N	Y	Y	Y	N	No Results, Company is not listed
Wall Street Journal	N	Y	Y	Y	N	No Results, Company is not listed
Financial Times	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Company is not listed. In one article Dmitry Kaminskiy, Managing Partner is quoted as a panelist of a conference and author of the UK Longevity Industry Report.
Hong Kong Companies Registry	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Company listed but address and names of officers and board members are not stated.
Factiva Dow Jones	Y	N	Y	N	N	Most of the articles are company-sponsored or based on company's press releases.
Forbes	Y	N	Y	N	N	Most of the posts are company-sponsored, based on company's press releases or a contributed piece by a co-founder of Deep Knowledge Ventures.
Times of Israel	N	Y	Y	Y	N	The newspaper derides the investment capital firm and its funder and co-funder.
Total qualifying sources					0	Lack of qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I do not have direct experience with private equity or venture capitals so members of the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force might help answer their own questions for establishing notability: 1) Has this firm or investor completed any notable investments? 2) Is this an "emerging manager"? 3) How much capital does this firm / investor manage? 4) Does a firm / investor have an institutional investor base? Thanks! Ms4263nyu (talk) 20:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

Additional sources provided at this AfD

Weinglass, Simona (2020-04-19). "Behind PM-cited study showing Israel is safest place, a rabbit hole of weirdness". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2015). Dean, Jodi; Hands, Joss; Jordan, Tim (eds.). Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. London: Pluto Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-7453-3404-2.
Harari, Yuval Noah (2017). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. New York: Harper. pp. 322–323. ISBN 978-0-06-246431-6.
Mölein, Florian (2018). "Robots in the boardroom: artificial intelligence and corporate law". In Barfield, Woodrow; Pagallo, Ugo (eds.). Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 649–650. ISBN 978-1-78643-904-8. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Katz, Yaakov (2020-04-16). "Corona and politics shouldn't mix – but they do". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Ahren, Raphael (2020-04-16). "Ahead of curve, now marred by politics: Fading praise for Netanyahu's leadership". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
林少伟 (2018). "人工智能对公司法的影响:挑战与应对" (PDF). 华东政法大学学报 (in Chinese). CNKI. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Kyrou, Ariel (2015). "Les robots sont des personnes comme les autres". Multitudes (in French). 58 (1). doi:10.3917/mult.058.0094. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via Cairn.info.
"Robot hará parte de la mesa directiva de empresa japonesa". El Espectador (in Spanish). 2014-05-23. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Kahn, Jeremy (2019-09-26). "Learning to love the bot: Managers need to understand A.I. logic before using it as a business tool". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Burridge, Nicky (2017-05-10). "Artificial intelligence gets a seat in the boardroom: Hong Kong venture capitalist sees AI running Asian companies within 5 years". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

Sources provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures

Koebler, Jason (2014-05-13). "The First Robot Venture Capitalist Won't Do Interviews". Vice. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
Brown, Sophie (2014-09-30). "Could computers take over the boardroom?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
Wile, Rob (2014-05-13). "A Venture Capital Firm Just Named An Algorithm To Its Board Of Directors — Here's What It Actually Does". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
"Algorithm appointed board director". BBC. 2014-05-16. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
Taylor, Jordyn (2014-05-13). "V.C. Firm Names Robot To Board of Directors". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
Dormehl, Luke (2014-12-01). "Your job automated". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
Raven, David (2014-05-16). "Investment firm hires COMPUTER as new boss to sit on board of directors". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
Sharwood, Simon (2014-05-18). "Software 'appointed to board' of venture capital firm". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

Extended content

Additional sources provided at this AfD

Weinglass, Simona (2020-04-19). "Behind PM-cited study showing Israel is safest place, a rabbit hole of weirdness". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
Since the end of March, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been trumpeting a study by the little-known “Deep Knowledge Group” that claims Israel is the safest country in the world in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Amid repeated efforts by journalists, scientists, politicians and concerned social media users to question and even debunk the study, Netanyahu has continued to cite it on prime-time television as well as on his official website and social media feed.
Not only does the study fail to reveal the data or methodology it used, but the people behind it also have strikingly unusual career histories. The Times of Israel has dug further into the founders of the “Deep Knowledge Group” and discovered a San Francisco-based medical expert with an extraordinary resumé who reportedly has run a firm offering private intelligence services to foreign governments; a failed Russian banker who advises the Moldovan president on the economy; and a bizarre Russian movement to prolong the human lifespan.
...
The Times of Israel published an article on April 8 revealing that Deep Knowledge Group was a Hong Kong investment capital firm owned by a Moscow- and London-based businessman named Dmitry Kaminskiy with business interests in the fintech, blockchain and “longevity” industries. In mid-2015, Kaminskiy bought the Russian “Interactive Bank” and announced in interviews in the Russian media that he would invest $1 billion in the bank to make it the best in the world using artificial intelligence technology. A year later, the bank was bankrupt and its license had been revoked.
Days later, Prof Yitzhak Ben-Israel, head of the Security Studies program in Tel Aviv University, derided (Hebrew link) the site’s findings as “the mother of fake news,” stressing that the rankings were not formal, official or credible.
Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2015). Dean, Jodi; Hands, Joss; Jordan, Tim (eds.). Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. London: Pluto Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-7453-3404-2.
The book notes:
Deep Knowledge Ventures

On 13 May 2014, a press release from Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund specializing in biotechnology, age-related disease drugs and regenerative medicine projects, announced that it ‘formally acknowledges VITAL, a crucial Artificial Intelligence instrument for investment decision-making, as an equal member of its Board of Directors’.
VITAL was the product of Aging Analytics UK, a provider of health-sector market intelligence to pension funds, insurers and governments. Developed by ‘a team of programmers, several of which have theoretical physics backgrounds’, the system ‘uses machine learning to analyze financing trends in a database of life science companies and predict successful investments’. VITAL 1.0 was a ‘basic algorithm’, but the goal was ‘through iterative releases and updates ... to create a piece of software that is capable of making autonomous investment decisions’ (Fontaine 2014). Apparently, however, Deep Knowledge Ventures thought VITAL was already pretty good: it told reporters the program would ‘vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not’ (BBC 2014).
All this sounded very futuristic. As commentators quickly pointed out, however, it was really ‘publicity hype’ (BBC 2014). This was not because decision-making algorithms are impossible, but, on the contrary, because their use, often in forms far more complex than VITAL, is commonplace in today’s capitalism. Such programs are, for example, central to the operations of the financial sector, whose high-speed multi-billion trades are entirely dependent on algorithms – and whose bad decisions brought the world economy to its knees in the great Wall Street crash of 2008. The press release was a stunt because the future to which it seemed to point exists now.
...
The same-day news of the algorithmic boss-entity and the mine disaster was coincidence. Yet it condenses paradoxes and contradictions central to this book. For a start, it starkly highlights the coexistence within contemporary capitalism of extraordinary high-technologies and workers who live and die in brutal conditions often imagined to belong in some antediluvian past. This coexistence is also a connection. Mines and artificial intelligences seem to belong to different worlds, but they are strongly linked. Although only a small part of production at Soma went to power plants, similar coal mines around the planet provide – at appalling, biosphere-endangering environmental cost – the basic energy source on which all digital technologies depend: electricity.
Harari, Yuval Noah (2017). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. New York: Harper. pp. 322–323. ISBN 978-0-06-246431-6.
The article notes:
In May 2014 Deep Knowledge Ventures – a Hong Kong venture-capital firm specialising in regenerative medicine – broke new ground by appointing an algorithm called VITAL to its board. VITAL makes investment recommendations by analysing huge amounts of data on the financial situation, clinical trials and intellectual property of prospective companies. Like the other five board members, the algorithm gets to vote on whether the firm makes an investment in a specific company or not.
Examining VITAL’s record so far, it seems that it has already picked up one managerial vice: nepotism. It has recommended investing in companies that grant algorithms more authority. With VITAL’s blessing, Deep Knowledge Ventures has recently invested in Silico Medicine, which develops computer-assisted methods for drug research, and in Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which employs a platform called OncoFinder to select and rate personalised cancer therapies.
Mölein, Florian (2018). "Robots in the boardroom: artificial intelligence and corporate law". In Barfield, Woodrow; Pagallo, Ugo (eds.). Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 649–650. ISBN 978-1-78643-904-8. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The book notes:
Back in 2014, the media reported that Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm, had appointed an algorithm named Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to its board of directors. According to these reports, the algorithm was given the right to "vote on whether the firm makes an investment in a specific company or not", just like the other—human—members of the board. Vital was appointed because of its ability to "automate due diligence and use historical datasets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying top-line data". For instance, Vital helped to approve two investment decisions, namely those to fund Insilico Medicine, an enterprise which develops computer-assisted methods for drug discovery in aging research, and Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which selects and rates personalized cancer therapies on the basis of a platform technology. Despite this impressive track record, Vital admittedly was not yet artificially intelligent in the proper sense. In fact, the algorithm will soon have to retire, since a much more intelligent Vital 2.0 is due to be launched in the near future. Moreover, Vital was initially not granted an equal vote on all financial decisions made by the company. Legally speaking, it has not even acquired the status of corporate director under the corporate laws of Hong Kong. It is simply treated as "a member of [the] board with observer status" by its fellow (human) directors. Nevertheless, Vital has been acknowledged as the "world's first artificial intelligence company director".
Katz, Yaakov (2020-04-16). "Corona and politics shouldn't mix – but they do". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
A woman by the name of Margaretta Colangelo who wrote a blog post that appeared in Forbes’ blog section. Colangelo is the co-founder of Deep Knowledge Group, a small unknown venture capital firm based in Hong Kong that Itzik Ben-Israel, a retired IDF general and chairman of the Israel Space Agency, called the mother of fake news.
...
This wasn’t the first time that Netanyahu shared research by Deep Knowledge Group. In the beginning of April, Netanyahu shared a chart claiming that Israel conducts more coronavirus tests per capita than any other country.
The problem is that the chart referred to a short snapshot in time, and that in reality, as everyone in Israel knows, the country has consistently failed to scale up its testing due to poor management, lack of materials, and a failure to recognize early on in the crisis that tests are an essential tool needed to get the country back to work (we will get back to that below).
Ahren, Raphael (2020-04-16). "Ahead of curve, now marred by politics: Fading praise for Netanyahu's leadership". The Times of Israel. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
On April 1, he cited a dubious survey published by the Deep Knowledge Group — a largely unknown Hong Kong-based investment capital company — that ranked Israel as the safest country in terms of the coronavirus.
林少伟 (2018). "人工智能对公司法的影响:挑战与应对" (PDF). 华东政法大学学报 (in Chinese). CNKI. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
早在 2014 年，人工智能对公司法的挑战已隐隐若现。研究生物科技与再生医学的英国公司 Aging Analytics 于 2014 年 5 月宣布，启用一款名为 VITAL(Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences)的人工智能工具，并授权香港的风投公司 Deep Knowledge Ventures 将该人工智能用作该公司的投资委员。在被记者问及为何采用这一人工智能时，Deep Knowledge Venture 的高级合伙人卡明斯基(Kaminskiy)称，人会受情感左右，有主观情绪，会犯错误，但 VITAL 这样的机器只会用逻辑思维，不可能因为一时意气出错。人类投资者的直觉和机器的逻辑性相结合，会打造一支完美的团队，将错误的风险降低到最小。〔1〕VITAL 入场后，已经帮助公司批准了两项投资:一个是在抗衰老医药领域开发计算机辅助方法的 Silico Medicine，另一个是使用选择个人化抗癌治疗方法的 Pathway Pharmaceuticals。Aging Analytics 公司声称，VITAL 在投资委员会和其他委员是平等的。事实上， VITAL 在当时虽然冠以“投资委员”之名，但实际上并非对任何的投资都享有跟其他委员同等的表决权。而且，根据香港公司法的规定，VITAL 也无法获得“董事”地位。因此，Aging Analytics 公司的其他委员认为，将之视为投资委员会的“观察员(observer)”可能更为适当。
VITAL 的出现，实质上引出一个更深层次的问题:公司法与人工智能的相遇将会擦出何种火花? VITAL 可能被视为公司的董事，也可能被视为公司董事决策的辅助(即观察员)，但不管是哪一种情形，均会导致公司法语境的一连串追问:如果 VITAL 被视为董事，则传统公司法关于董事的相关规则(比如董事义务规则)是否仍然适用?如果不能适用，应当如何重构?如若 VITAL 不被视为董事，而仅仅是被视为董事决策的辅助手段，则这种辅助性工具是否也受到公司法的规约?如董事因听信 VITAL 所作出的决策导致公司利益受损，VITAL 本身是否应当承担责任?无生命无感情之 VITAL 又该承担何种责任，才能与其行为与身份相匹配?凡此种种，无疑均会对公司法造成挑战与冲击。
Kyrou, Ariel (2015). "Les robots sont des personnes comme les autres". Multitudes (in French). 58 (1). doi:10.3917/mult.058.0094. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via Cairn.info.
The article notes:
epuis le 13 mai 2014, il est le sixième membre du conseil d’administration de la société hongkongaise Deep knowledge ventures, ou DKV. Il n’a pas besoin de porter cravate et costume de grand ponte. Il s’appelle Vital, d’un acronyme que les autres têtes d’œuf du conseil ont sans doute oublié mais qui en dit beaucoup sur le sens de sa présence au sommet de cette entreprise de capital-risque des secteurs de la lutte contre le cancer, la médecine régénérative et les traitements personnalisés : « Outil de validation pour les investissements dans la recherche scientifique » . Vital n’a pas le physique de l’emploi : c’est un algorithme. Plus aucune décision d’investissement, néanmoins, n’est aujourd’hui prise par DKV sans qu’il n’ait voix au chapitre. Car le robot, pour peu qu’on le nomme ainsi comme l’ont fait la plupart des journalistes ayant chanté sa finesse d’analyse autant que sa puissance de calcul, est un incorruptible. Sa promotion, son crédit au sein du pool de décideurs de Deep knowledge ventures, il les doit à sa neutralité. À la rigueur toute mathématique de ses avis sur les sociétés candidates à la manne financière. Mais cette absence de subjectivité n’est-elle pas un leurre ? Même autonome dans l’exercice quotidien de sa mission, une machine programmée par des humains peut-elle être considérée comme neutre ? Et infaillible ? Car Vital pourrait se tromper et soutenir un investissement nuisible.
Et si cet algorithme réussissait un jour à convaincre les cinq autres membres de son conseil d’administration d’investir dans une startup se présentant de façon crédible comme spécialisée dans la lutte contre le vieillissement, mais dirigée en sous-main par une bande de djihadistes cherchant des fonds pour l’immortel Allah ? Vital pourrait-il être tenu pour responsable de l’erreur de casting ? Faudrait-il incriminer la société DKV, juridiquement propriétaire de ce logiciel ô combien supérieur ? Ou ses prestataires et leurs sources d’information ? Ou bien se retourner contre le concepteur de Vital, cette mécanique qu’on croyait pourtant si intelligente?
"Robot hará parte de la mesa directiva de empresa japonesa". El Espectador (in Spanish). 2014-05-23. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
"Vital" es el nombre del robot que hace parte de la junta directiva de la japonesa Deep Knowledge Ventures, una empresa de gestión de fondos de inversión localizada en Hong Kong y que se especializa en inversiones de proyectos de biotecnología a mediano y largo plazo. Se trata básicamente de un software con la capacidad para analizar tendencias en las bases de datos de compañías relacionadas con ciencia y con ello predecir inversiones exitosas.
Su nombre proviene de "validating investment tool for advancing life sciences" que traducido al español significa "herramienta validadora de inversión para el avance de las ciencias de la vida" y fue diseñado por la compañía británica Aging Analytics, que se dedica a llevar a cabo investigaciones en el campo de la biotecnología y la medicina regenerativa. La organización anunció que Vital ya ha realizado dos predicciones exitosas.
Aunque hasta ahora no ha tenido voto, el robot ya ayudó a aprobar las inversiones hechas en la compañía Silico Medicine que desarrolla métodos por computadora para descubrir fármacos en el campo del envejecimiento. La segunda inversión fue hecha en la firma Pathway Pharmaceuticals que usa una plataforma llamada OncoFinder para seleccionar y calificar terapias personalizadas contra el cáncer.
Kahn, Jeremy (2019-09-26). "Learning to love the bot: Managers need to understand A.I. logic before using it as a business tool". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
Hong Kong-based investment firm Deep Knowledge Ventures made headlines in 2014 by appointing a computer algorithm to its corporate board. The firm, which has about 100 million euros under management, wanted a way to enforce a data-driven approach to investing, rather than relying on human intuition and personal interactions with founders. Managing partner Dmitry Kaminskiy says the algorithm served mostly as a veto mechanism—if it spotted red flags, Deep Knowledge wouldn’t invest.
In the five years since Deep Knowledge’s A.I. got its board seat, there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of companies following suit. In fact, Deep Knowledge itself shifted focus and no longer uses the algorithm. “Today, big strategy decisions are based on intuition”—that is to say, by humans—“because we have a data shortage,” says Brian Uzzi, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Firms simply don’t make enough of these major decisions to train an algorithm effectively.
Burridge, Nicky (2017-05-10). "Artificial intelligence gets a seat in the boardroom: Hong Kong venture capitalist sees AI running Asian companies within 5 years". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
DKV started as a traditional biotechnology fund, with a team of advisers and analysts using traditional methods for trend analysis and due diligence. But the biotech sector has a very high failure rate, with around 96% of drugs not successfully completing clinical trials.
...
DKV then acquired a team of specialists in the analysis of big data -- large data sets that can be analyzed by computers to reveal patterns. The team created Vital, the first artificial intelligence system for biotech investment analysis, enabling the fund to identify more than 50 parameters that were critical for assessing risk factors.
...
Vital showed that the probability of success was higher in the longevity subsector, which seeks to combat the effects of ageing, than in most other biotech subsectors.
...
DKV is currently working on Vital 2.0, which will be launched in the second half of 2017. Kaminskiy said the new system will have a much higher IQ due to increases in the quality of data available and further diversification of data sources. Vital 2.0 will integrate data from scientific literature, grants, patent applications, clinical trials and even the biographies of individual team members of companies in which DKV is interested.
The article includes quotes from Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures.

Sources provided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures

Koebler, Jason (2014-05-13). "The First Robot Venture Capitalist Won't Do Interviews". Vice. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
The article notes:
The existing structure of Deep Knowledge Ventures is already shrouded a bit in mystery—the company is led by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, who cofounded the Center for Biogerontology and Regenerative Medicine (VITAL analyzes only companies involved in regenerative medicine)—but the rest of the board consists of “five anonymous partners, all high net worth individuals from Hong Kong, Russia, and the UK,” according to Highland.
She says that the board will only put money into companies that VITAL’s algorithm suggests are a good bet, which isn’t too different from any other company using some proprietary analysis software or equation to make decisions.
...
So far, VITAL has helped the VC firm invest in two companies, including Baltimore’s InSilico Medicine. Alex Zhavoronkov, InSilico’s CEO, told me that he does not “talk” to VITAL, but that in his dealings with Deep Knowledge Ventures, the company has acted as though the algorithm is a real human.
Brown, Sophie (2014-09-30). "Could computers take over the boardroom?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
The article notes:
A Hong Kong venture capital fund recently appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors, claiming to be the first company of its kind to give a machine an "equal vote" when it comes to investment decisions.
The firm, Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV), which invests in companies researching treatments for age-related diseases and regenerative medicine, uses the algorithm to analyze financing trends to make investment recommendations in the life sciences sector.
"We were attracted to a software tool that could in large part automate due diligence and use historical data-sets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying topline data," said DKV senior partner Dmitry Kaminskiy when the company announced the board "appointment" in May.
Wile, Rob (2014-05-13). "A Venture Capital Firm Just Named An Algorithm To Its Board Of Directors — Here's What It Actually Does". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
"Algorithm appointed board director". BBC. 2014-05-16. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
The article notes:
A venture capital firm has appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors.
The program - called Vital - will vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not.
The firm it will be working for - Deep Knowledge Ventures - focuses on drugs for age-related diseases.
It said that Vital would make its recommendations by sifting through large amounts of data.
The algorithm looks at a range of data when making decisions - including financial information, clinical trials for particular drugs, intellectual property owned by the firm and previous funding.
According to Deep Knowledge Ventures, Vital has already approved two investment decisions.
Taylor, Jordyn (2014-05-13). "V.C. Firm Names Robot To Board of Directors". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
Dormehl, Luke (2014-12-01). "Your job automated". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
The article notes:
Earlier this year, Deep Knowledge Ventures a Hong Kong investment house, announced that it had appointed an algorithm to its board of directors. Given the same powers as the human board members, the piece of software weighs up financial and business decisions to assess investments in biotechnology and regenerative medicine that could be worth millions of dollars. The algorithm's strength, its creators claim, is its ability to automate the kind of due diligence and historical knowledge about trends that would be difficult for a mere person to spot.
Raven, David (2014-05-16). "Investment firm hires COMPUTER as new boss to sit on board of directors". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
The article notes:
Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) will be working for medical company Deep Knowledge Ventures, which specialises in drugs for age-related diseases.
It will sit as an 'equal member of its board of directors'.
Deep Knowledge’s senior partner, Dmitry Kaminskiy, said: "The prospect for utilising this approach in portfolio management is very attractive.
Sharwood, Simon (2014-05-18). "Software 'appointed to board' of venture capital firm". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
The article notes:
Hong Kong based venture capital fund Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV) “has appointed VITAL, a machine learning program capable of making investment recommendations in the life science sector, to its board.”
...
We're not going there because there's a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong “The board comprises all of the directors of the company” and “A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.”
Unless VITAL is vastly more capable than described, it cannot be considered a “natural person”. So its “presence” on the board is cosmetic.
There's also the small matter of Directors' liabilities, which companies routinely insure against to to protect their Board members. Obtaining insurance for VITAL's pronouncements would be nigh-on impossible. Let's also ask what happens if VITAL is hacked: would that constitute the Directorial no-no of false and misleading communications? If VITAL crashed, would that constitute failure to disclose? Those questions come before we ponder whether VITAL has the ability to cast a vote, never mind raise its hand to show which way it has voted.
A stunt then, albeit an unsettling one: software is on the march and often challenges human expertise. At a guess, VITAL is what previous generations of business intelligence hype called an executive information system, a tool that offers high-level analysis of a business beyond purely operational matters. It's grand that DKV has put such a tool in its Directors' hands, but this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator.

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

Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Times of Israel published an in-depth critical review of Deep Knowledge Ventures, saying it was "little-known" and "the people behind it also have strikingly unusual career histories". The article says Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "has been trumpeting" Deep Knowledge Venture's study that "claims Israel is the safest country in the world in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic". The article says "the study fail to reveal the data or methodology it used". It provides detailed background about the "subsidiaries or sister companies of Deep Knowledge Group, or startups or nonprofits that have been beneficiaries of its largesse". The article also discusses information published in the Russian magazine Expert about Deep Knowledge Ventures.
Yaakov Katz, the editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post said Deep Knowledge Ventures is a "small unknown venture capital firm based in Hong Kong that Itzik Ben-Israel, a retired IDF general and chairman of the Israel Space Agency, called the mother of fake news". The Times of Israel added that Itzik Ben-Israel found the coronavirus rankings "not formal, official or credible".
Deep Knowledge Ventures appointed VITAL to its board of directors in 2014. This received significant coverage in the Vice, CNN, BBC, El Espectador, The New York Observer, Wired, the Daily Mirror and The Register in 2014.
Reliable sources have continued to cover Deep Knowledge Ventures' work on VITAL. It received significant coverage in the 2015 Pluto Press book Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex, the 2017 Harper book Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, and the 2018 Edward Elgar Publishing book Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. It also received significant coverage in Multitudes (2015), The Nikkei (2017), 华东政法大学学报 (a journal available through CNKI) (2018), and Fortune (2019).
The sources provide critical analysis about Deep Knowledge's work on VITAL. The Harper book notes, "Examining VITAL’s record so far, it seems that it has already picked up one managerial vice: nepotism." The Pluto Press book notes, "The press release was a stunt because the future to which it seemed to point exists now". The BBC article quotes University of Sheffield Professor Noel Sharkey, who said, "On first sight, it looks like a futuristic idea but on reflection it is really a little bit of publicity hype." The Vice article provides substantial coverage about Deep Knowledge Ventures: that it was founded by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, "shrouded a bit in mystery", has a board of "five anonymous partners", and has invested in Insilico Medicine and a second company through Vital's help. The Register calls a Vital a "stunt" and explains in detail why. Fortune said, "In the five years since Deep Knowledge's A.I. got its board seat, there hasn't exactly been a stampede of companies following suit."
Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard Thanks for this list of sources, but those links included haven't been included in Deep Knowledge Ventures after the first AfD nomination. Furthermore are those sources significant? Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability WP:CORPDEPTH. Those sources you listed do not provide significant and substantial coverage with in-depth financial information about a Venture Capital. The article itself fails to establish why this venture capital is notable. Furthermore, the article is inappropriate or insufficient for a stand-alone article. Wikipedia is not WP:NOTNEWS WP:PLOT. Please, see also my comment below on WP:NCORP. Ms4263nyu (talk) 07:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep Knowledge Ventures participants: Gruznov (talk · contribs), Olivier (talk · contribs), Citobun (talk · contribs), Deryck Chan (talk · contribs), and Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on the controversy over the company being itself notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NCORP and not WP:GNG is the accepted standard that editors should follow for establishing the notability of a compan . The new guideline has become considerably more restrictive about which sources are considered usable to show notability. Here how to apply the new criteria.

Can anyone provide the address, phone number of this venture capital? I find intriguing their website doesn't even reveal where they live, as the The Times of Israel notices the only evidence of the existence of this venture capital is a LinkedIn page.

The funder of the DKV, Dmitry Kaminskiy, might pass WP:BIO using the sources mentioned by Cunard. The article for a VC should respect this model otherwise WP:TNT Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and WP:TNT. Based on the sources provided by Cunard this fails WP:GNG, WP:ORGIN, and WP:INHERITORG. This is not an actual Venture Capital Firm, especially based on the Private Equity Capital model that Ms4263nyu has provided. This seems to be a shady outfit of some sort of a so-far undefined nature. After sifting through some of these sources, this Wikipedia article appears to be an inaccurate characterization of this company.

This is more like WP:SPAM. Additionally, as has been shown above, apparently the references in the article do not support notability for this topic. Also, based on the questions posed above by Ms4263nyu, this does not fit the criteria as a VC firm, criteria delineated by the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force. Therefore delete this, and if someone wants to write a different article that is an accurate characterization, and show that this is an actual company, that is the route we should go. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article. Here is the lead:
Deep Knowledge Ventures is a venture capital firm based in Hong Kong. It funds companies that make treatments for aging-associated diseases and regenerative medicine.
The company received international attention for its appointment of the computer algorithm VITAL (which stands for Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to its board of directors in 2014. VITAL was called the "world's first artificial intelligence company director".¹ VITAL's appointment raised controversy with critics calling it a stunt and saying that as VITAL was a natural person, it could not be a board member under Hong Kong's corporate governance laws.
Deep Knowledge Group published a series of studies in 2020 on how well countries were handling the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to measure which countries would be good places to make investment decisions in in the future. The studies, which ranked Israel as both the safest country and the country where people felt the most safe, were touted by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu. Scientists and journalists criticised the studies' reliability, and The Times of Israel said "the people behind it also have strikingly unusual career histories".² Der Spiegel found a coronavirus pandemic study from the company useful for businesses in providing the information about "where they can invest most safely and where they may also take long-term risks".³
The article is no longer a violation of WP:SPAM.
Regarding "nor can I find any sources that can verify if it is a real firm (eg. address, phone number)": it is a real firm because reliable sources say it is a real firm. That there is no address or phone number on its website has no bearing on the firm's notability or existence.
WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because the company has been discussed in multiple books and journals over a period of multiple years.
The WikiProject pages Wikipedia:WikiProject Private Equity and Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/PrivateEquity/SamplePEfirm are not policies or guidelines. From the policy Wikipedia:Consensus#Levels of consensus:
WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.
During my rewrite of the article I found two more sources that provide significant coverage about the company and its studies:
1. Siouti, Vassiliki (2020-04-18). "Spiegel's coronavirus research, a Russian longevity expert and Spock. An article published by Spiegel and Deutsche Welle puts Greece in the 15th place among the European countries where citizens are safer against the coronavirus, whereas Germany is placed 1st. Which criteria were taken into account and, mostly, who is responsible for that research?". Lifo. Archived from the original on 2020-04-23. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
2. Götze, Susanne (2020-04-14). "Im Ländervergleich liegt Deutschland sehr weit vorn" [Germany is very far ahead in the country comparison. Where is the best place to protect people from Covid-19? According to a country ranking, Germany is currently one of the safest countries in the world in the corona crisis.]. Der Spiegel (in German). Archived from the original on 2020-04-14. Retrieved 2020-04-23.
Cunard (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ Cunard. Sure, but WP:NCORP are guidelines and very different from WP:GNG. As this article is on a Private Equity Firm WP:NCORP is the standard that editors should follow for establishing the notability. Here how to apply the new guidelines. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is nothing in the sources that match the description of the company in the Wikipedia article. So again there is no way to identify this company based on the RS, or even if it really exists beyond a passing mention in some of the sources. There is virtually nothing about what this company does, what it's investments look like and so on. Nothing answers the questions posed by the above mentioned model which would identify this as a venture capital firm.

Also, according to the sources, there are two different names of companies we're talking about here. Deep Knowledge Ventures and Deep Knowledge Group. I went to website of Deep Knowledge Group and there is no information specifically about the company. There is only one page with links to a few of the articles posted here. It also advertises a book. There is no apparent connection to Deep Knowledge Ventures. In fact there is no connection to anything other than the few articles and book I just mentioned. The sources in the box created by Ms4263nyu also do not have articles that are about this company, under either name. So again, this is a fictitious company of some sort.

The AI program this outfit touted as a decision maker for investments was a publicity stunt and was not nearly as complex as what is in use today for automated-computerized trades. In any case, the AI program might be notable as a PR stunt, because that has been somewhat written about. The self-serving study, not backed by Forbes magazine, touting Israel as safest during the pandemic, might be marginally notable. Forbes actually distanced itself from the study and the blog post that published the outcome of the study. In fact, no relevant facts about the study itself have been revealed, such as methodology and data. Researchers and scientists cannot validate this study. So this is also pretty-much a bunch of fiction as it stands.

So again, what we have here is still WP:SPAM. In fact, I'm wondering if it is really a WP:HOAX, or actually more than one hoax, after looking into this more deeply. There was mention that this outfit does intelligence work - as in spy-craft (journalists have uncovered that). So based on the shadiness and lack of concrete details here, this might be merely an intelligence outfit. And there is no extensive information about that either. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My Ivote is still "delete". And I still recommend WP:TNT. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And as was asked before, can anyone provide a name, address, or other identifying information about this company? Apparently not because it is not real. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also based on the above, the topic fails WP:NRV, and Notability is not inherited (WP:INHERITORG) just because PM Netanyahu mentions a study connected with this fictitious entity more than once - in Twitter feeds. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not one for cold calls, but this press release appears to include contact information at the bottom. Pegnawl (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Pegnawl the press release you just mentioned refers to Deep Knowledge Analytics which is NOT the private equity in Hong Kong related to the present AfD. The contact you mentioned is a cellphone from the UK, likely the professional who released the press release. Steve Quinn and I argued that a legit and notable private equity firm should have at least an address and a phone number. In addition, the Companies House shows shows that Deep Knowledge Analytics is another fictional corporation. It is located in a virtual address provided by the London Office in 85 Great Portland Street. The company was incorporated by Dmitrii Caminschii (who apparently is Romanian and not Russian) on the 25th May 2018 with a capital of 100 sterlings (100 shares). I never heard of Venture Capitals investing 100 pounds in subsidiaries. The AfD should be moved in these three categories: fictional business, ponzi scheme, HOAX/fake news.Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete After further digging among the sources, I agree with others that the company itself appears to fail the criteria for notability. The topic and the references show that it meets the criteria for notability. For example, there are two book references mentioned above ("Homo Deus - A Brief History of Tomorrow" and "Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex") which both meet the criteria for references to establish notability. That said, there's probably some further editting required to highlight those parts containing "claims" made by the company which others have pointed out to be publicity hype. Most of what I've read about this company suggests it is mostly hype and PR - but it is still notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, but the coverage of this topic is trivial. The focus is on different subjects while mentioning this topic only in passing. Coverage is not really about this topic. And that is what is happening with the sources listed by Cunard - passing mention while briefly focusing on another topic. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand what both you and Steve Quinn are saying but for me, while most of Cunard's references fail the criteria for establishing notability (Cunard often appears to ignore the NCORP guidelines and provides links based on interviews/quotations/announcements) the two book references meet the criteria. They both contain Independent Content and while they don't go into too much corporate detail, there is enough in each book to satisfy me that the criteria for establishing notability has been met. And just to add, I don't really care if it is a VC company and there are currently *no* guidelines specifically for VC companies. Most articles on VC companies I have seen at AfD *fail* the NCORP guidelines. There are others who would like to introduce specific guidelines for VC companies but as of today, NCORP is the only applicable guideline. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HighKing The mention in Homo Deus (see pag. 693-694 and reference n. 17 pag 932 of the book) is a repackaged press release from blogs. Furthermore, the mention to “Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which employs a platform called OncoFinder” (pag 694) is not even referenced.Ms4263nyu (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:HighKing The mention in "Cyber-proletariat" page 1 is merely trivial. The author writes: "On 13 May 2014, a press release from Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund specializing in biotechnology, age-related disease drugs and regenerative medicine projects, announced that it ‘formally acknowledges VITAL, a crucial Artificial Intelligence instrument for investment decision-making, as an equal member of its Board of Directors"... "All this sounded very futuristic. As commentators quickly pointed out, however, it was really ‘publicity hype’. Ms4263nyu (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ms4263nyu, I've taken another look at the sources and I now agree with your comments (and others) that while there appears to be a lot of articles and a lot written about the company, when you dig a bit deeper there's only two real topics (VITAL and their report saying Israel was one of the safest countries) and nothing I can find provides material that meets an ORGIND version of CORPDEPTH. I agree that the mention in "Cyber-proletariat" is based entirely on the company announcement and commentary on other publications - which in turn are based on company announcements about the appointment of VITAL. Also, the "Homo Deus" reference is based on this article from The Register which would (perhaps) provide material for an article based on a topic of VITAL itself, but not for the company. Other book titles appear to fall into the same trap. The "Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence", for example, contains no Independent Content and in turn relies on press releases and a "collaborator" and a "founding management partner" at the company. I've therefore changed my !vote accordingly. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing (talk · contribs), based on the sources I listed here, would you consider the computer algorithm VITAL (which stands for Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to pass the notability guidelines? Deep Knowledge Ventures' coverage in reliable sources largely is from coverage of VITAL. I am considering creating an article about VITAL and then supporting redirection of Deep Knowledge Ventures to VITAL.

Cunard (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard There are a lot of references that discuss VITAL - I'd say it'd pass GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing I am afraid no. WP:NSOFT is an essay but the article is quite far from meeting any of this criteria.

Comment I do appreciate Cunard's editing but I am not sure if the article is anymore appropriate for a private equity firm. I also agree with Steve Quinn Deep Knowledge Ventures and Deep Knowledge Group are two different entities. If we think that the article can pass WP:NCORP (which I really doubt), then I advise to rename and categorize the article as "Deep Knowledge Group", a consortium of commercial and non-profit organizations, in which Deep Knowledge ventures might be mentioned as a subsidiary of the group. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:22, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I am noticing is an amalgamation of different stuff mashed together via these sources. There is the AI program, there is some coverage that it is a PR gimmick, and some coverage that it is not as sophisticated as what is already out there in the investment world. Then, there is the study, there is the drama of the blog post that posted supposed results of the study, Forbes stating it is not connected to Forbes, and there is PM Netanyahu. Then I see mere passing mention of Deep Knowledge [whatever]. All these have been mashed together into this Wikipedia article. It looks like significant coverage but its not. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn I agree it is a flurry of press releases,churnalism, trivial mentions. In addition, I find annoying the bombardment of unnecessary references to describe two irrelevant events concerning another company (Deep Knowledge Group). The missing details about DKV (eg. address, assets, funds under management, portfolio of investments) are important and cannot be found by anyone. Ms4263nyu (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment, My initial concern about this article was the promotional content. Cunard and I edited extensively the article and now the lack of the credibility of both the company and its funders is quite clear. So perhaps it's better if we keep the article as it neutralizes the PR machine behind the 2 hypes described in the page. Having said that, the article must be rewritten and copy edited. In addition, long citations, missing reference and PR language must be cleaned up. The references to DKG (a consortium) and DKV (Venture Capital) are very confusing. I think the article should be related to DKG (the Group/Consortium) and DKV (Venture Capital) redirected to DKG. Ms4263nyu (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The article has changed substantially over the past week and could use further input here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a classic case of a business article supported only by fluff and a keen advocate. There's no notability here, let alone passing the new stricter NCORP rules. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the sourcing falls far short of that expected by the minimum requirements of NCORP, and a WP:BEFORE search brings up nothing apart from the SPS, etc., already discussed. There is little to no third-party, persistent, independent discussion of this company, and while thta does not prove either a hoax or spam, it makes either more likely: and both are against policy. ——SN 54129 13:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This looks almost like a crafted April Fool's joke, at best I would invoke WP:TNT. Ifnord (talk) 21:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VITAL (machine learning software), a new article I created. Deep Knowledge Ventures' coverage in reliable sources largely is from coverage of its software VITAL. For the creation, I used some of the text from Deep Knowledge Ventures and did a substantial expansion. Here is the lead of the new article:
VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) is a machine learning proprietary software whose appointment to a company's board of directors was considered by commentators to be a publicity stunt.^[1] Florian Möslein, a law professor at the University of Marburg, wrote in 2018 that "Vital has widely been acknowledged as the 'world's first artifical intelligence company director'".^[2] Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm, said it appointed the algorithm to its board in 2014 to conduct machine learning analysis of a substantial amount of data such as intellectual property, financial statements, and clinical trials, and to help the human board members make investment decisions in biotechnology companies.
Commentators viewed VITAL's board appointment with skepticism. University of Sheffield computer science professor Noel Sharkey called it "a publicity hype".^[3] Michael Osborne, a University of Oxford associate professor in machine learning, found it is "a gimmick to call that an actual board member".^[4] Simon Sharwood of The Register, wrote there is "a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this".^[5] In a 2019 speech, the Chief Scientist of Australia, Alan Finkel, commented, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches."^[6]
Vice journalist Jason Koebler concluded "there is literally nothing to suggest that VITAL has any sort of capabilities beyond any other proprietary analysis software".^[7] Sharwood of The Register determined that as VITAL was not a natural person, it could not be a board member under Hong Kong's corporate governance laws.^[5]
References
^ Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2015). Dean, Jodi; Hands, Joss; Jordan, Tim (eds.). Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. London: Pluto Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-7453-3404-2.

^ Mölein, Florian (2018). "Robots in the boardroom: artificial intelligence and corporate law". In Barfield, Woodrow; Pagallo, Ugo (eds.). Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 649–650. ISBN 978-1-78643-904-8. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

^ "Algorithm appointed board director". BBC. 2014-05-16. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

^ Brown, Sophie (2014-09-30). "Could computers take over the boardroom?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

^ ^a ^b Sharwood, Simon (2014-05-18). "Software 'appointed to board' of venture capital firm". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

^ Finkel, Alan (2019-03-05). "The Innovation Imperative" (PDF). Office of the Chief Scientist. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-29. Retrieved 2020-04-29.

^ Koebler, Jason (2014-05-13). "The First Robot Venture Capitalist Won't Do Interviews". Vice. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
Cunard (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to VITAL (machine learning software), per proposal from Cunard. I think this is a reasonable outcome of a lengthy discussion. Pegnawl (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Disagree with Redirect. There is no valid reason to use this as a redirect. There is nothing in here that proves the existence of this company. It seems like a hoax. It doesn't have to exist for PM Netanyahu to quote the results of study that has no substance, and which it was journalists who connected to this company, but tentatively. I mean if journalists can't uncover substantial information about a company, then we surely have no way of knowing. We rely on journalists for our reliable sourcing to produce our articles. TNT is appropriate. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 22:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment same here. I disagree with Redirect. In the new article I find unnecessary and unsubstantial the references to the Venture Capital (DKV) and its founder (check the reasons why mr Kamisky’s personal article on Wikipedia has been delete few times and now it is blocked). The new article is uncritical and sounds promotional at best, the pseudo algorithm was just a PR stunt. Was the algorithm ever implemented by anyone beyond this mysterious venture capital? Is still it used? If both no... please just add a paragraph to articles such as machine learning, hoaxes. Please check the easy on WP:NSOFT. I am a media ethicist and I find very frustrating any attempts to give credibility to fraudsters constantly looking for visibility especially if they claim to invest in health and biotechnology. There is nothing funny in this story about Vital, it only reveals the fragility of journalism. Ms4263nyu (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I noticed that Wisdom2020a removed content from Deep Knowledge Ventures which was initially reverted by Ifnord and another time by Citobun. Despite a warning from Ifnord, Wisdom2020a deleted again the same content claiming "I am following Deep Knowledge Ventures activities for 5 years and I am 100% sure, that the information about Deep Knowledge Group (which is not Deep Knowledge Ventures), added by people in a last few weeks is provocative and they are trying to tie Deep Knowledge Ventures (as a fund) to activities which are not related to them. Moreover now there are people who want to make dirty reputation for Deep Knowledge Ventures. Can you please either delete this page or restrict editing?" I restored the content and invited him to join the discussion. Ms4263nyu (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No Redirect.- Hatchens (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - interesting discussion. but if you can't Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/PrivateEquity/SamplePEfirm then you can't start a company article.Grmike (talk) 22:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Comment: I did a selective merge of Deep Knowledge Ventures to VITAL (machine learning software) for these reasons:
1. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems notes that "Instead of removing content from an article, consider" merging as an alternative to deletion.
2. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion lists "merging" as an alternative to deletion.
I support a redirect of Deep Knowledge Ventures to VITAL (machine learning software) for these reasons:
1. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting says, "They have a potentially useful page history, or an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete)." This page has both a useful page history and an edit history that should be kept to comply with the licensing requirements for a merge.
2. Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects says, "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include" "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article."
3. Deep Knowledge Ventures is the venture capital firm that said it appointed VITAL (machine learning software) to its board of directors. Deep Knowledge Ventures is briefly discussed in the VITAL article so VITAL is a reasonable title to redirect readers to.
None of the reliable sources say Deep Knowledge Ventures or VITAL are hoaxes. VITAL is notable not for being a software program but for being the centerpiece of a publicity stunt by Deep Knowledge Ventures. Multiple reliable sources have advanced this view, so I wrote VITAL (machine learning software) to reflect this position in the reliable sources.
Cunard (talk) 04:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note the amount of ivote deletes, delete redirect, and so on, each with its own rationale. Also, note the commentary about the non-company, with much leaning towards a hoax and failing notability, so on. Cunard has been unable to effectively counter overwhelming support for delete.

Also, Cunard's favorite trick to have the last post in any given AfD, so the closer sees this as no counter-argument. This is conjuction with posting a blizzard of weak sources. This behavior is not based on adding actual independent secondary sourcing that significantly covers the topic, or accepting that is an unsolvable problem and the page needs to go.

This seems to be an effort to circumvent content guidelines and policies. Cunard's most recent post is unconvincing and overall mis-represents a number of productive editors interpretation of the available sources. The sourcing seems to indicate there is a good chance that this subject is a hoax, and that is one of the interpretations of a number of editors.

There is no significant coverage of this topic. There is some coverage of other topics. That has been said before. However, the point is, the number of editors that support this view. In contrast, Cunnard's view is hardly supported at all in this AfD. Finally, Cunnard inappropriately moved content from this article to the other he just created.

So if this goes to redirect - well viola - fictitious coverage of this fictitious company is there. And if the redirect is deleted - well that content is still in the other article - via so-called "a selective merge".

Sorry, but that is hardly a selective merge and it does not support the decision of the consensus of this AfD (WP:CPP). I just want to state it for the record. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also find quite peculiar that before the discussion was over Cunard created a new article using the content of the article I nominated for AfD. Now, we are discussing in another article if a venture capital created a fictional software that apparently no one never used and which is not even patented. Indeed, I would appreciate if anyone could clarify if it is possible to create a new page with the content of Deep Knowledge Ventures before this AfD vote is completed. If not this behavior should be sanctioned and the new article removed Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I may have violated any policies, you can ask admins and editors at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to review what I have done.
The notability case for Deep Knowledge Ventures is difficult to establish since almost all of the sources are about VITAL, its software and publicity stunt.
Following Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, I created VITAL (machine learning software) because the notability case is much easier to establish. HighKing, who supported deletion of Deep Knowledge Ventures, said, "There are a lot of references that discuss VITAL - I'd say it'd pass GNG."
Cunard (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but you are twisting what HighKing wrote. HighKing never told you to create a new article before the AfD was completed. You could have at least created a stub article. Ms4263nyu (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing wrote the sentence about VITAL and GNG after I created the article. My intent was not to say HighKing told me "to create a new article before the AfD was completed". My intent was to say I hoped that after I boldly created the new article, I could show to AfD participants like HighKing the depth of coverage and analysis that VITAL has received. Cunard (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. All my opinion. Under NCORP, the article on the company (here at AfD) does not meet the requirements for notability because there are insufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. While reading the various references and searching I came across many references that referred to VITAL - whether to comment that it was, perhaps, a PR stunt - or to comment on whether some software could be appointed to the board - or to comment on whether this was a starting point for a future whereby decisions would involve using AI. There are certainly multiple sources that discuss VITAL in this way and these sources (again, in my opinion) meet the criteria for notability. I am not relying on WP:SOFTWARE but on WP:GNG - my reasoning is that even thought VITAL is AI software, its notability is the context of usage rather than any other aspect such as features or effects. I have not read Cunards new article so I am not commenting on the specifics of whatever new article has been written. But I do not see any reason why Cunard could not write a new article on this topic so long as the emphasis is on VITAL (and not the company or founder, etc) and that it highlights (from citations/references) the reasons for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This is a non notable company that used a PR stunt half a decade ago to boost thier profile. That PR stunt gained some traction in the media, but no lasting coverage. The company then went back into obscurity. Isreali PM seems to have mentioned thier name once in his tirade like speech. If we analyze the company or group or whatever they actually are, we will see that even thier address is not available. What proof do we have of thier existence? Just that they used a PR stunt half a decade ago? It fails everything from WP:NCORP to WP:GNG Wikipedia is not news, and this belongs on a news website, probably in the hoax column. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 09:09, 3 May 2020 (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) 08:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Former Presidents of Cambridge University Liberal Club and Chairs of Cambridge Student Liberal Democrats[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:N and WP:V, with all of the sources in this bundle having at most a primary source and certainly no secondary or tertiary sources whatsoever. Even were they to, though, I'd argue that these articles are not suitable encyclopedic content anyway; they may well be original research, and the lists certainly don't meet WP:LISTPEOPLE.

This nomination bundle includes the articles below as well, for the exact same set of reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:LISTPEOPLE. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these do not appear to be have been covered as topics by secondary sources. Tacyarg (talk) 09:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - obsessively written lists of no notability. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Unnecessary lists with no articles. Kori (@) 18:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:LISTPEOPLE. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Here are the Canadian roots/world nominees for the Independent Music Awards". Roots Music Canada. 2019-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[2] "Music News Digest, April 2, 2018". FYIMusicNews. 2018-04-02. Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[3] "Sina Bathaie • Ray Of Hope | Magazine Son & image" (in French). Retrieved 2020-04-25.

[4] "Music News Digest, July 16, 2018". FYIMusicNews. 2018-07-16. Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[5] "Music News Digest, March 28, 2018". FYIMusicNews. 2018-03-28. Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[6] "2019 Showcase Artists | BC Touring Council". Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[7] "CINARS Biennale 2018". cinars.org. Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[8] "FOLK MUSIC ONTARIO ANNOUNCES MAJOR SAVINGS WITH EARLY BIRD REGISTRATION RATE ON UNTIL JULY 31". SPINCOUNT. Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[9] "CINARS Biennale 2018". cinars.org. Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[10] Department, World Music Central News. "Mundial Montreal Unveils 2018 Music Program | World Music Central.org". Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[11] rikcaraibmontreal (2015-10-09). "La programmation du festival Mundial Montréal 2015 est dévoilée". AfrikCaraibMontreal (in French). Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[12] "The WholeNote Magazine". www.thewholenote.com. Retrieved 2020-04-23.

[13] "Sina Bathaie performs". CP24. 2017-10-15. Retrieved 2020-02-26.

[14] Metro Morning (2020-01-09). "'It can bring a little bit of peace': Iranian musician says music can heal during times of sadness". CBC News. Retrieved 2020-01-09.

[15] "Light Up the Dark at the Aga Khan Museum". Retrieved 2020-04-25.

[16] "Global Toronto showcases Apr. 4-7, Part 1 (Audio/Video)". Roots Music Canada. 2018-04-09. Retrieved 2020-04-28.

[17] "Sina Bathaie - Press Kit (EPK)". sinabathaie.com. Retrieved 2020-04-28.

[18] "Mais qui est Dan Behrman?". Le Devoir (in French). Retrieved 2020-04-28.

[19] "Music News Digest, April 2, 2018". FYIMusicNews. 2018-04-02. Retrieved 2020-04-28.

[20] "Light Up the Dark at the Aga Khan Museum". Retrieved 2020-04-28.

[21] "Joindre la rédaction | Magazine Son & image" (in French). Retrieved 2020-05-02.

[22] "Sina Bathaie - Press Kit (EPK)". www.sinabathaie.com. Retrieved 2020-05-02.

[23] "Global Toronto showcases Apr. 4-7, Part 1 (Audio/Video)". Roots Music Canada. 2018-04-09. Retrieved 2020-05-02.

[24] "Joindre la rédaction | Magazine Son & image" (in French). Retrieved 2020-05-02.

[25] "Mais qui est Dan Behrman?". Le Devoir (in French). Retrieved 2020-05-02.

[26] "Sina Bathaie - Press Kit (EPK)". www.sinabathaie.com. Retrieved 2020-05-02.

[Dyer-Witheford2015-27] Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2015). Dean, Jodi; Hands, Joss; Jordan, Tim (eds.). Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. London: Pluto Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-7453-3404-2.

[Mölein2018-28] Mölein, Florian (2018). "Robots in the boardroom: artificial intelligence and corporate law". In Barfield, Woodrow; Pagallo, Ugo (eds.). Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 649–650. ISBN 978-1-78643-904-8. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

[BBC2014-05-16-29] "Algorithm appointed board director". BBC. 2014-05-16. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

[Brown2014-09-30-30] Brown, Sophie (2014-09-30). "Could computers take over the boardroom?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

[Sharwood2014-05-18-31] Sharwood, Simon (2014-05-18). "Software 'appointed to board' of venture capital firm". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

[Finkel2019-03-05-32] Finkel, Alan (2019-03-05). "The Innovation Imperative" (PDF). Office of the Chief Scientist. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-29. Retrieved 2020-04-29.

[Koebler2014-05-13-33] Koebler, Jason (2014-05-13). "The First Robot Venture Capitalist Won't Do Interviews". Vice. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]