Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 April	10 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. BLP without reliable sources means mandatory deletion. Sandstein 08:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Geter[edit]

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

Non notable actor, only using IMDB as a source. Deprodded by another editor, but no sources added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was only deprodded because the IMDb link rules out WP:BLPPROD but for some reason you dont believe it. Why dont you ask at the help desk? If it was a normal prod I wouldn't have deprodded it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with fire IMDb is junk. It is not a reliable source. If we at all respected our own BLP rules, we would have "only IMDb as a source" as grounds for speedy deletion that could only be overcome by adding some non-IMDb source to the article. We have never accepted that every person who has ever had a credited role is notable, and that is what this mindless use of IMDb is leading us towards. We need to act to get rid of these junk articles. The fact that they have survived over a decade is a blemish on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The subject is notable, even though the sourcing is poor. Better sourcing would improve the article to "keep" standards.TH1980 (talk) 22:08, 11 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. None of the sources provided are about Ms. Green in any substance. They are the very definition of trivial mentions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynda Mason Green[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Deprodded by another editor. No evidence of secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these prods should have been allowed to stay. These are articles lacking secondary sources that in no way come even remotely close to meeting inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles, or exempted from having to have reliable sources to support Wikipedia articles, just because the article has a list of roles in it — even just getting an actor over NACTOR #1, the only notability criterion potentially in play here, still requires sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject passes WP:NACTOR. I've been searching for sources, and there are a lot of hits at newspapers.com, which I am sifting through. Some of them appear to provide some coverage that goes beyond mere mentions, especially for the subject's role in Ramona. The following source I found through "google scholar", and it provides some brief coverage regarding the Ramona role: http://cinemacanada.athabascau.ca/index.php/cinema/article/download/4018/4054. I'll get some articles clipped and provide them here as soon as I can. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of articles: here and here. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:15, 15 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) 00:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Wyneken[edit]

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

No clear evidence this person meets WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Given the subject matter, the lack of inline citations, and the clear unreliability of several sources, WP:TNT is warranted at the very least.

This historical figure is claimed to be an "educational reformer, free thinker and charismatic leader", and the article repeatedly emphasizes he was allegedly highly influential. However, much of what he was known for was his concept of "pedagogic eros", the name given to erotic attraction and/or love between a teacher and a pupil, which he put forth much effort to popularize. In 1921 he was convicted of sexual behavior with minors, one of whom was 12 years old.

The article lacks inline citations, so we don't know what's sourced to what, and if some of it is original research. Of the general references given, several are WP:FRINGE pro-pedophilia advocacy. This includes the book Male Intergenerational Intimacy (co-published as the Journal of Homosexuality, volume 20, numbers 1/2, also being used), one of its editors being pedophile advocate Edward Brongersma; another book, whose English translation summary appeared in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia; and a work co-authored by David Thorstad, a founder of NAMBLA.

The article was mostly written by a single IP. [1] Given the issues outlined, most of the article is basically unverifiable, and appears likely to be exaggerating the influence of this man's ideas for normalization purposes. We are better off without this content. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator rationale. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator puts it well. Freeranging intellect (talk) 21:49, 12 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) 00:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Linux Installer[edit]

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

Does not seems to meet WP:GNG, very limited coverage in self published sources. Streepjescode (talk) 22:52, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete – all limited news coverage gravitates around one blog post with successful application of this software. Not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K4rolB (talk • contribs) 13:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete run of the mill software. Mccapra (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Flori4nKT A L K 11:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has not received 'significant coverage', and the application overall has next to no news coverage. Two out of the three total sources are directly linked to the creators of the software. Complete Linux Installer is 'just another app' and while it's purpose may be useful, it does not appear to have a place on Wikipedia. Stickymatch 15:59, 16 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) 00:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandra Acciai[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, or secondary sources. Inappropriately sourced using just IMDB for more than a decade. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the length of time these IMDb only articles have survived is just a scandal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject gets plenty of hits on "google news", but I don't know which Italian sources are considered reliable. I'll take some more time looking into it, as there may be enough to establish notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteShe does get plenty of hits on google news but none of them is to an article about her, or even an interview with her. The articles are about films she produced, and usually her name appears on a list of credits at the bottom of the article. That’s all. Mccapra (talk) 05:11, 16 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. One article from the subject's hometown and another that literally only mentions him in the context of someone writing in to a newspaper because they saw him in a minor role and couldn't figure out who he was is hardly sufficient to back up a claim of notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Head[edit]

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

Non notable actor. No evidence of secondary sources. Inappropriately sourced using just IMDB since 2009. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No roles that can be considered major, and no discussion about him or his work in reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That this totally lacking in anything even remotely like a reliable source article has existed since 2006 is a travesty.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Unsourced and so non-notable that even the inappropriately used IMDb source and the article content conflicts. This article states the subject is "best known for" co-staring in the sitcom So Little Time. This is not sourced. IMDb lists only two, that he is "known for" Zombies of the Living Dead (2015) and "Grid Street" (2018). Neither one of these are listed in the article. As a BLP the criteria is higher for sourcing. A "Before" search returned such sites as IMDb, other celebrity sites such as DatingCelebs, Fandom, celebrityhow.com, famousbirthdays.com, trendcelebsnow.com, facebook, and TV.com. At a bare minimum this subject does not pass any notability criteria for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The page would definitely need to be cleaned up, but it does seem as though the subject can make a weak case for WP:NACTOR, with significant roles in Katie Joplin, So Little Time, Summerland, Norman (film) and Firebreather (film). Sourcing is the problem here, but I've found a couple of articles at newspapers.com and I will post them as soon as I receive them back from WP:RX. So, for the moment, I'm voting "Keep". Dflaw4 (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two articles, the second of which goes over two pages: here, here and here. They aren't the greatest of sources, but they're better than nothing and they provide verification for a number of his roles. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:04, 15 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Galianos[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Inappropriately sourced via just IMDB for more than a decade. Little hope for improvement with no secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Actors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles, or exempted from having to have reliable sources to support Wikipedia articles, just because the article has a list of roles in it — even just getting an actor over NACTOR #1, the only notability criterion potentially in play here, still requires sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject gets quite a decent write-up in The Gazette: here. She's had a couple of main roles, too, although the productions don't appear to be hugely notable. She might just meet the notability requirements. Dflaw4 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. I don't think a single article in The Gazette cuts it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:16, 17 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. Salvageable or not, at this time this is a WP:BLP that cites only IMDB and no reliable sources. Deletion is therefore mandatory. The article can be recreated if better sources are cited. Sandstein 08:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Purdham[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Sourced inappropriately with just IMDB for more than a decade. No evidence of secondary sources to help improve the article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing like this should not be enough to keep an article 13 hours let alone 13 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think this page is salvageable. The subject is a prolific character actor with numerous recurring roles in notable TV shows, as well as main roles in various theatre productions, to which the following sources attest: here, here, here, here, and here. The first source seems to be a review of an audiobook; however, it also mentions the subject's role in a TV series. The other sources are all reviews of plays, which provide short bursts of coverage and praise. There are many more such articles, the cumulative effect of which meets WP:GNG, in my opinion, and I think WP:NACTOR is made out too. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:07, 15 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) 00:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cherrycool Promotions[edit]

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

Can find very little coverage of this events management company. Tacyarg (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom's rationale (WP:GNG). And about 5 other reasons. Firstly, the titular subject fails WP:NCORP (in that I can find no more than 2 news sources which even mention it). Secondly, the content is a WP:COATRACK (in that the majority of it is about an awards event that the subject runs/ran). And finally there are problems with WP:PROMO (in that the tone is promotional and non-neutral). While I could also perhaps mention the apparent WP:COI and WP:SPA issues, I won't focus on that, and instead just make a clear 'delete' recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:15, 16 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) 00:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Heath (solicitor)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Inappropriately sourced through just IMDB for many years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is high time we stopped allowing IMDb to be used as a source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and my standards. IMdB is not a reliable source, and not a relevant source for lawyers. He's done nothing notable as a lawyer. I've had at two pro-bono legal clients who have Wikipedia articles, and several friends/law school classmates with such articles. It's almost inevitable that an attorney will eventually represent a notable person. FWIW, when I was a college student, I met his one very famous client, who was quite nice IRL. Also, having an IMdB page is common; even my domestic partner has one because he produced a film. We are a charity, not a free web-host. Bearian (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sourcing and does not appear to have been particularly notable as an attorney. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:18, 16 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 merge to The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment). Assuming there's anything usefully verifiable to merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment) Regimental Pipes and Drums[edit]

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

non-notable pipe band - doesn't appear to meet GNG. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 21:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment), the parent article. No evidence of independent notability. The current sources are a mixture of WP:SPS, self-cites, and passing mentions. Searches disclose similarly-weak references. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:23, 16 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) 00:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Bhatia[edit]

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

Biography of a businessman who does not meet any applicable notability criteria. Something of a promotion piece, and when the buzzwords and hype is removed, not much is left. bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 21:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The position of regional sales director does not confer notability, and Wikipedia is not the place to post a resume. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads more like a promotional biography than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this should be deleted. Regional sales director and promotional.--Hippeus (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletea non-notable businessman. We seem to have a huge glut of such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Being a regional sales director is not anywhere near where you need to be on the corporate ladder in order for notability to be conferred and doesn't pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. We are a charity, not a free web host for your resume, and in 2020, everybody knows that. I also must add in that this particular person is a run of the mill sales manager, one of millions, and it's an insult to all middle-managers that he "deserves" a Wikipedia article. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 16 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) 00:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Perry III[edit]

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

Non notable BLP with zero reliable sources. No evidence of potential for improvements through additional secondary sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the fact that this lacking in reliable sources article existed in Wikipedia for 13 years shows that we need to have better article creation monitoring. We really need to go to making it so all new articles must pass through the article creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - one half step below notable actor, but I'm not terribly surprised this one has escaped our notice before. Bearian (talk) 02:25, 16 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danial Hajibarat[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:Creative. Hanooz (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+ The Road of Love and Liberation (Movie). Hanooz (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Does pass WP:GNG or WP:Creative Because he is an independent filmmaker in Iran, Resources are for complete proof.Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 22:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)— Hoseinkhosravii (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep does pass WP:GNG or WP:Creative All secondary sources prove it. The references are reliable and no reason has been found for the deletion.Bidelirania (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)— Bidelirania (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - As per nom. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does pass WP:Creative References are acceptable and accurate,This is a good article for this independent filmmaker.علیرضا رضوی (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)— علیرضا رضوی (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete the article is total junk. It is trying to pass of non-reliable sources as reliable, there is no substance here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hoseinkhosravii is the creator of this article. Persian search does not bring any reliable source too. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spada II ♪♫ There are also reputable sources in Persian search, But you don't see it because of sanctions,Anyway the sources of the article are sufficient and valid,Even more than any article for one person. Thank you Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has nothing to do with sanctions! I live in Iran. The sources does not meet WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would help if those advocating keeping this article could identify which sources are independent and reliable. Imdb is not. Sources in Persian and offline sources can be used, but at the moment we have no indication of what sources exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Phil Bridger In addition, there are several authoritative sources in the article and that the IMDb site is one of the most reputable film and filmmaker information sites that not everyone is in,The sources of this article are many, precise and clear, At Wikipedia, all users seem to be looking to delete rather than write! Thank You Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Hoseinkhosravii I agree with you, Most of the Iranian artists who have an article on Wiki are the only source of them IMDb site, and this article has better and more references. Your references which is complete and correctعلیرضا رضوی (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then say which of the references are independent and reliable. However many people might turn up to say otherwise, an IMDb entry does not mean that the subject is notable, and from my knowledge of Russian I can see that a КиноПоиск entry also doesn't. I don't read Persian, so please just say which of the sources in that language contribute to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Phil Bridger All its sources are valid and it clearly shows that this person is an independent filmmaker in Iran. You need to read an independent filmmaker's article, Thanks Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's simply not true that all its sources are valid. IMDb and КиноПоиск are not. Why can't you just say which of the Persian sources are better than these? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger As far as I know IMDb is one of the most reputable sites, but there are other English and Persian sources in this article that show this, for example: Filcin and 7watchlist and in Aparat you can see all the Films of this the person. But if this is the case the sources of all other articles on Wikipedia should not be valid and should be deleted? Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:RS/IMDB make clear, IMDb is not suitable as a sole or leading source. The subject of the article is not significant enough to warrant his own Wikipedia page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - ~dom Kaos~ But there is another references, and according to WP: Creative, it doesn't matter what language the sources are for filmmakers and independent filmmakers, or how many. علیرضا رضوی (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~dom Kaos~ According to WP: Creative ,The subject of the article is clear and it is about an independent filmmaker in Iran. The resources are complete and it proves it. Thanks Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO due to not meeting the WP:BASIC and WP:FILMMAKER criteria. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erik You are wrong, Your opinion has nothing to do with the subject Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my opinion. It is Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The subject does not meet them to warrant a standalone article or a mention anywhere else, judging from any mention in reliable sources. The sources mentioned here do not qualify as reliable and independent and meaningful. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erik Resources can be in any language, and these resources are correct and according to Wikipedia's rules. Thanks Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Language is not the issue. It's about the sources. For example, the directors mentioned here would be in the running for having their own standalone articles (though more sources than that one would be needed to meet WP:N's requirement of multiple sources). This figure has not had that kind of coverage that discusses him. Film databases and directories do not count to establish notability. They could be used to reinforce further details, but they're not the sources that help with notability. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Erik This article is about an independent filmmaker in Iran, not a director named in Hollywood, Of course, this site is not visible in our country! Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We keep getting this mantra repeated that he is an independent filmmaker. Just being an independent filmmaker is far from enough to justify having a Wikipedia article without proper sources, which don't include comprehensive directories that anyone can write for. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger Sources suggest that he is an independent filmmaker and could have an article according to WP: Creative and this article has a lot more resources than other articles written about these people, Thank you dear Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:Creative does not say that every independent filmmaker should have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger says can haveWP:Creative , and He has also appeared on Iranian television for TV show and series Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing appears to be unreliable and fails WP:Creative. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are the sources unreliable because they are in another language?! There are also authoritative English sources in the article, Thanks Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been explained above that it is not the language, but the nature, of the sources that makes them unreliable. Just as IMDb is not a reliable source so similar sources in other languages are not reliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Phil Bridger So you say there is no reliable source for you on the internet.Well, that's how all the wiki articles should be deleted! Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 11:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Resources may be low,But the given sources confirm the text of the article,If it is low, can be replace the code delete, the refimprove code to make the article more complete in the future. Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 13:19, 16 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) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyle Festival[edit]

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

Non-notable concert series; can only find ads for it, no significant coverage. Previous AFD was closed procedurally (nominator was blocked account) so ineligible for WP:PROD. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I get nothing but ticketing sites. Mccapra (talk) 05:20, 16 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) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kasma Science Fiction[edit]

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

Non-notable free online magazine that has had a few notable writers featured but none of the pieces appear to be independently notable and the magazine itself has very little coverage from reliable sources. Article was created by an SPA and then kept up by an editor who appears be the website's founder. Only one reference is included and it not reliable GPL93 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NMEDIA/WP:NWEBSITE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted. Kasma is a long established short fiction magazine. Writers researching potential markets to submit to would find this article useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skay2020 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this Afd. GPL93 (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Being around for a long time is not a reason for keeping an article and Wikipedia is not a market research site. Best, GPL93 (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 02:26, 12 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) 00:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Coe Sinnott[edit]

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

The first Korean American woman in a notable position might be notable, but she is not in a notable or even important position--a judge at the lowest rank of the hierarchy, the Boston Veterans Treatment Court, and similar positions. Are we to do this with all possible ethnic categories for all possible courts? That seems much to close to NOT DIRECTORY As would be expected, the references are local only, because there is no general interest, and consequently no encyclopedic interest. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a trial judge in a local state court is not an inherent claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as creator. It's not just that she is a judge, it is that she was the first Korean-American to sit on the bench. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but I question how historic it was for her to be the first Korean-American judge in Massachusetts. From the main source used in the article: "When Eleanor Coe Sinnott was first appointed as a judge in 2006, she wasn’t aware of the fact that she was also the first Korean in Massachusetts to hold that title. 'I was told by other people that I was the first,' Sinnott said." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added several new sources, including a profile of her by the American Bar Association, to further establish notability. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the subject is not inherently notable for being the first of her ethnic group to serve in a specific position, there are enough independent sources covering her in detail to establish notability.--User:Namiba 19:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If someone tries hard enough you can almost always find sourcing on low level judges. We have decided that such people in general are not notable, and there is no reason to make an excemption here. Beyond this this is part of the creators plaguing Wikipedia with too many articles on local level non-notable people from Massachusetts, a plaguing of Wikipedia that needs to be stopped.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like "I don't like it" to me.--User:Namiba 21:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, "Plaguing" is awfully strong language that I don't find particularly constructive. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a very accurate description of the articles on clearly non-notable people you have burdened us with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass WP:NJUDGE and falls short of GNG. While great trivia, possibly even a DYK if otherwise notable, we don't flip notability upside down and say "but there are enough sourcing --- after-the-fact. The subject is not notable for the judge position, or for being "the first Korean judge". The Brian Han article just does not add enough, certainly to clear WP:NJUDGE, and since notability is the property of the subject not the content, the rest of the sources do not add enough to make the subject WP:NOTEWORTHY, that is to sufficiently demonstrate: For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. --- Otr500 (talk)
Delete Local judge and the sources aren't that great so doesn't pass WP:GNG either. -kyykaarme (talk) 07:46, 16 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. BD2412 T 23:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Cox (racing driver)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT as his only starts came in ARCA, a non-professional series. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 18:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure if he qualifes under wP:NMOTORSPORT (I trust NASCARfan0548 when he says it isn't proffesional but can't verify this myself) But a Google search of "Ron Cox ARCA RE/MAX Series" (the only series which his article has him as racing in) shows that he is a long way from satisfing WP:SIGCOV with only brief mentions in articles and pages on stats sites. The only logical conclusion is that he is not notable for his own page.
SSSB (talk) 10:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bunch of sources on him just now and made the article from nothing to having info about him now. He has a pretty interesting story and how he works as a teacher and a football coach in Tennessee in addition to racing in ARCA (when he did, the last time was about three years ago now). I hope the article can be saved or drafted. Also, even though he's only driven in ARCA, he's done so for almost 25 years in a span of three decades. Cavanaughs (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]
Draft: Update... I would like to request that the article be switched to a draft until more sources can be found about him. We do have some now, and it is a start, but we still need more info about him and his driving career. I would think there are some out there, but we'd have to do some digging (looking in any archive we can find that could have info from the ARCA seasons when Cox was competing in). Info like that is lost over time with website redesigns, etc. Cavanaughs (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]

Delete with prejudice against drafting - SSSB, it says in the lead of ARCA Menards Series (sponsorship successor of Re/Max) that it's semi-professional, so you're right, it fails the motorsport guideline. It looks as though Cox's racing career is all but done - meaning that if he's not notable now, it's very unlikely he will meet GNG by works published later. Source 3 looks like the only SIGCOV to me and sill that's about WP:ONEEVENT. If Cavanaughs wants to take a shot at rebuilding the page, he can copy code on to a user subpage and submit it as an AfC project there, I don't think he will ever meet GNG however so I'd keep it out of drafts. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:21, 16 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) 00:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rape Story[edit]

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 18:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS, and an almost unreadable article. Caro7200 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced this is even real. A Google search brought up nothing for me, neither of the cast members are notable enough to have articles, the starring parameter in the inbox is filled by a piped link to List of horror film villains, the only sources are to a website supposed to be by the people doing the movie, a social media feed, and a user-generated database. Neither the director nor the producer is notable. Also, if it were real, the supposed legal drama mentioned in the lead would be findable on the internet. This was either made in somebody's basement or this is a hoax. Hog Farm (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While IMDb may not be considered a reliable source for many things, existence of a film isn't really one of them IMO, but it hasn't gotten any attention. Even the alleged uproar isn't properly referenced. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources such as no external reviews at IMDb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes. Does not pass WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree. As mentioned above, we barely seem able to verify that this movie exists, let alone able to find out solid information about it such that we have a real article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:59, 14 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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Gurry[edit]

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

No significant roles in anything--the only favorable mention in a review is [2] for a supporting role in "Bad Boys" , and I do not think it enough DGG ( talk ) 23:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- lacks notability. A minor film role is not enough for an article.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Keep: WP:NACTOR is made out, in my opinion, with starring or supporting roles in several films: Bad Boys (1983 film), Author! Author! (film), Willy/Milly and The Zoo Gang (film). WP:GNG is a little harder to establish, because the subject's acting career was primarily during the 1980s. But, in addition to the source provided by the nominator, I've found the following:

→https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/bad-boys-1983 − Roger Ebert's review of Bad Boys in the Chicago Sun-Times, describes the subject's character as "inimitable"

→https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-04-06-ca-80-story.html – Los Angeles Times review of Willy/Milly, includes a brief but favourable review of the subject's performance

→https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1986-05-02-8601260901-story.html – passing mention in Sun-Sentinel review of Willy/Milly

Here are another couple of reviews of Willy/Milly which I am unable to access fully: 1 and 2. If anyone can access the full articles, please let us know if there is anything relevant to the subject. There are also a few hits in Google Books and a couple of Google Scholar hits. Although I can't access the full Film Quarterly review for Bad Boys, it contains at least a brief review of the subject's performance: "Equally good is Eric Gurry…" (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Eric+Gurry%22). I believe there is enough here to merit an article on the subject. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm upgrading my vote to "Keep" because I have found more sources (see below). I think the article can be improved. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks significant roles so no real reason to consider him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, what are your thoughts on the subject's starring and supporting roles in the films I listed above? Dflaw4 (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep think the sources back up WP:NACTOR.Djflem (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 2nd relist as this is a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject has only featured in only handful of films and has never established a prominent career to speak of. Abishe (talk) 12:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, WP:NACTOR requires a significant role in two or more notable productions, but as far as I can tell he had a significant role in one, Willy/Milly, meaning he does not pass it as his other roles are all described as supporting. Bad Boys might be an exception to this, but he is still described as playing a supporting character in the Roger Ebert source. The sources brought up are really just passing mentions, not anything that can contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devonian Wombat, there's no requirement that the roles be "starring", only "significant". Dflaw4 (talk) 08:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I still think he doesn’t pass NACTOR though, and I have altered my comment accordingly. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem at all! Thanks, Devonian Wombat. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: more sources: here, here, here and here. The last source is a write-up solely about Gurry; the other three provide some praise regarding Gurry's performances in the 264-performance run of a theatre production called Table Settings, and other productions. There are also more routine TV listings which, at the very least, support the claim that he has performed in other productions, too, like an episode of CBS Children's Mystery Theatre. Newspapers.com provides dozens of hits on Gurry. I invite Rusf10, John Pack Lambert, Abishe and Devonian Wombat to review these new sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request to closing administrator: If possible, please relist this AfD to provide editors the chance to review these latest sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted in order to allow the examination of new sources provided by Dflaw4. ——SN 54129 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——SN 54129 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 17:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - His roles may be old and half-forgotten, but they are significant: a Woody Allen play, a film starring Pacino, and a part in Bad Boys for which he earned a lot of praise. Caro7200 (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It does not say "2 or more" it says "multiple". We need multiple roles. Also not all billed roles are significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, "multiple" means "2 or more". Also, the subject's roles appear significant to me, as they are either starring or supporting, and there is referencing to back that up. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- SOme people thing multiple means at least 3.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Basically, I pretty much agree with Johnpacklambert’s rationale. Furthermore when i do a BEFORE & the first thing that pops up is a LinkedIn Page & social media pages I become very skeptical, which is what happened when I did a before on this particular article. Furthermore @Dflaw4 you posted about 4 sources above which in my opinion was an attempt by you to prove that this article’s subject is notable but having observed all four I see a “sorry this page no longer exists” message. I’m not sure I see how WP:NACTOR is satisfied here. Celestina007 (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, that's very strange. The links still work for me. I presume you are referring to the last four sources that I provided. I will transcribe the relevant text, so you at least have an idea of what they say. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007, the first article pertains to Bad Boys: “Reni Santoni and Jim Moody are members of the staff at the correctional institution, Esai Morales is the boy who wants vengeance, and Eric Gurry is the 15-year-old who is behind bars because he “burned up” the wrong people”. There is also a picture of him along with his co-stars.
The second article pertains to the play, Table Settings: “But a special word for the children, for Eric Gurry’s smartass Grandson and Marta Kober’s anxious Granddaughter on the edge of puberty, especially when she tips over it and, all dressed up for her first party date, clomps off unsteadily on her first high heels, an old device cleverly reworked here.” Again, there is a photo of Gurry with his co-stars.
The third article pertains to Author! Author!: “Nick, Murray’s nephew, has been replaced by 16-year-old Igor (played by Eric Gurry), Ivan’s son from his first marriage to an Armenian guitarist, but this is Nick all over again… Except for Eric Gurry’s Igor, the kid actors are cute and resistible. Gurry brings as much to the party as the young Barry Gordon did 20 years ago in “A Thousand Clowns”—and that’s a lot.” There’s a photo of Gurry with his co-stars.
The final article is a write-up about Gurry and his role in the Woody Allen play, "The Floating Light Bulb", and it mentions other roles, too:

“I’m so glad that Eric Gurry lives in Ridgewood. I’m happier still because Eric is a talented 14-year-old whose growing reputation on the New York state is providing me with some very enjoyable moment in theatre. Last year, it was the Off-Broadway comedy, “Table Settings,” which earned him excellent notices. Monday night, he opened in Woody Allen’s “The Floating Light Bulb” joining a small but distinguished cast includes Beatrice Arthur, Jack Weston and Danny Aiello at Lincoln Center’s Vivian Beaumont Theater.

"In “The Floating Light Bulb” Eric plays the younger son of a Jewish family living in the Canarsie section of Brooklyn in 1945. His father, (Aiello), several years young than his mother, is a ne’er do well, a waiter cum gambler who mysteriously disappears each time the phone rings and the caller hangs up. His mother (Beatrice Arthur) is trying to hold a disintegrating family together, bemoaning her fate and ultimately pinning her hopes on her older son, (Brian Backer), a genius with an unfortunate speech impediment who finds his only pleasure practising magic tricks in the privacy of the bedroom (hence, the floating light bulb trick).

"In the comedy-turned-drama, Eric tries to pacify the entire family, setting off to be with his friends when the going gets rough. His mother accused him of setting neighbourhood fires, a delinquent without the intelligence of his older sibling. Eric says he sees himself as “a friendly delinquent, a mini-image of his father trapped in his situation.”

"Is the play autobiographical? Woody Allen has publicly said “no.” Eric is of the opinion that there is some truth to the character of Paul Pollack, the stammering magician. Certainly, he cannot help but remind the audience of a young Woody Allen who, I have also read, practised magic in the privacy of his Brooklyn home.

"Since I saw “The Floating Light Bulb” in a preview performance last week, I have been sworn not to “review” it lest there be some last minute changes. That honor goes to our regular reviewer, Gordon Tretick (next page). I will tell you, however, that this is not the totally serious Woody Allen of “Interiors.” There are the appealing Woody Allen comments such as Bea Arthur saying, “I don’t nag; I encourage,” and the Allen attention to detail which is apparent in the setting of this one-scene, two-act play.

"If there is dissension among the characters on stage, there is complete harmony off stage, according to Eric. The cast members truly seem to enjoy each other. Eric rides to New York each day with another Bergen County resident, Danny Aiello, who lives in Ramsey. And meals during the weeks of rehearsal have been cast affairs. “No,” Eric says, “Woody Allen hasn’t said very much to us or come to meals. He really is very shy.”

"This week, the rehearsals and formal opening behind him, Eric returns to his 8th grade classes at George Washington Jr. High School. For this production, the company has provided a tutor to make sure he keeps up with his studies—in addition to a private dressing room with telephone. And ahead? Eric says he has no definite plans for the summer. There is the possibility that the run of “The Floating Light Bulb” will be extended to July; he has a small part in the soon-to-be released film, “Ragtime,” and a role in tonight’s episode of the series, “Nurse” CBS TV 10 p.m.”

There is also a photo of Gurry with co-star Aiello.

I think these roles are sufficient for WP:NACTOR, and there is enough coverage to meet WP:GNG, too. I'll also try to get the "google scholar" article clipped to see what it says. Dflaw4 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the consensus is to "Delete" the article, I would request that it be "draftified" so that I can work on it and try and get it up to scratch. I do believe there is enough here to merit an article. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The source I found at ProQuest (from "google scholar") provides another short burst of praise for his performance in Bad Boys, following praise of Sean Penn's performance and saying that Gurry is "[e]qually good". If I am allowed to quote the full passage, I will. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quote regarding Gurry's performance from "Bad Boys by Tom Doherty, Film Quarterly, Fall 1983, Vol. 37(1), pg. 27–29":

"Sean Penn's star-making performance as Mick repeatedly saves Bad Boys from stalling on its narrative improbabilities; onscreen he exudes such command and alertness that one sometimes wonders how his character could be so stupid as to get in this mess. Equally good is Eric Gurry (lately of Author! Author!) as Mick's creepy cellmate Horowitz, a barely post-pubescent electronics wiz on hand to provide exposition and a taste of serious derangement. Horowitz is a shrimp among Rainford's physically imposing inmates, but Gurry's character has such a psychotic edge that the big boys understandably leave him alone." (pg. 29)

Gurry is also seen in the photo with his co-stars on pg. 27. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that we have enough sourcing to justify the article being kept. Does it need work? Absolutely. Yet the actor himself appears to be notable. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:43, 17 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. Author blanked page (deleted per CSD G7) Nick (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern Academic Study of Parapsychology in America[edit]

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

unencyclopedic essay and promotional material. any relevant information can be added to Parapsychology. This is basically a brochure for what colleges offer courses in quackery. Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PRODded, but naturally this happened. Per nom. Goodness only knows how this poorly thought out article got created. Proper process should have prevented this nonsense. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:23, 9 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) 00:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tukur Adam[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources given are insufficient and likely promotional since they are nearly identical in wording (but with different "authors"). ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 17:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. I wasn't able to find any reliable independent coverage of him in the article or through a Google search. The first and second references cited in the article are not independent of the subject. The third reference is about the subject winning a non-notable award. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:11, 10 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 KXM. Redirecting non-notable album to artist as an WP:ATD per usual practice. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KXM (album)[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. AllMusic review is the only reliable source I could find. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The band is notable but notability is not inherited. Self-titled albums are difficult search targets but even so, there is no evidence that this album has been reviewed in RS other than AllMusic. Reviews of subsequent albums by this group mention this one in passing, but that adds nothing to sources which would establish notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:57, 16 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) b uidhe 00:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob the Builder (character)[edit]

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

Currently the entry on List of Bob the Builder characters is sufficient - no indication of independent notability is provided in this content fork, which makes the article fail WP:NFICTION. Furthermore, this article is unsourced and has less content than the entry on the aforementioned list. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bob The Builder - Better explained in the article for the series itself. Koridas (Speak) 16:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no good description of the character in the other pages and, even if there were, this was not be a reason to delete. The character is the star of the show and is remarkably popular. They are therefore comparable with Captain Kirk, Batman, Sherlock Holmes and other iconic characters, for which we have separate pages. The page in question is new and so just a stub but there is plenty of material to support expansion such as Barbie meets Bob the Builder at the Workstation; William of Sen to Bob the Builder: non‐cognate cultural perceptions of constructors; "Can we fix it?": Bob the Builder as a discursive resource for children, &c. Relevant policies include WP:IMPERFECT; WP:BITE and WP:ATD. Can we fix it? Yes, we can ... Andrew🐉(talk) 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People are likely to search for this term, and it seems reasonable they will expect an article on it.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bob the Builder characters#Main which has more content than this page. I would not be surprised if someone eventually writes a better article about this character, in which case we can have a separate article about the character, but the article as of now is only one sentence long. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are now five sentences and counting. Such expansion is not achieved by deletion or redirection as they tend to disrupt constructive activity. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking my recommendation due to the recent changes to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with the additions by Andrew Davidson, this article is now better than the entry at the list article, and while the sources currently in the article are still a little iffy on whether they pass GNG, it is clear that there is enough coverage out there to pass it. This: [3] is just one example of that coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bob the Builder characters#Main. So little content on what is the eponymous (and therefore the main) character in this childrens series. Ajf773 (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, here are some sources that may be used to improve the article on this notable subject: "William of Sen to Bob the Builder: non‐cognate cultural perceptions of constructors", "Is it real? The development of judgments about authenticity and ontological status", "What We Can Learn From ‘Bob the Builder’", and lots of sources about the change to the character: "Bob the Builder gets a makeover with new look and voice", "Fans outraged over Bob the Builder's new look", "Bob The Builder didn't need fixing, says cartoon character's creator", (note: these sources were found after a 10min basic gsearch, it took me longer to make this "comment" - apologies if they're not all deemed useable). Coolabahapple (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per significant coverage in sources identified above. In addition to these, the book Marketing by Reynolds & Lancaste has this character-centric vignette here. It also looks like more details here: [4], [5], [6], [7]. There's also quite a bit of press discussing the character's redesign in 2014. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_Bob_the_Builder_characters#Main. Of course the main character of the show is notable, but that does not mandate its own article. Even with the expansion a split is not warranted: the list is there for the exact reason of being able to expand on each character, including the sources presented, without needing separate pages. "People will search for this" is not a valid reason to keep an article. Reywas92^Talk 19:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified here, which indicate subject passes WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 16:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Material in this article wouldn't fit in the other one. Enough referenced material to meet the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 17:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources identified. I think that the negative coverage of the 2014 redesign are especially relevant in determining the character's notability; that's coverage that is directly about the character itself rather than the show or franchise. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_Bob_the_Builder_characters#Main per MOS:TVCAST ("not every fictional character ever created deserves to be listed and far fewer will deserve an individual article"). I fail to see how EIGHT lines of article content make this deserve a stand-alone article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPOSSIBLE, "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Your argument contradicts the notability guideline. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article in its current state warrants notability tag, BUT sources identified above by Coolabahapple show the topic is notable. 1) This has several paragraphs, through reading them it seems the discussion of the show and the character is very intertwined (PSA: use Library Genesis to read the article if you struggle with non-OA sources). 2) [8] is not in-depth and uses the character just as a semi-random example for study whether kids can confuse real world with fictional, it does not discuss the show or the character. So those are the fail. And I want to explicitly address the part of the article recently added sourced to one of them that states "The character of Bob the Builder has helped to change negative stereotypes of construction workers among children." The source article DOES NOT make it clear if it refers to BtB a character, or BtB the show. BtB helped change the stereotypes, but BtB the show and BtB the character are very hard to distinguish in this context. But the rest of the sources do seem do discuss the character, due to their 'makeover' from mid-2010s. It's borderline, but I think that this can be kept due to the discussion of this one aspect of the character, since we do have 2+ RS on this (and more can be easily found: [9], [10], [11]. All that said, I do wonder if in this case there is much separation between the show and the character. Essentially, it's a WP:ONEVENT type of coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 15 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) 00:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Barraford[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR - none of her acting projects meet this stand, no SIGCOV. Rogermx (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think the subject's roles in The Ice Cream Truck and Go for Sisters are enough to pass WP:NACTOR—but the more salient issue is sourcing. Based on the sources in the article and those I have found (https://deadline.com/2018/08/jamie-lynn-sigler-horror-film-hunting-season-1202437936/, https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/ice-cream-truck-clip-a-sweet-tooths-worst-nightmare-974138 and https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/08/movies/go-for-sisters-a-thriller-from-john-sayles.html), I don't think there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. I'm voting "Weak Keep" for the moment, and will wait and see if any progress is made regarding sourcing. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no credible indication of notability outside of those two films that Dflaw4 mentioned, one of which (The Ice Cream Truck) has been tagged as potentially not notable. If found not notable, that would make them only notable for the other film. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per user:Dflaw4. Lack of significant coverage is clear evidence of a lack of notability for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 01:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've found another source that shows the subject was in a play called Cuckoo Nest. Unfortunately, it was just another passing mention. I won't update my vote—but, needless to say, WP:GNG is still an issue. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:47, 15 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandra Sade[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. Appears to be a stage actor who mostly fills minor parts. Only a single sources and searches reveal little else although there may be more in the Israeli media. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 02:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:18, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sandra Sade is actually quite a notable actress in Israel. I have added a few references and fixed the spelling. I am sure more can be done.--Geewhiz (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I don't think there's any issue passing WP:NACTOR, but I'm not sure if there is enough for WP:GNG. The subject gets plenty of mentions in reputable English sources, but I have no idea if non-English sources provide significant coverage. I'd appreciate input from others on this issue. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:56, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:56, 9 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 List of The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episodes#Season 2 (1986–87). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Convict's Piano[edit]

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

Article fails to establish notability. There seems to be no reviews or commentary. TTN (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Twilight Zone (1985 TV series) episodes#Season 2 (1986–87), I found three reviews, here: [12], here: [13] and here: [14] but none of these sites are reliable sources. All three are blogs, and the third is one is a mere two short paragraphs long and describes itself as a plot synopsis. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: There are lots of episode pages just like this, for this show and lots of other shows. Is there a particular reason why this episode page is specifically objectionable, or is this a general change in approach that we expect to roll out to the x thousand other episode pages? — Toughpigs (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Every individual article should demonstrate notability. Some episodes may be harder to justify than others. Deb (talk) 09:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 9 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 merge to Papua conflict. Or elsewhere as may be deemed appropriate. Sandstein 21:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papuan unification[edit]

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

Not sufficient enough to be a standalone article. Only one source cited in the article, and that source does not even discuss anything about unification. After searching on Google Books, I'm struggling to find reference for this topic. The goal of Free Papua Movement is a sovereignty over the Republic of West Papua, not a union with Papua New Guinea. Even if the union proposal existed, it should be just mentioned on Papua conflict, since there isn't enough material to pass WP:N for a standalone article. Bluesatellite (talk) 11:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Free Papua Movement, I added some sources that show this is a thing that exists, but there is still not enough for an independent article, so a merge seems like the best option. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The source added does show more notability to the topic. I would disagree with a merge with Free Papua Movement or Papua conflict because, as noted above, this is not the goal of this organisation nor a reason of the conflict. Mottezen (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mottezen: Can you expand the article? At least into a C-Class? Because if you can't, there's no reason to keep this article. Also, a mention from one Australian news website does not make it notable. You have to get sources specifically discuss this "unification" topic, which are unavailable so far. Bluesatellite (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I believe that this should be merged with 'Papua conflict', though I can see other pages possibly being brought up for consideration. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as appropriate if someone's willing to carry it out. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 17 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) 00:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hraday Shah Judeo[edit]

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

No indication of notability. A WP:BEFORE search found no RS. This is a fanciful puff piece. The only source (the Nobiliary Association) has many characters on their royal and honorary members list, including "Princess" Erica Ohene-Bekoe, to give an example of what it takes to be listed on the site. Kbabej (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable member of the royalty of a state which no longer exists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to suggest notability.Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. DrKay (talk) 06:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an heir of a royal-light family that was never a sovereign nation. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 16 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 merge to Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation v. WordLogic Corporation et al[edit]

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

How is this notable? Other than a brief mention on Bloomberg and a handful of "summary of all current cases" websites, this doesn't seem to have attracted any interest at all, and the sole "sources" are a blog post on Techdirt, and a Commons copy of a primary source. Just having the word "Wikimedia" in the name doesn't automatically make it notable for Wikipedia; the WMF takes legal action against people, and people take legal action against the WMF, all the time. ‑ Iridescent 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If Techdirt is considered a good enough source (some blogs are), this thing could be mentioned at Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation per nom and Gråbergs Gråa Sång. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 15:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation This is nascent litigation, and might become notable some day. WP:Too soon. WP:Preserve WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the ping. I discovered this ongoing litigation as it was mentioned in the wikitech-l technical mailing list (courtesy ping to Nemo_bis). After a bit of research I couldn't find better sources than the ones I offered, but nonetheless I thought it was a relevant event because the defendants in this action claim to have patents and ownership over parts of the MediaWiki software we run (namely the autocomplete search box). If the defendants were to prevail in their claims, changes in our software would need to be accomplished. The English Wikipedia has many users that also happen to be MediaWiki developers and that might have helped in creating or maintaining the search functionality as well. I also planned to try to expand the article a bit, but due to the current events I have not been able to do so. Given that I do not edit that often on the English Wikipedia I am not sure I should be making an explicit 'keep' or 'delete' statement. In any case, I apologize to the community if this is eventually not as relevant as I thought. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 17:00, 9 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) 00:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moti BA[edit]

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

The only significant (not notable) thing of the subject is being awarded Sahitya_Akademi_Award#Bhasha_Samman, no other significant content. Fails all points of WP:AUTHOR. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found only one source. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 16 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. Closing as delete over soft delete given the in-depth source review which clearly demonstrates refbombing and a complete lack of independent reliable in-depth sourcing, and which no one but the author contested. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HRO Today[edit]

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

Promotional article draftified for not having enough sources. Now it has a ton of irrelevant and poor-quality sources. Slashme (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My source review here

Source	Independent	Reliable	Significant coverage
"Publication title". Advertising Age. June 12, 2006.	Possibly	Not really (marketing database)	No, database entry.
https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=42627308	Yes	Yes	No, database entry.
Deirdre K. Breakenridge (2008). PR 2.0: New Media, New Tools, New Audiences. Pearson Education. ISBN 0132703971.	Yes	Yes	Yes
http://www.hrotoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/HRO-Today-MediaKit_2019.v7-lowres.pdf	No (own website)	No (own website)	Yes
"PeopleScout Ranked as Total Workforce Solutions Leader in HRO Today". The New York Times. December 19, 2018.	Maybe	No (press release)	No (not about the company)
"PeopleScout appointment". NYTimes.com. November 19, 2018.	Maybe	No (press release)	No (not about the company)
"Hudson RPO Celebrates 10 Consecutive Years on HRO Today's Baker's Dozen List of Top Global RPO Providers". The New York Times. September 20, 2019.	Maybe	No (press release)	No (not about the company itself)
http://www.hrotoday.com/association/awards/	No (own website)	No (own website)	Yes
"Three ISG Advisors Named 2018 Superstars by HRO Today". NYTimes.com. December 18, 2018.	Maybe	No (press release)	No (not about the company itself)
Joan E. Pynes (2008). Human Resources Management for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. Jossey-Bass.	Yes	Yes	No, just uses it as a ref.
"Assistant Secretary Dann-Messier to Address Human Relations Executives Attending HRO Today Forum at National Harbor, Md". May 2, 2012.	Yes	Yes	No, just mentions that the ASG will be attending an event sponsored by the magazine.
"HRO Today Forum".	No	No	No (just an ad for an event. Dead link.)
"HRO Today Names Orange Tree Employment Screening One of Nation's Top Background Screening Firms". November 29, 2012.	Maybe	Maybe	Can't tell: dead link, not on archive.org.
"HRO Today Forum (May 2019), Washington DC USA - Conference". The HRO Today Forum, organized by the SharedXpertise Media will take place ...	No	No	No (just an ad for an event)
"What is Recruitment Process Outsourcing?".	Maybe	No (some company website)	Doesn't mention HRO today.
"Business". The New York Times. September 13, 2019. vendor management systems, recruitment process outsourcing, predictive modeling, mid-revenue cycle solutions	Maybe	Probably	Can't find it online, but seems not to be about the company, from context.
Tandy Gold (2016). Ethics in IT Outsourcing. p. 44.	Maybe	Maybe	Seems not to be about the company, from context.
"Post Tagged 'the bakers dozen'".	No, just some blog regurgitating HRO Today's content	No (just a blog)	Not really
"Innovative Leadership in the RPO and MSP Industry". analyzes providers across three subcategories (service breadth, deal size, and quality)	Maybe (dead link)	Probably not (commercial website)	Seems not to be about the company, from context.
Jay Whitehead (December 10, 2005). "Insourcing, Outsourcing? How about Self-sourcing?". HRO Today.	No (HRO Today article)	No	Maybe
"HRO Today Launches First Annual Most Admired Employer Brand Awards for North America, Sponsored by PeopleScout". HR Vendor News. January 25, 2019. (Inaccurate title: actually called "Changing Legal Interpretations Cause Compliance Headaches for HR – New Research from HR.com")	Maybe - trade news site	No - trade news site	No (Doesn't mention HRO Today, probably incorrect link?)

--Slashme (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article was still in draft until pushed recently by the originating editor into mainspace after idling for almost the 6 months. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Author comment: The term "self-sourcing" may be this stub's best 'claim to fame' (article title: "Insourcing, Outsourcing? How about Self-sourcing?"). Outsourcing is an important topic. Since the whole point would be their early use of this term, a citation of the article that made use of the term, by definition, would be a citation of the magazine.
The third entry in the table by Slashme (Thanks; your source review chart shows effort and care) is YES/YES/YES for a book citation. At this point, stub status is the "highest" possible outcome, if someone agrees. What's the article's value to Wikipedia, when Google finds them rather easily? It's that the companies nominated by them for awards get their proclamations recognized by notable publications, year after year, and attendance at their forums by high level officials are also given coverage.
In short: does this stub outdo Google's info about HRO Today? Maybe not much, but part of what Wikipedia does do well is provide a better picture than Google. That's what this (stub) does. Pi314m (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG actually requires multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the topic in detail. The reason we need this is to make sure that when we write about something, we're able to create a summary based on information from multiple points of view. --Slashme (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 9 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) 23:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Clark[edit]

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

non-notable insta model - only sources that are actually about her are from a news aggregator or unreliable - the yahoo source doesn't even exist and the only other similar list makes no mention of her. (There's another Alexis Clark too, who is also not notable.) Praxidicae (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: essentially, lack of significant coverage and no notable accomplishments. Bearian (talk) 02:38, 16 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kee of Hearts (album)[edit]

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

Despite repeated moves to the draft space and a decline at AFC (see User talk:Kekkofranco~enwiki), the creator of this article has decided to just go ahead and create it in the mainspace again. Fails general notability criteria (only one notable source in it so far). Sam-2727 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only reliable source is Classic Rock. The sidebar on AllMusic is considered unreliable per WP:A/S. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 23:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about the debut album of an international supergroup. Kee Marcello was and still is one of the greatest and most influential European guitarists (he has played in Europe, recording important albums with them) and Tommy Heart is the singer of the famous band Fair Warning. The sources are there (AllMusic, Blabbermouth, Melodic Rock, ClassicRock are very authoritative and reliable) and the album is relatively recent. It is produced by one of the most important producers in circulation. I think it is appropriate to invite to increase the article, instead of immediately proposing the cancellation. If you are an expert in the field, you would consider it. Among other things, a disc like this does not need advertising on wikipedia, given the importance of the members who are part of it and the label that produces it. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 12:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The references cited in the article do not show the album meeting any of the criterion outlined in WP:NALBUM. A Google search of the album does not show it being critically reviewed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:32, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, I repeat, in your opinions, is Blabbermouth not an authoritative magazine/site? Can I ask if you are in the industry and what record are we talking about and the band members who played it? Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nobody is saying that Blabbermouth is not an authoritative website. But simply reproducing a press release on its website does not automatically confer notability on the record – it needs to have been reviewed or discussed in detail. AllMusic doesn't have anything more than a track listing. Please read WP:NALBUM. Just because some of the participants have been in well known bands before does not automatically make everything they do notable, the album has to be notable in its own right – see WP:INHERITED. Richard3120 (talk) 20:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyway, I'm updating many album articles, with sources and info, in this period of covid-19. I repeat, it would be more useful to urge to add factors that make the article more encyclopedic, rather than asking for its cancellation. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - We would happily improve the article, if we could find any reliable sources, but we can't. And neither can you – you are currently updating the article with blogs and community forums, which are not accepted as reliable sources. Richard3120 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to be further informed: what would be the reliable or official sources? Can I find a list of them, in order to make sure, in the future, not to add articles without the necessary references? Thanks. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - See WP:RS – basically for the type of hard rock articles you are editing, established published magazines like Kerrang!, Metal Hammer and Rock Sound will be fine, plus online websites with journalistic staff and editorial control, like Brave Words and Blabbermouth. The source doesn't have to be available online, as this isn't usually possible for albums before 2000 – a citation with the magazine title, issue number and/or date, and author and page number (if available) is acceptable. If you have doubts about whether a source might be acceptable or not, you can post your query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums, there are usually editors who will look into it and form a consensus. Richard3120 (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the sources on the page and there are sites / magazines such as Rocktopia (Fireworks), Classic Rock / Louder, Blabbermouth, Metal Hammer and Brave Words. Sufficient to examine the article of the encyclopedic album.

If corrections are to be made, I trust in help. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Kekkofranco~enwiki. Sources recently added by the creator are reliable enough, hence making the article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not interested in looking for an argument in this AfD. So, I won't reply. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I will continue to research and add reliable and independent sources to give greater importance to this article in addition to those already posted such as Rocktopia, Classic Rock / Louder, Blabbermouth, Metal Hammer and Brave Words. There are articles on Wikipedia where the sources are available in less quantity, but without a cancellation request which which I would not support anyway. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That argument is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which is not a valid argument for AfD discussions. You've just repeated the sources that you stated above – please note that just an announcement of a release is not in-depth coverage as required by WP:RS, even if it appears in a reliable source. Richard3120 (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what number of independent and reliable sources are needed to make this article relevant? Are Classic Rock, Metal Hammer and Rocktopia not enough? Which represent the ones you share. I believe there are other reliable ones too, but you don't agree. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Believing" they exist is not enough, you have to prove they exist (see WP:BURDEN)... but see my answer below... Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: actually, I think this article now passes the criteria for WP:NALBUM. Classic Rock is definitely a reliable source, and I think Metal Hammer Italia is too, because I think it's the official Italian franchise of Metal Hammer. Rocktopia is debatable, but it's worth opening a debate on its reliability, which I will do at WP:ALBUMS. So there are at least two reliable reviews here... it would be good to get more, but I think this just scrapes over the line for now. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:42, 9 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) 23:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate Journal of Politics and International Relations[edit]

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

Article about a journal that totally fails WP:GNG. It also has no references at all. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working on adding references and re-writing the article now to conform with WP:GNG. -IR Thur —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Working on citations to ensure it conforms with WP:GNG EDJThurling840 (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources added (including LinkedIn) do not support notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources recently added demonstrate notability. The overwhelming majority of both new and old sources are about former editors or from the journal or its publishing institution. The sole exception is a link to a journal database that only verifies that the journal exists. There is no indication in these sources or in sources available through standard searches that there is anything notable about the journal itself. Looking further at the content, this appears to be of a type of academic journal that exists mostly to give students published credits and experience for CV's and doesn't actually generate much towards the academic conversation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the above is correct, bar the very last sentence. This is incorrect. Interstate does not exist to give 'students published credits and experience for CVs' as all future Issues (and former issues until 1985) will comprise of 75% area specialists/academics and 25% students whereas the blog (unrelated) will only feature students. It would be wise to conduct research before making such a bold claim. For the upcoming first Issue of 2020 Interstate will feature renowned academics and area specialists such as Ken Booth, Jenny Mathers, Alexandra Paulus, Jeff Bridoux, Iasson Chryssikos, Nicola Leveringhaus, James Rogers, and Eluned Morgan. EDJThurling840 (talk) 18:16, 16 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) 23:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamz Inkzone[edit]

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

paid for article sourced entirely to fake media outlets and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 13:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sadly, The Statesman (India), founded in 1875 and the The Times of India, founded in 1838, both supposed to be respectable, long-standing newspapers, have become a publishing platform for paid-for content. I have no idea what possesses them to publish these trifles. Anyway, the times doesn't even mention the subject. The Free Press Journal appears to have withdrawn the cited article. The Asian Age, at the bottom of the article says: (Asian Age doesn't endorse the above content.) Vexations (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable tatoo artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG - no major awards, no accomplishments, really. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 16 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) 23:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Meunier[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMOTORSPORT as never having made a start in a fully professional series. Current page is wholly sourced to directory-type listings, and an outside search yielded no independent significant coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the article has 11 references, it still doesn't meet the GNG. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 17:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable race car driver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 10 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) 23:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Iraq Raza Zaidi[edit]

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

The only claim to the subject's notability is based on being a recipient of a minor government award, which is given annually to young academics in the field of linguistics. Around 50 people are awarded each year, so I find it hard to argue this is a "well-known and significant award or honor" as required by WP:ANYBIO. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a second nomination, see this deletion discussion that ended in delete. — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC is satisfied. The article reads more like a résumé than a BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:BLP, and WP:NOTRESUME. I won't even consider the merits because this is not an article, but a random list of facts about a living person, which may or may not be true. In 2007, this could be excused, but in 2020, it is untenable. Bearian (talk) 02:41, 16 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of SARS outbreaks[edit]

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

SARS and COVID-19 are considered distinct diseases. Making a list of the two outbreaks caused by Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronaviruses is probably not warranted? —St.nerol (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it looks (partially) like an unnecessary copy/fork of Coronavirus § Outbreaks. Maybe we just need to add Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus § Outbreaks? --MarioGom (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Right now it reads pretty incomplete as well, but more details can be added. NavjotSR (talk) 09:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- NO we should not expand this. No more outbreaks please. Natureium (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Other than the names, is there anything that connects the two SARS outbreaks? Are they distinct from MERS in some way? If it's just the name, then the inclusion criteria are arbitrary. i.e. outbreaks of diseases named SARS. Pburka (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Outbreaks named SARS is an arbitrary and meaningless WP:LISTCRITERIA. pburka (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, is two things a list? No. >>BEANS X2^t 15:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary fork of existing content. Bondegezou (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Two things does not a list make. There is no information here that can't be covered on the article about SARS. Natureium (talk) 23:40, 13 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yatama Hohi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and fails WP:NSPORTS. The cited sources are unreliable and also includes a blog site. The article is orphan and I couldn't obtain much information about this subject in Google search index. His mother has also been Afded. Abishe (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wouldn't fail GNG if he existed, but entirely fails WP:V, and is a probable hoax (name, score, month, year...). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no evidence of this person meeting any SNG or WP:ANYBIO (or even existing). The article provides no sources that show notability--one bad link and one to a general article on sumo which doesn't mention the subject. May well be a hoax but definitely is not WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reason to keep this short, virtually unsourced article. Jediting1 (talk) 17:20, 15 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. Consensus both that notability is not met, and that the article is blatantly promotional Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerala Cyber Warriors[edit]

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

There is no media coverage of this organisation by reliable news sources, signifying that this organisation is not notable. Besides, the article is written in a purely promotional manner. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 07:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable. Article reeks of promotion. Otinflewer (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 10 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faizan Syed[edit]

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

Biography of a businessman with no claim of notability. I have searched for reliable independent sources (in English only) and found nothing. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of people get patents. Lots of people own small businesses, including me. That's not notable. Bearian (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think WP:MILL applies precisely to this situation. PK650 (talk) 05:48, 16 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 deleted as A7. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Ryathu[edit]

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

I don't believe this individual meets WP:NBIO as I can find no coverage at all in English language sources. The only reference is to a Javanese cookbook! Notability is not inherited by having a famous family member. The article creator, @Dannyboy1555: was asked about paid editing but erased the question from his talk page rather than answering it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The article creator seems to have close connections with this subject and with the subject's mother. The subject's mother has also been Afded. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: A7 as neither book written nor parenthood meets WP:CCOS. Also thoroughly fails verification, and is a probable hoax. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 10 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) b uidhe 00:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Badge of Glory[edit]

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

No significant coverage of the novel in secondary sources, therefore does not meet notability criteria. MiasmaEternal^TALK 05:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Week delete~~ Keep. I concur this likely fails WP:NBOOK. I found [15] and [16] but they seem like blogs, not very reliable. But here's one more reliable and longer review: The Marine Corps Gazette. Marine Corps Association. 1984. pp. 6–. The series may be notable, individual books are less likely. Week delete for now because a single good review is not enough for GNG and such, but if someone finds more good sources, ping me and I will reconsider my vote.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus (talk · contribs), I have posted additional sources below and am pinging you at your request. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

Here are reviews and other sources:

Josserand, Jeffrey J. (July 1984). "Battle of Glory". Marine Corps Gazette. 68 (1): 69. ISSN 0025-3170. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Fein, Michael T. (2001-04-01). "Badge of Glory". Library Journal. 126 (6): 153. ISSN 0363-0277. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Hipple, Ted (2000-12-01). "Badge of Glory". Booklist. 97 (7): 740. ISSN 0006-7385. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
Burgess, Edwin B. (1983-11-15). "Badge of Glory". Library Journal. 108: 2344. ISSN 0363-0277.
"Badge of Glory". Kirkus Reviews. 1983-01-01. ISSN 1948-7428. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
"Badge Of Glory. (Book Review)". Publishers Weekly. 224: 59. 1983-11-18. ISSN 0000-0019.

Sources with quotes

Josserand, Jeffrey J. (July 1984). "Battle of Glory". Marine Corps Gazette. 68 (1): 69. ISSN 0025-3170. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The review notes:
Mr. Reeman's winning style has been translated into 22 languages and has sold over 12 million copies—proof of his wide appeal. The only problem with his books from a Marine's perspective is that they all have naval officers for heroes. But now this has changed—refreshingly—and we have a new leading figure to whom Marines can really relate. You guessed it; in his new book, Badge of Glory, the central character is Capt Philip Blackwood of the Royal Marines.
...
Douglas Reeman knows the formula for action-packed adventures, mixing just the right amounts of action, drama, and human interest with a reasonable degree of historical accuracy. Clearly, the novel will not win the next Pulitzer Prize, but that doesn't reduce the enjoyment of reading it. Even the most dedicated of us need an occasional break from our professional efforts, and Badge of Glory is glorious leisure reading. I wholeheartedly recommend it for the kids and for any Marine-oriented Dad who grew up on tales of Horatio Hornblower.
Fein, Michael T. (2001-04-01). "Badge of Glory". Library Journal. 126 (6): 153. ISSN 0363-0277. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The review notes:
Reeman, who also wrote under the name of Alexander Kent, here presents a tale of the soldiering part of the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines. The characters in Badge of Glory are somewhat standard, with Capt. Philip Blackwood fighting to uphold his family's Marine traditions against the enemy and other officers. This story is unique because of the time period, the early 1850s, and the settings. Blackwood battles slavers in West Africa and then fights the Russians in the Crimea; there are also references to fighting the Maoris in New Zealand. Listeners also learn the effects of the new technologies of rifled musketry and steam power on warfare. David Rintoul is an experienced actor; his narration is clear and moves at a steady tempo. He is versatile, precise, and disciplined, giving each character a distinct and consistent voice. Popular, adventure, and large military collections should consider.
Hipple, Ted (2000-12-01). "Badge of Glory". Booklist. 97 (7): 740. ISSN 0006-7385. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The review notes:
The first of four well-read historical novels, Badge of Glory recounts an adventure faced by British Royal Marine Captain Philip Blackwood, circa 1850, as he encounters the mysteries of Africa while trying to adjust to steam-propelled ships, Rintoul superbly captures the seafaring life and the sailors' varied dialects. Hecht flawlessly narrates Hitler's Niece, the fictional (though based on fact)tale of Hitler's saucy and sassy niece, a young woman suspected of being Hitler's true love; listeners will have trouble setting this one aside. The Surgeon's Mate, here abridged, is one of 20 adventure novels about seafarer Jack Aubrey and his friend, Dr. Stephen Maturin. Pigott-Smith's dramatic reading adds flavor to the historically accurate yarn. Forbes beautifully reads With Heart, one of a trilogy of novels set during the depression; this one features a murder and a medical scare in small-town Oklahoma, both brought to a fit conclusion by newspaperwoman Kathleen Dolan.
Burgess, Edwin B. (1983-11-15). "Badge of Glory". Library Journal. 108: 2344. ISSN 0363-0277.
The review notes:
Under his own name and as Alexander Kent, Reeman has written many 19th-century and World War II novels. This ambitious, if rather uncontrolled, chronicle of a Royal Marine captain opens in 1850 and concerns the period in which the Royal Navy was switching painfully from sail to steam. Captain Philip Blackwood joins in the campaign to stamp out slavery in West Africa. Later he fights and is wounded in the Crimea. The background is interesting for this downbeat protagonist who muses constantly about courage, honor, and love while engaging in convincingly bloody combat. Readers of the genre will want to see this, but the weak focus, hero's depression, and unconvincing pat ending will put many off.
"Badge of Glory". Kirkus Reviews. 1983-01-01. ISSN 1948-7428. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10.
The review notes:
More action follows: in Malta with the Crimea in the offing; in the Black Sea with a majestic sea battle; and Blackwood is struck down as he waves his sword to charge yet again. All the weather-worthy staples are here: the unsung hero, loyal to the Corps, who bucks both the enemy and commanders greedy for glory; doggedly devoted ranks; a lady in distress; fire-power galore; And fans of the military-period saga will continue to find Reeman a reliable, if uninspired, producer.
"Badge Of Glory. (Book Review)". Publishers Weekly. 224: 59. 1983-11-18. ISSN 0000-0019.

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

Cunard (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that all those other reviews are paragraph long. The are hardly in-depth, and I do wonder if they are non-trivial. Also note that they can be seen as flap copies or such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus (talk · contribs), I think reviews in those reputable journals even if on the shorter side should be sufficient to establish notability. But here are additional longer reviews of the book from newspapers:

Christensen, Mike (1984-05-06). "Badge of Glory". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
Moon, Wes (1984-03-18). "Badge of Glory". Asbury Park Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
Scheuer, George A. (1984-03-25). "Compelling tale of war and romance: Badge of Glory". South Bend Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
Aller, Jim (1984-06-19). "Badge of Glory". Chippewa Herald Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
Brown, Alexander C. (1984-03-04). "Badge of Glory. Success To The Brave". Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.

Sources with quotes

Christensen, Mike (1984-05-06). "Badge of Glory". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes:
With the hero of his Richard Bolitho series of 18th century sea stories nearing the end of a strenuous career, Douglas Reeman may be casting about for a new character and a fresh century to chronicle. In any event, Reeman now offers us Capt. Philip Blackwood of the Royal Marines and settles him in 1850, when England was scourging the West African coast of slavers and tuning up for the Crimean War.
...
"Badge of Glory" would be a predictable exercise in formula fiction were it not that the experienced Reeman writes so well. For those of us hopelessly hooked on such novels, Blackwell's adventures are a delight.
Moon, Wes (1984-03-18). "Badge of Glory". Asbury Park Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes:
Reeman, equally adept on land or sea in weaving into excitement of combat the historical facts, doesn't fail the reader here. Life in the British marines comes alive, the low value placed on life in general in the era is illustrated, along with the importance of empire building to England and the emergence of Russia as a world power.
...
"Badge of Glory follows the Reeman tradition faithfully. The action sweeps you along from beginning to end.
Scheuer, George A. (1984-03-25). "Compelling tale of war and romance: Badge of Glory". South Bend Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes:
This is an epic tale of the Royal Marines and the British Navy on a perilous mission to British West Africa in an effort to curb the slave trade in the middle of the last century.
A 26-year-old captain, a veteran of campaigning in New Zealand, undertakes the rescue of a medical missionary's attractive daughter from a jungle post under siege by traders. He falls in love with her but loses contact when sent back to England to recover from battle wounds.
...
With its attention to historical detail the book is sure to delight fans of this writer's series of stories about conflict on land and at sea.
Aller, Jim (1984-06-19). "Badge of Glory". Chippewa Herald Telegram. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes:
Badge of Glory by Douglass Reeman is actually written by the same author that provides us with those wonderful Richard Bolitho stories under the names of Alexander Kent.
...
In spite of treacherous slave traders and narrow-minded admirals, Blackwood distinguishes himself time after time. Wounded several times in battle, our hero continues his efforts and we are allowed to thrill with him as his true worth is realized and some of his commanders are found out to be less than they should be.
If you enjoy the Bolitho novels, you will surely love this Blackwood tale as well.
Brown, Alexander C. (1984-03-04). "Badge of Glory. Success To The Brave". Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-10. Retrieved 2020-04-10 – via Newspapers.com.
The review notes:
"Badge of Glory," produced under his own name, relates stirring doings of the Royal Marines, England's famous "Red Coats," in mid-19th century when navies of the world were gradually substituting steam for sail.
...
In "Badge of Glory" the protagonist is Capt. Philip Blackwood who joins H.M.S. Audacious, a 90-gun, square-rigged flagship sent to the west coast of Africa to suppress the long-outlawed slave trade which is still flourished in the jungles.
...
Blackwood, despite a badly wounded leg, rescues a fair maiden, a missionary's daughter, from the traditional fate worse than death at the hands of the renegades. Expectedly, he falls in love with her and, at length (on page 357 of a 357-page book), he sweeps her into his arms for the final clinch.
All very predictable, but nonetheless good entertainment.

Cunard (talk) 06:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The last one is very good, and that would be enough to make me change my vote, together with the others I think it is now clear the book has received enough reviews to be considered passing NBOOK. I've changed my vote above. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Kirkus Reviews are a reliable source [17] Other reviews found as well. Dream Focus 13:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, numerous independent reviews as set out above (Cunard does it again, YAAY!:)), that are not "trivial" ie. one liners - "this book is great/awfull/thrilling." etc. - this is specifically stated at no. 1 of gng that discusses "significant". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources identified here demonstrate that the article passes WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 23:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable novel by a notable author. Plenty of coverage. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:48, 15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nazanin Alakija[edit]

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

DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Assert some notability but not enough for Wikipedia. Persian google search does not show any importance too, mostly about her marriage to a billionare. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. Wikipedia is not for WP:ADVOCACY anyway. Otinflewer (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not actual signs of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Spada2. The subject has not received in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:18, 15 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 03:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camryn Garrett[edit]

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

Kirkus is no longer a reliable source or book reviews, so Publishers Weekly by itself isn't enough for notability. the rest is PR and puffery DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting the notability guidelines for novelists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am surprised by the nomination as the subject meets GNG, as demonstrated by the inclusion of several articles from reliable sources: Teen Vogue, Entertainment Weekly, Metro, and Glamour. At minimum, this article can be draftified as every statement in the article is properly cited. Citrivescence (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

look at the articles in Vogue etc--they're promotional write ups. For example, the one in Teen Vogue is an interview where she says whatever she cares to about herself, and is therefore not independent. Getting such articles is a routine part of the job of press agents, and we should not be letting them expand their activities here. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close. I usually agree with DGG. but both his judgment and his searching skills have abandoned him in this case. Aside from the PW review, it takes little effort to turn up reviews in School Library Journal, Financial Times, the Irish Times, and the Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books, an academic journal. Worldcat apparently turns up over 500 library holdings. It's not surprising that an author of a YA novel marketed mainly to young women is covered mainly in magazines aimed at young women, where the level of prose may be a bit less sophisticated, but Teen Vogue, for example, has a reputation for particularly substantive coverage, and EW has no reason to turn over control of its pages to an obscure first novelist. The sourcing here is far superior to that in the typical pro wrestler BLP, and quite a few subjects merit favorable coverage. Not every college student has publicly disgraced themself. The other delete !vote is profoundly uninformed and serves only to show that the editor who cast it deserves no credibility. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Teen vogue does have a reputation for sophisticated coverage considering the genre, , and its article is a well-written sophisticated promotional interview. Entertainment Weekly's review is however a full editorial review, and I therefore withdraw the AfD request. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 9 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. Clear consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Patton (Australian executive)[edit]

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

The only claim to notability is being the vice-president of Telecommunications Society of Australia and I'm unable to find any significant coverage in reliable, independent sources beyond passing mention or announcements.

P.S. most of the current sources are written by the subject but are not about the subject. GSS ^💬 05:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 05:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 05:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject seems to be a solid performer at the senior executive level, but I cannot find anything that makes the subject stand out as being notable. Aoziwe (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and has been written as WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject's response: This entry was created about 15 years ago by a Wikipedia editor who was the social media guy at the company I then ran. He has since died. I have subsequently sought to keep the entry up to date and have declared my COI. I have had recent assistance from a number of Wikipedia editors, including SkyRing. The entry was considered for deletion about ten years ago but on review was accepted to be retained. Since the outbreak of the Coronavirus broadband access has become a subject of considerable media interest. I have received unsolicited requests and have appeared in television interviews and I have contributed articles at the request of a number of online and print media outlets. I have more than 21K connections on LinkedIn on which I post articles (my own and others) that are widely viewed and commented upon. Edit0695 (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What this discussion is trying to do is to see if this WP:BLP meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. You've been on WP for awhile, so hopefully you have read what's at those links by now. So, what several refs are there that are at the same time reliably published (per WP:RS/WP:V), significant coverage about Laurie Patton and independent of Laurie Patton? The article currently has a WP:OVERKILL amount of refs, I checked the first 14.

8 (wow) are written by you, they are no help for this discussion, and should probably be at least partly weeded.

Telsoc while reliable for that fact, is no help for this discussion.

Internet Australia, ditto.

itnews may be one of the several needed, I'm not familiar with it and don't know if it's reliable and/or independant.

The New Daily looks good but fails "significant coverage".

itwire, same as itnews.

The Saturday Paper looks alright but is WP:PAYWALLED and the bits I see doesn't mention Patton, so I can't tell if it helps the case for WP:GNG.

So per the above, I'm currently undecided. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that this article was created by someone acting as PR rep for the subject should lead to an automatic and immediate deletion. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. That it has been abused in this way for 15 years is a grosse failure of its intentions and mission and needs to be stopped as soon as possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- COI accusations here absolutely should not be ground for deletion, as 96 contributors worked on the article. That an employee of Patton's firm once worked on the article does not erode whether Patton measures up our inclusion standards. I see plenty of references to support notability. That is what is most important. Geo Swan (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is important to remember that articles with titles that require disambiguation won't get less effective google searches at the top of the AFD. ""Laurie Patton" Australian OR australia" is a more effective google search term. Geo Swan (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above, plenty of references to support notability. I did my web search, and found that within the last 30 days over half a dozen RS have called upon Patton's opinion as if he was one of Australia's most well-known commentators. Seven RS quoted his opinion on the effect of Covid19 on Australia, its job market, and increased demand for internet due to social distancing. Two RS quote his opinion on how the Australian Government alter its policy on its NBN.

Aoziwe asserts they "cannot find anything that makes the subject stand out as being notable." This is the wrong standard. I am not an RS. I accept that I am not an RS. So, I accept I should not rely on my personal opinion as to whether topics are notable. WP:NPOV and our other core policies call upon us to rely on the judgement of newspaper editors and journalists, and other authors of reliable sources, when measuring notability. When RS have written about a topic, over a period of time, and in detail, the topic is notable.

In my fifteen years here I have made tens of thousands of edits where I disagreed with the opinions of every RS. When our personal opinions is at odds with those of RS I think we have just two policy compliant choices. (1) do our best to neutrally summarize, paraphrase or quote the RS we disagree with; or (2) walk away, and let other contributors work on those topics. What we should not do is try to delete articles when our opinion of their notability is at odds with the RS that have covered them in detail.

Abishe wrote the article has been written as WP:PROMO. Okay, PROMO has five numbered points: (1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment; (2) Opinion pieces; (3) Scandal mongering; (4) Self-promotion; (5) Advertising, marketing or public relations. Abishe, first, which of these five numbered points did you mean to claim we should be concerned about? I suggest the first three clearly don't apply. As to the 4th and 5th points, I don't see the article as exagerrating Patton's accomplishments. A proper perusal of a web search rather suggests to me that even if people associated with him once edited the article, they either did so in a fair and balanced manner, or other contributors rewrote passages that lapsed, so it is now neutral.

If someone inserts a paragraph or paragraphs that are copyright violations into an article, we don't delete the entire article, even though we hate copyright violations. Rather we trim or rewrite the bad passages. Can you identify specific passages that lapse from PROMO in the current version of the article? So, if other people agree those passages are problematic, why can't we keep the article, and then trim or rewrite those passages? Geo Swan (talk) 08:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Swan Please note I was NOT refering to my personal opinion as to whether topics are notable. I was referring to that I could not find sufficiently depth contributing sources about the subject as distinct from sources mentioning quotes by the subject. For us to gather a series of quotes by the subject, even from reliable independent sources, rather than about the subject, and then assert notability, is WP:OR / WP:PRIMARY by us. If an IRS had gathered the quotes and inferred status/expertice/notability, then we could use that as a secondary IRS. If you can provide such I will try to be the first to change to a keep. Regards. Aoziwe (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoziwe I left a comment, above on the complications of web searches, when article titles contain disambiguation. It really is a serious problem. I am working on an essay on this topic, at User:Geo Swan/opinions/When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward. If you relied on a web search for "Laurie Patton (Australian executive)" -wikipedia, rather than one like I suggested, above, could you please repeat your web search using the search terms I suggests, as in [18]?
Second, you imply that BLPs have to include some of the individual's mundane biographical details, like date or place of birth, schools attended, mariage(s), children. DGG replied to this kind of claim best - paraphrasing from memory. We cover notable people for their accomplishments, not their mundande details.
Sometimes genuinely notable people, with great accomplishments, or who have earned reputations that get their opinions routinely quoted by RS, manage to keep their personal life to themselves to a sufficent extent that those mundane biographical details aren't published, or widely published.
I completely agree, that missing routine biographical details should never be a bar to recognizing genuine notability for an individual. Over the years I have worked on two user essays on this point, that focus on False Geber, a 13th or 14th century writer, about whom absolutely known of the mundane biographical details are known, not his nationality, occupation, religion, the location where he lived. What we do know is that his writings had an impact on the development of Chemisty that has caused him to be remembered for 600 years or more.
Here are those two essays: User:Geo Swan/opinions/"False Geber" and what a biography should contain and User:Geo Swan/The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked...
After I left my comments, above, I did some work on the article's 39 existing references. Yes, I found more of them were written by Patton himself, than I had originally realized. Nevertheless, even if we were to agree to trim out every reference that he wrote, wouldn't that still leave the article with more valid RS than most BLP?
Patton has had a long, very long career. In his long career how many times has another RS interviewed him? I dunno. But he has himself been the subject of interviews. Here is an example: http://thewire.org.au/story/mobile-tracking-device-activated/ Yes, this particular interview does not touch on his mundane biographical details. Yet RS don't interview NN people. This RS interviewed him because he had already established his notability as a highly respected commentator. Geo Swan (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I did not start commenting at AfD yesterday. Rest assured I NEVER rely on the default google search and ALWAYS dump the (disambiguation), AND do my own. Aoziwe (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Second, you imply that BLPs have to include ... No I did not imply (only) that. I was primarily interested in finding material written by any IRS about the subject's career. Aoziwe (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
manage to keep their personal life to themselves to a sufficent extent that... I agree. Aoziwe (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments, on talk pages, and other fora, are supposed to be placed after the previous guys comments, not interspersed in the middel of the previous comments. I refactored my comment, and a reply that was interspersed, to conform to long-standing convention. Geo Swan (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"over half a dozen RS have called upon Patton's opinion " is not exactly what WP:GNG/WP:BASIC are asking for. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång -- note that wasn't "half a dozen RS", that was "half a dozen RS in the last month" -- something completely different than what you imply I wrote.
In my comment, above, I linked to two user essays I wrote: User:Geo Swan/opinions/"False Geber" and what a biography should contain and User:Geo Swan/The earliest sockpuppet to be unmasked.... I think they may address your question about GNG as well. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a few good refs with significant coverage, but that's me, closer may think differently. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article has lots of sources, they do not convincingly demonstrate notability: the sources include stuff written by the subject, tweets, Crikey blogs and nothing at all that appears to actually be focused on Mr Patton (no profiles of him, etc). As such, WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject's further comment: As previously pointed out, this entry was created by a Wikipedia editor now deceased some 15 years ago. I have merely tried to keep it up to date. Note this observation: "04:34, 9 April 2020‎ Skyring talk contribs‎ 7,122 bytes +1,921‎...The subject has been complying with policy under supervision. I think he's done some good work". GSS is unhappy about over-CITING but this was simply in response to earlier requests from other editors to provide more evidence of my roles and references to articles about me (or quoting me). Edit0695 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Edit0695: I asked you multiple times, but you have not yet responded to my question so, can you please shed some light on hiring freelancers to remove maintenance tags from your page after you made some failed attempt. This is a violation of . GSS ^💬 06:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea about WP:MEAT. I am not as knowledgable as you about the Wikpedia processes so at the suggestion of a friend I had someone more experienced make some changes. They were initially accepted until a good while later when someone else decided to make changes that totally destroyed the entry. Including adding statements that were incorrect. Since then, and with the asistance of others like SkyRing, I have simply attempted to ensure that the entry is up to date and accurate. Edit0695 (talk) 04:53, 14 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 08:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Foote & Davies Company[edit]

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

Not notable, uncited, not sure if it's citeable; seems to have been forgotten Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 05:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seem to be a lot of stories and mentions in trade magazines of the time. Did they publish anything truly notable? There's Life in Dixie During the War, by Mary A.H. Gay, which is notable for both complicated and not-great reasons... Caro7200 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced since creation and no evidence in article or searches of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:47, 16 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. Consensus that notability is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

47 Street[edit]

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

Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. Pilot333 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is obviously a non-notable company (especially since it has just 1 citation from the company itself) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:35, 9 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Capital[edit]

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

fails to meet WP:NCORP. Every ref is PR or mere notice DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Following the previous AfD deletion, the contributing editor was advised to submit a draft of any revised instance through AfC but has instead placed it into mainspace. A substantial proportion of the article text and references are about the history of another firm, Social Capital (venture capital), from which this company does not inherit notability. I am not seeing anything to suggest the September 2019 AfD decision should be overturned; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies AllyD and DGG, I got confused as to the next step after publishing it as a draft. Should I move it back into drafts and then submit it via the process? There are a number of long form articles about Tribe from sources like TechCrunch that are in depth and not PR like https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/05/tribe-capital/. Do those not suffice because they're about the formation of Tribe out of Social Capital? I'm happy to look for other in depth articles on Tribe. Inkforest (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - venture firms and other such capital sources just are run of the mill and to be blunt not notable. In today's low-regulatory environment, anybody can start a venture firm with as little as $1 and operate it, as long as you don't promise too much to your investors. Unless you have $1 Billion, you are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 16 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Vlček[edit]

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

A check on the WP:BEFORE sees more results for the rally car driver of the same name then this football player who just scrapes by with 1 minute in a WP:FPL league. HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - young player with ongoing career who technically meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @GiantSnowman: So what you are saying is a player that has played 1 minute of football passes the GNG test then. HawkAussie (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I don't follow football, I agree with GiantSnowman. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman , passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 24 years and is currently playing see no point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not met any standard of reasonable notability. the current football notability criteria are overly broad and we should stop slavishly following them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 10 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. czar 04:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Junction, Minnesota[edit]

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

Another railroad junction topo GMaps magically turned into a community by mass-production. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure how this got to be listed as a populated place, but in looking at maps of Pennington County, I don't see much of a populated place here. There's no grouping of homes or businesses or anything to suggest this is a community -- just a railroad junction. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Railroad junction does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was, at least, a foreman's house there, where people lived (well, specifically, Mrs. Carl Stromberg), back in the 1920s. Not sure exactly what we'd want to do with it. See: [19] [20], [21] [22] SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 15 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. It's unclear where to redirect to, if anywhere; this can be figured out editorially. Sandstein 08:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Spring, Minnesota[edit]

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

Three buildings marked on topo map, matches the buildings on GMaps of the DNR hatchery. Unclear where the mass-produced claim of "is an unincorporated community" comes from or what makes it notable. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Altura, Minnesota, which is the community listed on the Fish hatchery website. It seems plausible someone might search for this term, as it matches the name of the road that the hatchery is on.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- It is listed here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Topos dating to 1934 show the same three buildings adjacent to a Transient Relief Camp. Site is not on regional topo. The 1920 Minnesota Geographic Names: Their Origin and Historic Significance fails to mention it, and this 1948 classifieds listing and this 1932 picnic notice mark it at Altura, so this site should be mentioned with Altura as suggested. Reywas92^Talk 00:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is closer? Altura or Elba, Minnesota?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the Minnesota DNR, the property has been part of a Wildlife Management Area since 1932 and was a farm before that. The Minnesota Place Names mention is questionable and, even with the other sources, isn't sufficient to meet GNG in any case. The name likely refers to the spring itself. –dlthewave ☎ 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elba, Minnesota, which is closer than Altura, though smaller and presumably lacks a post office. (It seems like anyone wishing to improve Elba has some ready-made sources thanks to Reywas92.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:44, 9 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 Chemistry Europe. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChemistryViews[edit]

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

Undeleted PROD. Original concern was "No indication this website/magazine passes WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (media) and so on. Coverage is limited to PRIMARY/press releases and like." Perhaps a merger to Chemistry Europe would be a good compromise, but given that this went the deletion route, it might be good to have a discussion here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge to Chemistry Europe. The concern given for the original PROD seems accurate, but it also seems fair to give a couple lines about this publication in the article on the organization that publishes it. XOR'easter (talk) 13:59, 9 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. czar 04:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wyngate, Virginia[edit]

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

Small subdivision, not a distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly not notable. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look, its tiny Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small housing development. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:53, 14 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plantscape[edit]

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

NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good sources I could find, though there is another company, of the same name, in the same field, founded only a year earlier, curiously. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and the cited sources are unreliable. Abishe (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text and references describe a company going about its business. Searches are not finding better evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 16 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.