Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 15 August	17 August >

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Shomon[edit]

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

Advertorial by a WP:SPA. Google finds about 11 pages of hits (indicating 106 unique, for what that's worth), but all of them seem to be promotional and not RS. Redux: Spam. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - obscure health cultist. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Promotional article for a non-notable quack. JoelleJay (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no substantial in-depth coverage in RS. Neutrality^talk 00:17, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no sources to speak of. GPinkerton (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sourceless. Kinda quaint really. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 07:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non notable article, looks promotiional. Alex-h (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is hard to make the case for notability here. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:36, 23 August 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cloudbound (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Health Protection[edit]

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

Too soon. Article begins "According to the Telegraph..." and other news outlets are also using this source. There has not been an official announcement of this organisation yet and the name could be a working title. This should be deleted or moved to draft space until something formal is released. Cloudbound (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This page is obviously not a page where the information is set in stone. That is why the page clearly states that this is a proposed plan based on information collected from The Telegraph, a reliable source. Reuters and The New York Times have also commented on this proposal adding to its legitimacy. With this claim that this page should be deleted or drafted because the information is based on speculation is nonsense. By that logic any page that is based on speculation such as that UFO’s exist should also be removed from Wikipedia until solid information either proving or disproving the speculation is published. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxWBooth (talk • contribs) 22:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubting the integrity of the Telegraph, but there has been no formal announcement yet so an article about this organisation is premature. Cloudbound (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By the time this discussion is concluded there will be plenty of information to fill it. Already on BBC. Since when do we need formal announcements? We need multiple reputable sources and they are already proliferating. Rathfelder (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's going to be launched on Tuesday according to this BBC News story and named the Health Protection Institute, so if that is the name they've decided on then we'll need to do a page move as well. This is Paul (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that the BBC may be going with a shorter version of the name while the name officially remains the National Institute for Health Protection. Either way, I'd say Keep the page as the amount of coverage about its launch today is enough to make it notable. Andysmith248 (talk) 10:24, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was fired up WP:TOOSOON and in haste....however, as above, the new body does exist and the new body will be in place before the end of the month. More than adequately notable, at least. doktorb _words^deeds 05:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

Keep Coverage exists, the organisation is going to exist, sufficiently notable. It’s annoying me that someone has already changed Public Health England to be in the past tense, however, as the organisation still exists and is functioning as of now. Fish+Karate 11:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Obviously notable, already in existence and officially confirmed.----Pontificalibus 12:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's currently being reported by several good news sources, and seems extremely likely to go ahead. Wurbl (User talk:Wurbl) 12:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep however we should also recognise the wording of the announcement does not say that PHE is being dissolved, only that it is being "brought under" Baroness Dido and her new NIHP. It is unclear what will happen in reality to PHE as little has been discussed as to the overall structure / hierarchy. So we should not be rushing round making things past-tense until it is clear what the restructure is doing. Koncorde (talk) 13:14, 18 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MaltaProfile[edit]

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

Another procedural nom for a non-notable website. 2017 prod contested by creator with no rationale. Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the portal. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Couldn't find much of anything let alone anything that contributes to WP:N // Timothy :: talk 00:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A business site, but shows nothing for notability. Alex-h (talk) 08:41, 20 August 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. Tone 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mental Health Association of Portland[edit]

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

Fails WP:NORG / WP:NONPROFIT. The further readings section are just link drops. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete articles should not last 9 days without a source other than the subject's own website, let alone 9 years. Although I know that standing in this shape for only 9 years is nothing compared to some of the other atrociously bad articles Wikipedia has been plagued with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 23:12, 21 August 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. Tone 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fiftyloop[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced article on what appears to be a defunct website (no URL in the article and the link on a Twitter profile is broken) and no coverage found. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:36, 23 August 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 Much (TV channel)#Much personalities. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine McClenahan[edit]

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

Non-notable working performer, no credible assertions of notability even made Orange Mike | Talk 20:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Much (TV channel)#Much personalities. She was the first female VJ for Much Music, but the coverage that I am able to find is skimpy and insufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Whpq. I imagined it would be easy to find sources for her, but the best I can find is a this interview and a passing reference in Billboard. There might be something here or here, but they're not searchable. pburka (talk) 19:08, 22 August 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. Tone 21:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kermit Roosevelt III[edit]

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

Non-notable author, fails WP:GNG. Notability is not inherited. None of the sources constitute significant coverage.--Michael White^T·C 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC) --Michael White^T·C 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be a sufficiently significant coverage of the nominee, mostly concerning his books. I'd say it is enough to pass criteria 4c of WP:AUTHOR or criteria 7 of WP:NACADEMIC.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://thepenngazette.com/that-roosevelt/
^ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/22/kermit-roosevelt-iii-speaks-in-dc-on-japanese-inte/
^ https://zibbyowens.com/transcript/elyssafriedlandkermitroosevelt
^ https://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/kermit-roosevelt-iii

He is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, so #1 coverage in the alumni magazine of the University of Pennsylvania lacks a certain reliability for establishing notability due to conflict of interest. #2 The Washington Times is at least WP:QUESTIONABLE. #3 zibbyowens.com appears to be self-published. #4 is an organizational bio page, which seems questionable for establishing notability; not every person with a bio at a notable organization is notable. As to WP:AUTHOR, I don't think a handful of short book reviews constitutes "won significant critical attention" and as to WP:NACADEMIC, it is hard to argue from his CATO bio that "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity."--Michael White^T·C 06:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some more reviews towards a likely WP:NAUTHOR case. Popular books: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Legal books: [7]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and topic ban the nominator from the deletion process for appalling incompetence. Subject is plainly notable as a novelist, with two novels covered in high-profile outlets like the NYTimes and the Wall Street Journal. He has an extensive record of scholarly publications with one highly cited paper and quite a few moderately cited ones. He has one significant nonfiction book, published by a major university press, covered by, inter alia, Publishers Weekly and NPR and held by more than 1500 libraries around the world, per Worldcat.[8] That's fifteen fucking hundred libraries. That's not Harry Potter territory but it's one whomping sign of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:NAUTHOR, it suffices that he's created a body of work that is the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". I think that the reviews that have been mentioned here suffice; there are more in the article. The article has WP:PROMO issues, but AfD is not cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are issues with the article, but I believe the subject passes WP:NAUTHOR as an academic. Needs clean up, not deletion. EverybodyEdits (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I considered him notable six years ago, and although I've become slightly more deletionist, I "stand pat" (pardon the pun) that he's notable as a lawyer/jurist. Bearian (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:NAUTHOR as others have already said. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agreed under WP:NAUTHOR. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:49, 23 August 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. Tone 21:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Roosevelt (lawyer)[edit]

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

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG. WP:NINHERITED. The one reliable source with significant coverage is a special to the New York Times, a marriage announcement, which is akin to a press release in this case.--Michael White^T·C 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC) --Michael White^T·C 19:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, based on The Intercept article, which describes him as a powerful figure within the state party, and which details a noteworthy event. BD2412 T 21:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The one-line statement that he is a power broker in the state party is an assertion of notability (and a weak one at that, even many state representatives are only notable through WP:NPOL but not WP:GNG), not significant coverage. Being involved in a "noteworthy" event does not necessarily make one notable.--Michael White^T·C

Michael A. White, perhaps you did not read the entire article in The Intercept, which has one sentence about Roosevelt early on, but another five sentences of biographical content later on in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as rules chair of the DNC, he's been involved in several controversies, and there is ongoing coverage of him for different hings. Bearian (talk) 23:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notable work at the DNC, just spoke at the DNC on national television and has a recognizable family name Pennsylvania2 (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough sourcing to merit an article. p b p 13:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sourcing is to public databases, primary sources, or social pages newspaper coverage. This is not the stuff notability and passing GNG is made of, and the few sources that do lend towards notability are not enough to pass any reasonable threshold. The United States does not have noble families and people do not get articles just because of whom they are related to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep - Roosevelt is a powerful national Democratic Party figure, who despite often staying out of the public eye has tremendous influence on state and national politics due to his position and his connections. Even without the recent stories that were cited by User:BD2412, I believe these reasons make him a sufficiently notable person. Andrew11374265 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NPR story includes significant coverage of him, as does The Intercept. The 1968 New York Times coverage of his wedding should not be discounted. At 12 paragraphs, it is far longer than than the usual routine wedding announcement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:53, 22 August 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. Tone 21:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big TV![edit]

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

Procedural nom, as it was previously prodded. No indication of notability. Hits I can find (e.g., [9] and [10]) appear to be non-RS promo sites. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems like a sign of WP:TOOSOON. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as bordererline A7 with no claims of significance and a lack of coverage in multiple reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no coverage. The dead link in the article looks to be to some sort of publicity agency and would not be a reliable source. Stating this is TOOSOON is rather generous given the article has existed since 2006. -- Whpq (talk) 17:30, 22 August 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. Tone 21:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeoLearning[edit]

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

GeoLearning was previously nominated for deletion in 2010. The result was no consensus. GeoLearning does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. They have very minimal press coverage. Some of the sources on this article are first party sources. They have a few articles from unreliable third party sources, including a submission profile for an award that was written by company. Other than that, they have nothing. This a good example of unambiguous advertising or promotion. Additionally, the page creator and primary contributor of the page, User:Bencarstens is a SPA whose only contributions are for GeoLearning and Frank A. Russell (The CEO of GeoLearning). Sonstephen0 (talk) 18:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and promotional DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - none of the references in the article establish notability as they are variously primary sources, not independent or catalogue entries. My own search turns up just a lot press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 22 August 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. Tone 21:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bornfly[edit]

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

A small airline operating on Bornholm and the tiny island Christiansø with two planes, both dating from the 1970s (a Cessna F172M and a Piper Six PA 32-260) and no coverage in independent, reliable sources at all. The only sources are their own website and airlinehistory, which appears to accept user submissions (per https://airlinehistory.co.uk/contact-us/). Vexations (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom--Petebutt (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems to fail WP:GNG. - Ahunt (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:44, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not significant. Vici Vidi (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability. Alex-h (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this article about its launch, but nothing else. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:41, 23 August 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. Tone 21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alycia Kaback[edit]

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

The subject of the article is not notable, one of the two citations in the article is a blog post. The entry does not meet notability standards. EverybodyEdits (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. EverybodyEdits (talk) 17:20, 16 August 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 August 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman. It is fluff articles like this that are going to put us over 1 million articles on living people, a number we totally lack the resources to monitor, unless we are careful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOTINHERITED. She seems like an ordinary business person. I mean, she hasn't done anything notable. She hasn't been in the news very much - only three Google news ghits. Her only claims to fame are: she wrote a book, she's followed by Yoko Ono on Twitter, and mentoring a "Kaback model, Anchal Joseph." That's not enough; it's possibly too soon. Bearian (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:40, 22 August 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. Tone 21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frode Fjerdingstad[edit]

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

Just not notable, not much to elaborate beyond that notion. Geschichte (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After searching online, all I found were social media; no reviews, articles, book citations, etc. Does not pass GNG nor BASIC nor ARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater@ 08:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are no realible, in-depth, 3rd party indepdent secondary sources showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:GNG, and WP:CREATIVE. He's never exhibited in a Global city nor art colony, and he's had three books of between 100 and 2,000 copies.
Delete subject does not pass WP:BASIC Wm335td (talk) 02:31, 21 August 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. Tone 21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Benlolo[edit]

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

While the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which Benlolo previously headed, may be notable and merit an article there is insufficient evidence that Benlolo himself is notable. Sowny (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a head of a minor organization that does not lead to default notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to Simon Wiesenthal Center. (Weak because he's the former head of the Canadian affiliate, not the American head org.) The Canadian branch might be minor, but the American org is definitely not. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Yoninah (talk) 18:45, 23 August 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. Tone 21:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SleepyCat Mattress[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable, independent sources with in-depth coverage that show this mattress brand to be notable. The ones that exist are bog-standard funding announcements and press release type feeds. Fails Wiki's notability standards. MaysinFourty (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I must admit, I write articles on startups, many of whom are going through AfDs, and I defend them. In my view that is right, because enterprises (startups or otherwise) can be notable. But, this one to me is a clear WP:PROMO. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability and obvious attempt to promote a small business Spiderone 11:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Any merger can be discussed elsewhere, there is clear consensus that the topic is notable Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i am lonely will anyone speak to me[edit]

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

A non-notable thread with the only claims to "notability" being that it used to be a popular website and formerly being the number one search result for a Google search. Does not pass WP:WEB; most of the coverage from reliable sources is either trivial (a summary of the site and its purpose/functions) or uses it and its webmaster as just one of many examples of the more notable topic of the internet connecting lonely strangers. The website the thread is on is not notable either, to the point that it redirects to the page for the thread. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 17:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Coverage in Wired magazine and The Guardian are significant coverage in reliable sources. It passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a rather trivial topic but it has attracted substantial RS coverage. The Guardian article discusses the thread in depth and the New Yorker piece is a little thinner but also SIGCOV imo. And there is this from Salon in 2014, which isn't in the article. I think it passes GNG - the question is whether or not there is really enough to say about this thread that it makes sense to have a stand-alone article for it rather than merging it to a broader article about internet memes or the social effects of the internet. It seems destined to be a permastub otherwise, but I can't think of a decent merge target at the moment. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:WEBCRIT. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has received some coverage in the net and books. It's good enough to pass WP:NWEB. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lots of weird and seemingly trivial stuff like this has gotten ongoing, significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 20 August 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. Tone 21:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bianca home[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable, significant coverage that shows this mattress brand is notable. Fails Wiki's notability standards. MaysinFourty (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:15, 21 August 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. Tone 21:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Havildar Ram Kumar[edit]

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

Unable to find any in-depth reliable sources that show significant coverage. Subject is non-notable. Fails WP:GNG MaysinFourty (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails SOLDIER (third-level award), and GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:08, 17 August 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. Tone 21:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Zubek[edit]

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

Non notable musician, promotional page. Sowny (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable news coverage on him. The only thing that shows up in Google search results are profiles and social media pages. Sonstephen0 (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As per Kvng's earlier Deprod, The Penguin Guide to Jazz has an entry about the subject (the snippet can be seen on the Google Books query clickable above) and a couple of bylined reviews are referenced in the article. In addition, Betty Carter added lyrics to one of his composition [11]. Whether this is sufficient for WP:MUSICBIO is debatable, but it does indicate a basic footprint in reliable sources. AllyD (talk) 09:18, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As AllyD... technically, he meets WP:MUSICBIO #5 by having two albums on Fresh Sound, plus there are reviews of those albums, so there's probably enough. EddieHugh (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EddieHugh, appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO #5. Promotional is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON. ~Kvng (talk) 20:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:NMUSIC and has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Jazz Times and Penguin Guide to Jazz, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - based on the reviews, he meets WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 23:06, 20 August 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. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meritas (law)[edit]

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

Does not meet current standards for notability off organizations almost all the references are just about people on joining or leaving the firm DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sufficient references from independent sources.Rathfelder (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:NCORP, WP:NOTINHERITED, and my standards for law firms. Unlike a bar association, this is a for-profit conglomerate, so the rules for automatic notability do not apply. There's nothing on the page that ties its clients or member law firms to independent notability. As far as I'm concerned, this firm lacks any factor that would make it notable. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 11:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

16:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per [12] (Montreal Gazette) [13] (The Herald). Could use a good stubbification if it stays. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Those aren't strong cites, but sufficient to pass the bar ... pun not intended. Ravenswing 17:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the research of AleatoryPonderings. Montreal Gazette and The Herald (Glasgow) are reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 19:38, 24 August 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 05:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idris Badruddin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG - several sources that mention Badruddin, but nothing that really focuses on them. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Paraphrasing Robert McClenon from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huzaifa_Mohyuddin: The subject appears to have been the head of a major denomination within Shi'a Islam and should be considered ipso facto notable. (If the guidelines don't provide this notability, the policies should be revised.) Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 11:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Murtaza.aliakbar, He's the son of the head, but he's not actually the head, is he? Ravensfire (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravensfire, He's a Prince (Shahzada); besides, he does head multiple religious / temporal departments within the Dawat like the other Shahzadas. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Murtaza.aliakbar so not the head at all, thank you. The dearth of secondary sources shows that's a very questionable argument to be making for notability. I'm getting the feel of a walled-garden here. Ravensfire (talk) 13:06, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ravensfire, so not the head at all What does head here mean to you? Does a Archbishop of Canterbury sound like a head to you? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"is the senior bishop and principal leader of the Church of England," show me the same thing in this article. From what I can tell, that would be the Da'i al-Mutlaq. Again, that would be his father, not him. Notability is not tranferrable, so looking at *this* article and at the sources, where is WP:GNG met? What are the top three sources that are independant of the [Dawoodi Bohras]], are a reliable source and focus on Badruddin? Ravensfire (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravensfire: From what I can tell, that would be the Da'i al-Mutlaq. Yes, The Hnbl. Archbishop would be equivalent to the Da'i al-Mutlaq, the Da'i's representative would be equal to Bishops of various Anglican Communions, and so: WP:BISHOP may apply. Notability is not inherited but that isn't the claim being made, since Badruddin heads a number of temporal and religious institutions including representing the Da'i al-Mutlaq in England [14]. The issue here is unearthing sources which are unlikely to be online and would invariably be found in first-party sources like Badre Muneer, Misbah, Aljamea-tus-Saifiyah, Alvazaratus Saifiyah and the like. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 01:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're looking for WP:CLERGY which calls out that bishops (or second tier leaders) in major faiths generally pass AFD's, but the faiths listed are substantially larger than Dawoodi Bohras, 50 million+ members in the faiths listed. In large part, that from in faiths that large being a bishop (or equivalent) does generally have coverage in secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 10:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above Sherenk1 (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Going through the discussion, it seems like the person is in a notable enough position to normally pass something like WP:BISHOP. Yet unfortunately also going by the discussions and the comments made by Murtaza.aliakbar, for instance the sources about him are "unlikely to be online and would invariably be found in first-party sources", he seems to fail WP:GNG. Also, I think the key word in that sentence is "unlikely." Which to me means "maybe" as in "maybe the sources aren't online", but more then likely online sources just can't be found because the person isn't notable. Not just because notable Islamic figures aren't discussed on the internet as the comment implies. Even if that were true though, there would still likely be references online to print content about him if he was notable. Which there doesn't seem to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:17, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whoa, time out here: WP:BISHOP isn't a notability criterion. It's a naming convention, which furthermore applies strictly to the use of such titles in article names for Western Christian bishops. (I would have liked to think that people would read the links before citing them.) As WP:CLERGY states, however, those with elevated church titles outside of "major denominations" -- the criterion citing the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican faiths, each with worshipers in the tens of millions -- do not presumptively qualify, and rest upon the GNG. That is not met here. Ravenswing 16:56, 24 August 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. $Salvio$ 10:10, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morphogenesis (company)[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP. The coverage it has managed to receive is not significant. Notability tags were placed since 2016. - hako9 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:53, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I agree that the sources currently being used are not the best, but I've found reliable, independent coverage (non-PR type) in trustworthy newspapers or websites such as Livemint (a profile celebrating 20 years of the pratice); Indian Express (again, in-depth); The Hindu (which says it "became the first Indian firm to win at the World Architecture Festival 'the Oscars for architecture'" in 2009 and for eight consecutive years was chosen for the World Architecture 100 list); Architectural Digest story on their sustainable design practice; this article on Yale Climate Connections that says "One building that has gained international attention for its application of traditional Indian cooling strategies is Morphogenesis’s Pearl Academy of Fashion". They might not be currently cited in the article, but I'm easily able to find ample third-party reliable sources. Best, MaysinFourty (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

16:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I no longer feel completely convinced about this nomination. The piece in Architectural Digest and Yale Climate Connection are maybe enough to warrant a keep. The Hindu, Indian Express, and LiveMint definitely fail WP:ORGIND when you exclude all the direct quotations from the founders. I feel it's best to just keep this open instead of me withdrawing my nomination. Some perspective is needed whether we need 3 articles. Both founders Manit Rastogi and Sonali Rastogi have standalone articles. Sonali Rastogi definitely doesn't pass GNG if you you do a WP:BEFORE. Questionable individual notability for Manit Rastogi too. Maybe we can merge both those articles into the company's article. - hako9 (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hako9, same thoughts went through my mind - whether we need all three when they're so closely inter-related, nay, synonymous? I agree that getting the two architects under the company article might be a good call, but I'm not an expert in this area. For ex, Norman Foster has his own page along with his firm Foster and Partners. But, then, he is THE Norman Foster and both, him and his firm, are quite big names today. The best option for now seems to be to subsume the architects under the company article. Also, this should be renamed Morphogenesis Architects as is common practice for firms. Best, MaysinFourty (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above to Merge 3 articles into one. All three articles rely on pretty much the same sources to establish notability. We've had discussions in the past about firms that are closely related to the professional work of the founders with no resolution. I agree the articles should be merged, probably to here and with a rename as suggested to Morphogenesis Architects. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Parzybok[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 12:29, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets NAUTHOR per the reviews for Couch in the LAtimes, Publishers Weekly, the L Magazine, the profile in the Oregonian, and for Sherwood nation in electric literature, Locus magazine and Kirkus, and publishers weekly. PainProf (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a close call. Seems to be ordinary set of non-substantial mentions related to the debut novel. Carrite (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In fact, the subject does not meet WP:AUTHOR. It is a complete misnomer that one's work/s being reviewed meets AUTHORC#3. It is that one's works receiving multiple reviews in reliable sources is a prerequisite to meeting C#3. Ravenswing 16:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR#3 The LA Times, the Oregonian. The subject passed our notability guidelines. Wm335td (talk) 19:42, 24 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ogan Aydın[edit]

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

The subject is not notable and does not satisfy the criteria that we have for articles on singers. The article reads like an autobiography. His songs haven't charted on any national lists, and I cannot find any secondary sources about his work. The page rights now relies only on primary sources. Combining these factors together, I believe that the article has to be deleted. Keivan.f^Talk 16:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find sources. Also, most of his songs on YouTube have 400,000 views, which in a country like Turkey isn't much. ~Styyx ^{Talk? ^-^} 14:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google just returns the usual trash sites like facebook, Discogs, Amazon, SoundCloud, Apple Music, YouTube and the like. The Allmusic page is blank. When will people get used to the fact that just because they are present on social media and streaming service pages, and their albums can be bought online, does not grant them notability? It seems like they never will. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources and no evidence of touring or charting. We've deleted YouTubers with 8 million views. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 20 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Public Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. The Banner talk 16:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 16:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Only sources are listings. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:16, 21 August 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bow Tie Cigar Company[edit]

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

Content made for Advertising, marketing, or public relations purposes. WP:PROMO, WP:ADMASQ. Hence, calling for a AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Even assuming this is not spam (which I don't concede), this private company has literally been on a local Fox News segment once. That's it. There's no evidence of a cult following on Facebook (193 likes) or Twitter (zero hits). Bearian (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of significant coverage, and fails GNG. JohnmgKing (talk) 07:07, 21 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Roth[edit]

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

No evidence of notability WP:GNG - hako9 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 16:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete current source, an interview, contributes little to notability and searching found nothing helpful. Happy to reconsider if better sources are found. Gab4gab (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only source is an interview in the local newspaper. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and the GNG. Java Hurricane 04:16, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:MILL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT. There's nothing in the article, beyond a bare claim that he's done anything notable. A search online revealed lots of similarly-named individuals, but not him. The only source is a local newspaper Q + A. The creator is an SPA who's only created this and edited a local HS (his alma mater), leading me to think she's a friend, relative, partner, or employee of the subject. This is fairly clearly spam for his business. In 2008, we could have excused it, but in 2020, everybody know that we are not a web host or social media spot. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO, really hard to find any sources on this subject. EverybodyEdits (talk) 05:34, 22 August 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 Bally Manufacturing#Developed by Midway. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus Canyon[edit]

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

Non-notable pinball machine. Of the sources in the article, pinside and ipmd are user-generated, pinballrebel is a sales site, and planetary pinball looks like just a reprint of marketing materials. A WP:BEFORE search brings up principally more user-generated crap, sales sites, and a few web forums. No way this is notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bally. Searchable term, and no reason not to include a verified list of tables on that page. Just don't need a standalone page. --Masem (t) 16:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bally Manufacturing#Developed by Midway, where it is already listed. Rorshacma (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bally Manufacturing#Developed by Midway, per Masem and nom. Fails GNG on its own, but suitable search term and is included in verifiable list. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 22 August 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 George R. Brown Convention Center. Tone 11:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marriott Marquis Houston[edit]

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

This hotel is not any more notable than any other hotel and fails WP:NBUILD. The article is mostly advertising language. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 15:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to George R. Brown Convention Center per WP:CHEAP. The hotel itself doesn't appear to meet WP:NBUILD, but it is discussed there, and the fact that the two structures are connected makes that redirect target reasonable. While some of the language at the suggested target article could be more encyclopedic, the sources here could be of value in such cleanup. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:33, 17 August 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. Tone 08:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nanning Marriott[edit]

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

This hotel is not any more notable than any other hotel and fails WP:NBUILD. The article is mostly advertising language. Wikiwriter700 (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and if this Marriott location were the actual venue of the China–ASEAN Expo, it would have some case for notability, but it is not. The "Environs" section is about the regional capital, not the hotel, and so is a clear no-no. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 15:38, 16 August 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. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reddot550[edit]

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

non notable rapper, fails WP:NMUSICIAN. The sole reliable sources, like RESPECT are actually not reliable as they do not identify their guest posters (they allow "blog" posts, which is what the sources here are, and not from editorial staff.) Praxidicae (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the RESPECT article was not written by a guest poster. Tiffany Hamilton who authored the article is not a "guest poster" and has several authored articles on RESPECT Magazine. Moreover, RESPECT is a reliable source and they have a Wikipedia page at Respect (magazine) @Praxidicae: Gwalkerone (talk) 17:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, she is a contributing author, not part of the editorial staff. Praxidicae (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have created several wikipedia pages, referenced with sources not by editorial staff. This is the first time I have heard that sources need to be authored by editorial staff. The requirements for referencing a source is that is needs to be from reliable, published sources. Not necessaritly do they need to be authored by editorial staff. @Praxidicae: Gwalkerone (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I agree with Praxidicae subject of our discussion does indeed fail to satisfy WP:SINGER. Celestina007 20:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources satisfy reliability and significant coverage. - hako9 (talk) 17:13, 26 August 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 Best Recipes Ever. I already merged what could be of use. Tone 08:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Best Recipes Ever episodes[edit]

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

Borderline, but I don't think this meets WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. Posslibe ATD is merge/redirect to Best Recipes Ever. Personally I feel it wouldn't add much to that article. Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE This should've been a merge discussion, or just put a redirect to Best Recipes Ever. Dream Focus 18:45, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of value to merge as none of the hundreds or so episodes (especially the six that a featured in the article) have any evidence of notability. Ajf773 (talk) 20:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing of encyclopedic value. Azuredivay (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Best Recipes Ever: It will have a better home here. // Timothy :: talk 03:44, 22 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jovan Milic[edit]

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

this is a borderline hoax with falsely inflated importance and if I had to guess, an autobio. The awards (as per srwiki) are basically tabloid reported. The rest is mostly made up. (Seriously, the Jedi Knight Award?) Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NAUTHOR, etc...the sole claim of notability here, which is dubious, an award from the President of Serbia, is sourced to an unreliable source and I doubt the notability of a service award on it's own.

A search of his name in his native language gives even less in terms of sourcing. Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete this page. When the Corona crisis passes, I will do my best to improve the branches and my work on Wikipedia. Sorry. - Daca 1234 18.58, 16 August 2020 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daca1234 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Corona virus or not the subject falls well short of notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV - and WP:SNOW since he's conceded. It's possible autobiography, certainly a resume, and has done nothing of note to warrant significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This person has been editing for four years, and should know the rues by now that we are not a resume service or LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a defeted candidate who would not be notable even if he had won. His role in science is clearly not at a level to confer notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a creator i agree. He need to do more to be on wikipedia. Sorry for my mistake. I am 4 years here, but im not active all of that years. Again sorry. Daca1234 18.27, 22 August 2020 (CET) —Preceding undated comment added 16:27, 22 August 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 16:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyborg (video game)[edit]

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

The only source is a review in a magazine, and there is clearly no significant coverage. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 14:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 14:17, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found a second review: https://archive.org/details/80-U.S._Volume_VI_Number_01_1983-01_80-Northwest_Publishing_US/page/n79/mode/2up?q=cyborg and there is a note there about the Guinness Book. I will see what else can be found. BOZ (talk) 14:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be mentioned in Byte, and a longer review in Microcomputing. Haven't looked for others yet. --Izno (talk) 15:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Notable achievement, as Bilby just added: It is listed by Guinness World Records as the first cyberpunk video game. And it got reviews so passes the general notability guideline. Dream Focus 15:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reviews to satisfy notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing the rationale for keep now. I'll probably withdrawal if the Keeps continue to come in at this rate. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 16:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two people, at this rate? What?! You know evidence has now been found its notable, then just withdrawal. No sense dragging this out and wasting everyone's time. Dream Focus 16:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if I offended you. I'll withdrawal now. BlacknoseDace(say something. I'm lonely!)^{[I'm not a reference!]} 16:47, 16 August 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. Tone 08:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poesybeat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM. Only "WP:SIGCOV" is in a self-published book [15]. Refs are specious. First nom was in 2005, so I think this deserves fresh consideration. Related AfD ended in delete. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not uninteresting, and could probably support a Wiktionary entry if anyone were minded to make one, but clearly non-notable. The only reliable source cited in the article devotes a single short paragraph to the subject. I haven't been able to find any other coverage in reliable sources. The keep !votes in 2005 AfD lack a basis in policy, even by the standards of the time. (The self-published book linked above probably wouldn't contribute to notability even if it weren't self-published, as its coverage of the subject seems to be directly copied from our article.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:54, 22 August 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. Tone 08:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ollie Sloan[edit]

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

Delete Musician that fails WP:MUSIC. I can't find any singles or albums that placed in the charts or any wider significant impact (e.g. YouTube views). Also much of the article content appears to be copy/pasted from the muscian's website, so there is probably a conflict of interest as well. Although his songs may have appeared in TV dramas and featured on national radio, that doesn't appear to be notable either by some significant subsequent impact. Seaweed (talk) 13:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt it per WP:SPAM, WP:MILL, and WP:NOT. There are unsourced statements that can't be verified that are bollocks; for example: "He is also well known on several social media sites such as YouTube, ... and Twitter." He has 15 videos on YouTube, less than a quarter of my partner's cooking show. He has 1,600 followers, less than half of what I have, on Twitter. He has zero followers on Facebook. The sourcing is terrible. In 2020 everybody knows we are not MySpace. This page is an insult to working musicians. Salt it with a vengeance. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 21 August 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble in the Tunnel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Second nomination of this article, the first reached no consensus. Per the discussion on the talk page, the match is not notable enough to have a standalone page. The match is remembered for what happened in the tunnel, but Roy Keane and Patrick Vieira have had previous confrontations pre-match as seen in the talk page. Furthermore, the match is not known as 'Trouble in the Tunnel', this is WP:RECENTISM. Pizzagate and Battle of Old Trafford were notable because of events that happened on the pitch and the consequences to both teams' seasons. This 2005 game is not significant enough to have a standalone article, but by all means have it fleshed out in the rivalry page. Footballistically (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Many people in the previous discussion believed that this subject had sufficient coverage to warrant an article based on the sources provided; however, those sources mostly referred to the match from the previous year, not this one. This match is only remembered for the incident in the tunnel beforehand, not any of the action that happened on the pitch (nothing more than routine coverage of any Premier League match), so the incident should be mentioned on Roy Keane and Patrick Vieira's articles and that's it. – Pee Jay 13:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the last AFD. Giant Snowman 15:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't warrant its own article Spiderone 11:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 11:01, 18 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On Genetic Interests[edit]

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

This obscure book written by an avowed Neo-Nazi seems to have flown mostly under the radar. WP:BK, it seems to me, is not satisfied by the single critique and the two paens written by comrades-in-arms and either self-published or published in obscure neo-Nazi outfits. jps (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Salter, AfD for the author of the book. jps (talk) 13:16, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to say that I don't think that an author who might be considered "an avowed Neo-nazi" means an article is inherently notable or non-notable. However I don't know enough about this area to know whether this book is notable or not. Seaweed (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue, as I see it, seems to be that the creation of this page was made to promote such beliefs. jps (talk) 14:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and entirely rewrite) per WP:NBOOK. Reviewed in Twin Research and Human Genetics [16]; substantively discussed—by controversial psychologist J. Philippe Rushton, who taught at the University of Western Ontario so cannot be dismissed as a total kook—in Nations and Nationalism [17] (article notes that Salter commented on a draft, but as the journal is peer-reviewed I'm not sure that's relevant); critiqued by Kenan Malik in [18]. Article's a mess, but the subject is notable. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning delete. Having been schooled in my credulousness by ජපස and XOR'easter (which I very much appreciate, btw!), I'm now quite undecided. As it now stands, the article features two pieces of critical commentary from apparently legit sources—Kenan Malik and Catherine Nash. Most charitably interpreted, that passes WP:NBOOK. Less charitably interpreted, it doesn't: the mention in Nash's book is only in a footnote, although it's a long footnote. In addition, the book has received some attention from fringe scholars and outright Nazis. That does not confer notability, but I don't think it's outright irrelevant. The Bell Curve, for instance, is also a widely discredited book that (I assume) has received lots of favorable attention from fringies and white supremacists—and, imv, is almost certainly notable. So I'm not sure quite what to think, but I'm trending delete now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, I'm not quite sure this is a WP:FRINGE book or one to which NONAZI applies. It was originally published by Transaction Publishers and then republished by Routledge, a reputable academic publisher (ISBN 9781351502146). Might be a controversialist work—as are many in evolutionary psychology—but I am not convinced it's a white supremacist book. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you seen what the University of Western Ontario says about Rushton? They seem like they'd be pretty happy with our dismissing him.... XOR'easter (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~@XOR'easter: Just struck that per your note. Not striking my vote, though—I think the refs I've added establish notability. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Glad you think Rushton may not be on the up-and-up. Perhaps you'd like to consider whether the review by the late Hiram Caton deserves consideration from Wikipedia considering his extreme WP:FRINGE viewpoint? jps (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaving aside the issues of WP:DENY and WP:NOFASH, a more fundamental problem is that the references are all either unverifiable or are self-published. No significant coverage, even within the academic sphere, appears to exist. This looks like an academic's attempt to popularize their work which had little, if any, traction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability case is dubious at best (for an analogy: Michael Behe works at a university, but if he wrote a glowing review of a creationist book, it would still be support from within the creationist bubble). Even if there were an argument for notability, WP:TNT would apply. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:NOT. We are not a web host for every fringe theory and book that hasn't garnered any real attention outside of the insiders. FWIW, I teach middle school genetics and have never heard of this book. Bearian (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, fringe per Bearian PainProf (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The book did receive a couple of reviews (negative), but it does not make it notable. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jones Morgan[edit]

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

Almost no independent coverage of this man, basically got a small amount of attention for what's almost certainly a fraudulent claim of military service. One obituary and a few random list entries aren't anywhere near enough for a full article, and there's no chance of this ever being expanded. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the reliably-sourced information to Spanish–American War (all the sources are unreliable or primary except the piece in the Kentucky New Era). A sentence added to the third-to-last para of the Aftermath section should do it (it also mentions another supposed last surviving veteran). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Poorly sourced and "last surviving X" isn't notable, particularly as untrue here. Mztourist (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The unverifiability of his claim is irrelevant as in American history there is a long tradition of elderly men claiming to be the last survivor to obtain pensions, for example Walter Williams (centenarian). In the last years of his life Morgan's claim was publicized, investigated, and the Associated Press carried his story nationally on multiple occasions: November 1990, January 1991, July 1992, AP obituary, Reuters obituary. This national coverage clears the GNG bar and is still relevant because notability is not temporary. Also covered in the Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America and a February 1993 article in USN magazine All Hands. There is ample sustained coverage of him in the Richmond Times-Dispatch going back to the 1980s, going so far as to comment on him fending off a burglar, where he voted one year, birthdays, and meetings with government and military figures. Kges1901 (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage in the Encyclopedia of the Veteran in America demonstrates that the subject is notable. Whether the article can be expanded or not is unimportant and certainly not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by UGAWOOD2020 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an odd case of WP:1E, his event was living long enough to make an unverifiable claim and gain some fame from it. He fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, but has enough "coverage" to warrant a mention in Spanish American war. // Timothy :: talk 01:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spanish–American War. Don't see any significant coverage. Nomian (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

13:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I'd say merge if there was anything noticeable to add to Spanish–American War, but as there isn't (go on, what would we write? 'Papers report that a soldier went home and lived happily for years thereafter' - hardly) and as there's no real story here, delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The veracity of the subject's claim of military service has no bearing on whether or not he's notable. The level and depth of sources do, and, as demonstrated by Kges1901 above, and there's enough here to satisfy SIGCOV. schetm (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Delete but certainly don't merge anything to Spanish-American War -- it would be WP:UNDUE to even mention him there. The coverage seems weak but without newspaper access it's hard to tell. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:09, 23 August 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 WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable prospect for deletion at this time, and well-supported case for notability based on sufficient coverage in reliable sources. BD2412 T 22:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Trump[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Robert is not a notable member of the Trump family. The only reason people know he exists now is from his death announced by Donald. None of the sources show any coverage that meet GNG or the appropriate SNG (BIO in this case). Masem (t) 13:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Masem (t) 13:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family_of_Donald_Trump#Robert_Trump, as it used to be, per nominator. --Tone 13:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As usual, people are misinterpreting WP:NOTINHERITED. Robert Trump did not need to have done anything of note in his own right. The real question is if there is in-depth specific and detailed coverage of him by reliable sources. There is plenty of that. There are obituaries in many newspapers, like this one in NYT [19], which specifically covers the life of Robert Trump, as separate from Donald. In addition, there was Robert Trump's lawusuit against the publication of Mary Trump's book that received a lot of coverage in June-July. That is also new compared to 2017. Plenty enough here to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally, cover of an event like a trial does not necessarily make a person notable per WP:BLP1E. There has to be more about that. The fact that we're only getting coverage with obits is a bit worrisome showing that there was little notability before his death and only because his connection to Donald is he getting more attention now. --Masem (t) 14:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concerning how? Notability is significant coverage. The theory he is only getting coverage because of who he is may or may not be true, but there are no policies or guidelines that say people who receive significant coverage must also be accomplished (arguably he is anyway), or are not allowed to have a famous relative (or infamous), when there are reliable sources. -- GreenC 19:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person's notability stems from a widely-notable person relative to him as is the case with this article (e.g. US President). --CaeserKaiser (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Plenty of media coverage about him. This is Paul (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's the brother of the most powerful person on Earth, FFS. Wjfox2005 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an argument we flat out reject per WP:NOTINHERITED --Masem (t) 14:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on now! I !voted to keep, but the reason you give is exactly what WP:NOTINHERITED specifically excludes: Merely being related to someone famous (even the most bigliest very famosest person of them all) is not a valid reason for keeping the article. The question is if significant specific and detailed coverage of him exists. You'd have to provide a better rationale than being "the brother of the most powerful person on Earth". Nsk92 (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest speedy close. WP:RS in the target article indicate notability before the death. --LaserLegs (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOTINHERITED and Tone. What sources there are would not exist if not for his brother being the US President, and even the obits discuss him in relation to his family. The fact he filed a lawsuit does not establish notability for him personally, as it all had to do with the Trump family. I don't believe the sources establish him as notable on his own. The information on Family of Donald Trump seems sufficient. Rhino131 (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons those sources exists are immaterial. The fact that they exist and that they provide specific and detailed coverage is what makes him notable, by definition of notability in terms of WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the sources do not establish him as notable outside of his family, so that a separate article is not warranted outside of Family of Donald Trump. Rhino131 (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lot of media coverage, also was influential in the Trump Organization Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. He wasn't notable enough to have an article before he died, coverage of his death doesn't override WP:NOTINHERITED or WP:BLP1E. Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and suggest speedy close per LaserLegs. --Patriccck (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments given by Nsk92. Andysmith248 (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Those that want to keep, please show demonstration of sources before his death that show in-depth/significant coverage of him. The lawsuit is not detailed coverage him but just an event he was involved with and can be covered in other notable topics. --Masem (t) 15:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Why?? Coverage is coverage, and coverage after death also counts towards notability. There is no artificial division in WP:GNG in notability "before" and "after" death. Nsk92 (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Death, like everything else, is an event in a person's life, and thus WP:BIO1E would apply. Add in the NOTINHERITED factor and unless we can show Robert was significantly notable before death (not just name dropped as part of being in a company or the like), which nothing added to the article since the nomination has expanded on, this is not appropriate for a standalone. Redirection to the Trump family page is fine where the core details can be added. --Masem (t) 18:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He doesn't appear to be notable. I couldn't find any articles of his notability before his death other than some about how he's been sick and hospitalized in the past, that he was employed by Donald Trump's company and was retired, and more recently that he tried to stop the publication of a family member's book. Two Bananas (talk) 15:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTINHERITED, nearly ever single source that I looked at is about Donald Trump and then mentions his brother as an after thought. Inter&anthro (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While he wasn't known by the public, this Wikipedia page existed before he passed away, meaning many sources had written about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M. Martinez 2020 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true, it's been a redirect for the last three years, since the previous AfD. P-K3 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep whilst it is not well known before his death, this article about him was existed before, many reliable source found in that. 182.1.235.54 (talk) 15:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it was a redirect. P-K3 (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E as well as WP:RECENTISM. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as before. Nothing worthwhile to say about him that can't be done in the Family of Donald Trump article. P-K3 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot of media coverage about him. Telescopegenius (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator or redirect as before. The article was a stub from February 11, 2017, until the redirect on April 8, 2017. His "notability" is based on these events: he got divorced on the NY society gossip pages in 2007, his niece wrote a book about his brother D. Trump who was president at the time, and he died on August 15, 2020, while his brother was president. On August 16, 2020, editors started copying text from obituaries and parts of D. Trump’s bio. The obits in several of the sources also didn’t manage to separate R. Trump’s bio from D. Trump’s. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, wow it the first time I remember both recently died and deletion happened simultaneously. TDS much? Whatever, I visted this page like 3 days ago and also if you will see his wife is a popular Google query. So... 91.78.221.238 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC) — 91.78.221.238 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

^ WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a strong argument. KidAd (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I had heard of Robert Trump long before his brother became the President. He was well-known enough in the 1990s that he could be mentioned in lists of socialites without needing to be identified and without reference to his brother Donald (see [20], [21]). As a second choice, redirect as before. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (edit conflict x1) - Both sides have valid points, but I think he had enough reasonable coverage before his death to qualify. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notability is evident: just read the article. Dan the Animator 18:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. KidAd (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. Subject notable enough for an article. Death is all over the news, career and personal life aspects notable enough for an article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 18:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family of Donald Trump as I said in the previous AFD, family affiliations on their own don't make one notable enough for a separate article. WP:BIOFAMILY still applies here. The trial isn't enough for him to warrant his own page, and neither are obituaries as those are routine coverage for when people die. At most, the former amounts to WP:BIO1E. Most citations outside of these matters that do discuss Robert tend to be more about his Presidential brother Donald. Was this guy noted for much of his own merit that doesn't have to do with family? The answer last AFD was no and that hasn't changed for this one. Wikipedia also shouldn't become Trump-o-pedia by having so many articles on Donald's family and other related matters when not all of them are article-worthy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep tons of coverage in newspapers and books over an extended period. See WP:BEFORE. -- GreenC 19:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As usual WP:NOTINHERETED is misinterpreted and misapplied. The essay concerns "arguments to avoid during AfD discussions". Almost no one is making the argument to keep simply because he is Donald Trump's brother. If my vote said "Keep because he is the President's brother", then yes, that is what WP:NOTINHERETED is referring to. But no one is doing that, and rarely do. The essay is based on WP:NRVE, which requires verifiable sources. -- GreenC 19:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs to be improved sure, but it's not so mangled that it needs to be deleted. Subject meets all criteria for having an article. Even if Donald wasn't president, he'll still deserve it. LéKashmiriSocialiste (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Also, WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E don't apply here. WP:NOTINHERITED specifically says that people known solely for having a relationship with someone famous can be notable if they pass WP:GNG. So, determining if he has enough significant coverage in reliable sources is what matters - period - not a Wikipedia essay about how to have a productive AfD discussion.
And WP:BLP1E is about one event - saying the Mary Trump book court case is "one event" would ignore that he got significant coverage during many events - a questionable government contract,[22] during Donald's presidency in general (in which he receives the most significant coverage)[23][24][25], work on the Taj Majal casino,[26] his death (which give detailed biographies, not just the date and who he was),[27] and in general.[28] I can likely find more on newspaper websites if this is somehow not enough. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: article has enough sources from before his death to pass GNG on its own. Nixinova T C 20:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTINHERITED is neither a policy nor a guidelines, but for those who want to cite it as reason to delete, do please note that it states: The fact of having a famous relative is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article. Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. There is evidently enough coverage around the world of this person to pass WP:GNG with ease. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That WP:NOTINHERITED is neither a policy nor a guideline rings kind of hollow considering that WP:INVALIDBIO is a guideline and makes the same point (That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability. However, person A may be included in the related article on B. For example, Jason Allen Alexander is included in the article on Britney Spears and the page Jason Allen Alexander merely redirects to that article.). TompaDompa (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm counting 22 Keeps, 5 Redirects, and 5 Deletes. I think there is a consensus to Keep this page. Dan the Animator 21:50, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an election. Votes are evaluated by arguments and policy, and many of the Keeps! are weak in those areas. KidAd (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KidAd, the number of keeps overwhelm the number of deletes or redirects, which means deleting this would result in many unhappy editors and someone would retrieve the deleted article. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember Wikipedia:NOTAVOTE. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable prior to his death due to his work with the Trump organization and his lawsuit regarding Mary L. Trump. Passes GNG.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given this is time sensitive for ITN, I've submitted this nom for an RfC [29] --LaserLegs (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to close. The 20+ keeps overwhelm the 6 or 7 redirects and 5 or 6 deletes. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:18, 16 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in Nigeria[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:LISTN. Not a notable topic, no coverage to show this and no suitable ATD - has sat in CAT:NN for 9 years. For those interested, see WP:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Egypt. Boleyn (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this one: List of largest shopping malls in Nigeria too. Generally shopping malls are non notable with an area less than 100,000m2 - I can't see many of the blue linked entries passing WP:GNG. I support a merge as per my argument in the malls of Egypt AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, user:Ajf773, I'd missed that one. Merge sounds like a good option. Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Don't need an article for very few names. Bvatsal61 (talk) 09:28, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We should merge the list of largest malls into this one as the title of the page in question is more consistent with wht we have for all other countries such as List of shopping malls in Albania; List of shopping malls in Argentina; List of shopping malls in Austria; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Andrew Davidson we should keep it just tag it that it need improvement if i have time i can help you with all those issues. Editors are available.Keep. view,Tbiw (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge List of largest shopping malls in Nigeria into this. This is a reasonable topic for a stand-alone list; the only other option would be to merge to a List of shopping malls in Africa, which would probably be too long if it existed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:49, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That idea was discussed in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in Egypt. Wouldn't be that long. Ajf773 (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seems like we have a lot of country-specific articles with few notable examples. Wonder if there's something to be said for merging them into continent-based lists, spinning out any with unusually large lists... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I think that's probably the best way to handle these articles. Reyk _YO! 06:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful list which aides our readers per WP:LISTN. Lightburst (talk) 17:28, 24 August 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. Tone 08:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Young Global Leaders[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Listcruft. Not a hugely notable group, but has its own article at Young Global Leaders, and an alternative to deletion is a redirect to Young Global Leaders#Alumni - I would say it is too long to consider a merge/redirect. Worth listing at their own website but not a WP article. 2011 AfD was no consensus; it has sat in CAT:NN for over 6 years. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are more than 100 new Young Global Leaders each year, so this list will become even more unmanageable as time goes on. Even if only the notable inductees that have their own WP articles are included, the list is too long. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to instead create a category for the members of this group. --Alan Islas (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all the cited sources are from the organization's own web site or the web site of its parent organization, the World Economic Forum. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AmbaCoin[edit]

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

notability per GNG not established. The only reputable source Le Monde only covers it with a single article with almost no citable information. Ysangkok (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater@ 00:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Delete Not quite enough sources to lend notability. Seems it was picked up by a few outlets for gag value. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)~~ Changed to keep. If others are fine iwht the amount of sources as liste dbelow, then i dont view my reasons as a particularily strong reason for deletion. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 14:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure why the nominator would say Le Monde is the only reliable source covering the subject. In addition to the coverage from Le Monde, my search reveals significant coverage from Al Jazeera, BBC, AFP and Quartz, to name a few. Al Jazeera, BBC, and AFP are generally reliable (see WP:NPPSG), same goes (to a lesser extent) for Quartz (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_301#Quartz) --Dps04 (talk) 08:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non notable Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 13:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking over the links Dps04 presented, while the similarity of the language in the articles hovers around ONEEVENT territory, the coverage is solid enough to meet the GNG. Just went trolling for sources myself, and I found four reliable news sources discussing this dated this year, so we can't say the coverage is ephemeral. Ravenswing 12:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some good argument made to keep, let's see some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 12:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Dps04. I've yet to see any actual argument made from the delete side apart from L3X1's concern about the lack of sourcing. But the BBC, Le Monde, Al Jazeera and AFP articles alone meet WP:GNG as Ravenswing stated. Wampagranule (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject has received independent media coverage in RS. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:16, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some very good sources have been presented here in this AfD. Wm335td (talk) 19:23, 22 August 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. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy Group[edit]

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

It is a Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. The creator of this page is particularly involved in creating and editing multiple non-notable wiki pages for this real estate company's properties. Few of them deleted via Afd route and few of them being nominated recently. Due diligence required at all cost.- Hatchens (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pages under Afd Discussion- Embassy GolfLinks Business Park (2nd nomination) and Embassy TechVillage | Pages which has been deleted (via AfD route) - Embassy TechZone.-Hatchens (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can find passing mentions in news stories, but no independent significant coverage that establishes its notability. MaysinFourty (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided/Abstain: Changing my vote to abstain following the links provided below. Not Keep, because it still seems to me that their notability is linked to the number of projects. All those links are about their hotel projects/housing business or commercial/industrial parks (can those announcements be counted towards significant coverage for the group that proves its notability (apart from the fact that it has a ton of cash)? - I simply don't know). Does the fact that they have built many things (private, not major public buildings/monuments) make them notable for Wiki? I assumed not, but now I'm honestly confused, so will gladly retreat and let someone more experienced, and au fait with precedents, in this area pitch in. Regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Purely from a notability standpoint, this subject seems notable and meets notability requirements around a) independent coverage, b) coverage in reliable sources, and c) significant coverage. I did a quick search in some of the top financial newspapers in India, and have found sufficient material to say that this is clearly a notable topic and does not fail WP:GNG. Subset of my observations are below. The group seems to be a significantly large real estate group in India, with presence in the hospitality space, and has listed the real estate portions of its business as REIT in the Indian capital markets. There is for sure PR material out there, but, can be separated to see coverage for a publicly listed firm / gruop.

However, there seems to be a good amount of quality issues with the page, and this should be tagged as such and feedback provided to improve those segments. Good luck.


Publication	Coverage	Sample Coverage	Topic Link (Additional Reading)
LiveMint	Independent + Reliable + Significant	[30][31][32]	[33]
The Economic Times	Independent + Reliable + Significant	[34][35][36]	[37]
The Hindu Business Line	Independent + Reliable + Significant	[38] [39]

Ktin (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ktin (talk · contribs), looks like a notably large real estate & property mgmt co. II | (t - c) 12:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ktin's table. (Ktin: hope you don't mind: I linked the publications listed there). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AleatoryPonderings. Works perfect. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 18:23, 23 August 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. Cabayi (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy GolfLinks Business Park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

It is a Straightaway PR/Advertising WP: PROMO. Purely a promotional article. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page created by the same ID who has also made the following wiki page; , Embassy TechVillage (Also nominated for the AfD). And, also note, the last massive edit was done by an ID: Similar2me who has been recently indicted and banned for sockpuppetry. -Hatchens (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MaysinFourty (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater@ 20:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 17 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Burgess (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

I'm not at all convinced that this article meets notability criteria. This page and Gojimo have both been substansively written only by a single special-interest user with few other edits. There are a large number of articles sourced for each but I'm not sure that they actually prove notability in this case; I think the notable content is effectively covered in the Gojimo article. TorriderChimp (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears to be a very promotional article --Devokewater@ 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree with this, but my understanding is that the (absolutely existent) problems with the tone of the article don't necessarily have a bearing on whether or not the article should be deleted. To be honest I strongly suspect that the article was written by the subject himself. TorriderChimp (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, the sources don't seem all that great, I think quite a few are Twitter. May be WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:GNG fail. I've found more often than not, articles with the disambiguation "entrepreneur" generally tend to be pr pieces. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:19, 22 August 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 07:44, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rotsachtige kust van Zuid-Java met de grotten van Karang Bolong[edit]

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

None of the sources mention this painting. Van der Does' work appears at auctions occasionally, with estimates ranging from €700 to €2000. This particular work was, and is again, in a private collection. It has no exhibition history, and has not been written about (except here). Vexations (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your consideration! :), you are correct that perhaps Van der Does is maybe not even close to such artist like Rembrandt, and his works do appeared at certain times (but not many, around only 8-12 pieces every year (publicly known auctions)). I would like to make a statement that I do not make this page as a "promotional" matter, rather as a knowledge panel and page for public to understand and learn and perhaps appreciate :). Perhaps in your surroundings, the artist is rather unknown or even unappreciated, but in Asia (Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, ect.) and even in some major countries in Europe (Netherlands, Austria, Germany, ect.), the Artist is highly regarded as one of the masters together with Gerard Pieter Adolfs, Charles Sayers, and other European artists in the (former) East Indies. In therms of his importance in the art market, his works also made a record in the "Mooi Indie" movement genre, which was sold for more than $ 50.000 (In the Asian countries his works are highly in demand with an estimate starting over $ 3.000 and up). I do understand your worries (as you are a senior editor, an expert!) but I do not expect a deletion for this matter, because, again, this is a page that I hope people could appreciate more and more, and perhaps who knows! people could expand and insert further information and could put a smile when seeing it :). In my opinion a page of an artwork or artist should be expanded not being blocked, because it is a "Public place and everyone can contribute, no such person is perfect". I am hoping that you could understand ang give it a chance for it will be shared to the public as a very tiny part of our life's history. Thank you very much for your time and consideration! very much appreciate your thoughts... -- Hendricolucky (talk 11:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, it's not on nl.wikipedia --Devokewater@ 08:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And? Not being on the Wikipedia of the appropriate language is not an indicator of non-notability. Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find sources in a search. the article sources are poor; one of them is an auction house. There are perhaps other AfD candidates in the gallery for Willem Jan Pieter van der Does.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Se also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maanlicht_over_de_Javaanse_rijstvelden ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and greetings! Thank you very much for all of your time in guiding me through this matter... I am a very young editor, a junior of course! who really want to explore and share my research to the public (all of the information in the Wikipedia page all came from my research and conversation with other art authors), I know and realize that this page that I started is not perfect in any ways, but I would like to assure you that every information that I got is very reliable... perhaps only, I could not properly write on Wikipedia what's in my mind :) I also realize that there are one other page in being mentioned. Again it is not perfect, and it is normal for you as a senior editor could be worried (AfD matter), but what I'm really hoping is that perhaps it should be there for anyone to see, not being deleted (I would be much more happy if you could give me a chance and help me to improve it), it is not perfect, but trust me that these article that I already made changed a lot of stories, I saw it with my own eyes that because of this articles and the help of some other editors that helped me, lots of auction houses, collectors, institute, and even museums! have a much bigger interest in the genre and the history, it is a great gap and a great progress!. I am certainly not an expert in the Wikipedia world, but I tried my best in giving others ehat I knew and what I hoped for!, and until now it worked and it changed the views of the art world... Thank you very much for your time and understanding, hope you would give people a chance to express his/hers ideas and knowledge! All my best to you! -- Hendricolucky (talk) 11:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on the artist is another possibility, as long as his notability can be verified by the sourcing. Netherzone (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, None of the sources mention this painting. is both accurate and damning. Search results are Wikipedia mirrors. I don't see enough proof of existence to even justify a redirect to the painter. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:55, 23 August 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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folx[edit]

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

notability per GNG not established, sources are self-published and primary. Ysangkok (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2008-12 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the 3 reference on the page - Reference 1 (as of today) is not a reference at all, it is a page of raw code! References 2 and 3 are primary self published as noted by the nominator, therefore I don't see GNG as being established in this case JW 1961 Talk 13:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any substantial outside coverage that would justify inclusion. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:43, 16 August 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. Nomination Withdrawn. Several valid reference were presented that confirm the subject is notable. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 18:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oshosheni Hiveluah[edit]

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

Non-notable. Fails WP:DIRECTOR scope_creep^Talk 22:57, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think these sources establish notability WP:GNG, WP:NPEOPLE: [40], [41], [42]. WP:BASIC allows for "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The sources point to her meeting criteria #1 in WP:FILMMAKER "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." The sources also point to the multiple awards she has received, WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.". // Timothy :: talk 04:38, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you could be right. There is only one reference that seems to be of sufficient quality, but they are all blowing the same trumpet. I'll wait until I see another keep arrive and withdraw. scope_creep^Talk 06:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it really was the awards that convinced me to consider it a bit further. Hope things are well with you, best wishes. // Timothy :: talk 12:10, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TB's sources and [43] (academic book published by Springer), which has a decent paragraph on her and lists her as just one of a very few directors in Namibia. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is the other Keep arrived. I think I will Withdraw Nomination scope_creep^Talk 18:24, 23 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirna Khayat[edit]

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

This music video producer doesn't seem to be notable. The article hasn't cited any sources since it was created in 2007 and nothing about her comes up in a WP:BEFORE. Except for a single trivial book mention. There are a few sources cited in the Arabic article about here, but they seem to be extremely trivial coverage also. There definitely doesn't seem to be the multiple in-depth reliable sources about her that the article would need to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article is sourced only to the subject's website. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory to web content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An Arabic search shows that there is extensive coverage of her in multiple independent sources over many years. Most of what comes up in a Google book search is magazine articles going back to 2002 in snippet view only, but there’s plenty of other coverage. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 4. Mccapra (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mmm ... as far as Mccapra's sources go, they are all namedrops and casual mentions. The first one is all of three sentences long; the third one namedrops her in a single sentence as praising a children's production. The second is a photo caption, and the fourth is two sentences long. Nothing actually provides significant coverage of the subject. Ravenswing 11:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually ‘mmmmm’ was my first reaction too. I agree there’s not much depth here, but equally, they aren’t just namedrops either. The first three articles are explicitly about her, though brief, or otherwise name her in the headline. It’s not the strongest case I’ve seen for keep, but that’s where I’ve landed with this. Mccapra (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

Salvio

10:48, 16 August 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. WP:HEY applies; article has been expanded massively and there is clear consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:57, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dairy in India[edit]

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

This is a vague article which makes a single, broad, unsubstantiated claim. It fails to meet all elements of WP:SIRS Whiteguru (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Whiteguru (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have articles like Dairy industry in the United States and Dairy industry in Uganda. The topic is likely notable. In this case, it looks like the article creator got lazy and dumped the responsibility on others coming across the article. Should be deleted unless someone undertakes to expand it. - hako9 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Hako9. Important topic, but the article itself is devoid of any information. --RaviC (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep obviously notable topic, though the article is a bit empty at the moment. It needs to be expanded, not deleted. SD0001 (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SD0001 and WP:BEFORE. See Nursing in Pakistan for a similar precedent. It's not unfix-able. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge: There's a Indian dairy products article that should be merged with this article, and the merged article should be at "Dairy in India". There are enough sources to write a good article on dairy in India, since India is the largest dairy producing country. TryKid ^{[dubious – discuss]} 01:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and probably Rename to Dairy industry in India for the sake of consistency. The article may be a measly stub but the subject is certainly notable. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 01:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable subject with plenty of scope for article to be improved. Agree with renaming per Taji Arajakate's suggestion Zindor (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find multiple RS stating that the dairy industry in India is the world's largest. If that's not a claim to notability, I don't know what is. I've also found info on the cultural significance of milk and dairy that extends beyond the merely industrial aspects. Unclear if it's best to put that elsewhere or integrate here. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What a remarkable improvement to the article in a short time. - hako9 (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable topic, strong improvements made solidify it. PainProf (talk) 14:30, 22 August 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Jones[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:GNG, due to a lack of significant independent coverage, and does not meet WP:NFOOTY, having never played in a fully-professional league or a senior international fixture. Prod was removed by the article creator without reasoning, although the issue was raised at my talk page but provided no compelling reason to avoid deletion. Kosack (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Kosack (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Kosack (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:26, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 11:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, he has never played professional football --Devokewater (talk) 23:14, 21 August 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. $Salvio$ 10:14, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coinfloor[edit]

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

notability per WP:GNG not established, Wird and TechCrunch coverage announcing the opening does not pass WP:NCORP, coverage is isolated and limited to opening and funding rounds. Sources like "Interactive Investor" are not reputable. Their blog cannot be sourced, it is primary. Ysangkok (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wired, Sunday Times, and Techcrunch all did indepth articles on this. Easily passes coredepth, even though nothing seems to have happened on the article recently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Wired article is entirely based on information provided by the company with zero "Independent Content" (as per WP:ORGIND). Similar articles (using the same quotes) can be found at this Verdict reference and this The Global Treasurer reference, fails WP:ORGIND. The ST article is similarly based on information provided by the company with zero "Independent Content". Also fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the TechCrunch article is comments on content provided by the company at an invite-only Bitcoin conference, again with zero Independent Content. All three references fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bitcoin is an important subject, this article describes a bitcoin exchange which is a worthy subject for an encyclopedia especially as it's a hot topic.Richwil (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richwil: what is a hot topic? Cryptocurrencies or exchanges? If cryptocurrencies are a hot topic, how does that mean that an exchange automatically also becomes notable? There is no such consensus. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator that articles about it opening are not enough to pass WP:NCORP. Companies open. That's what they do and it's an extremely trivial topic. Whomever is covering it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete
- This article says it has the same security as the Bank of England.
- Second reference is now dead.
- This link is self-referential and self-laudatory:
- A link to the wayback machine to a page which says "To search the Supervised Businesses Register follow the link below" does not make sense.
- HM Revenue and Customs link to Tax Guide to Cryptocurrencies is all very good; pointless as an actual reference for Coinfloor.
- Remaining references are simply about Coinfloor as a startup. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date including the churnalism ones mentioned above fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:40, 17 August 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. Sources have been shown to meet GNG requirements 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Fox (lawyer)[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable lawyer. Passing mentions in news and I haven't found anything that shows any kind of notability that would qualify an encyclopedia article. -- Dane ^talk 21:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Dane ^talk 21:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Additional references Hi, I'm not sure if this subject is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia, but I was researching David Fox for work (not for him or his firm) and I was surprised a page did not already exist. So I put together and created his page. Here are some additional references to consider. Thank you! DesertDana (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references

PROFILES

Li, Victor (28 March 2012). "Fast-Acting Duo". The American Lawyer. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Beck, Susan (May 2013). "All Business". The American Lawyer. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Sikular, Naama (1 March 2012). ""אין כמעט עסקה שדומה לקודמתה. זה לא משחק דמקה שחוזר על עצמו"" [No Deal is Similar to Others]. Calcalist (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv, Israel. Retrieved 10 August 2020.

ARTICLES

Stevenson, David (28 January 2014). "Taking Manhattan – can the Wall Street elite hold out in the age of the $5bn law firm?". Legal Business. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Cillario, Marco; Tidman, Nathalie (27 July 2018). "Global 100: Wrecking ball – Inside Kirkland & Ellis' creative destruction". Legal Business. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Griffiths, Catrin; Byrne, Matt (4 September 2018). "How Kirkland became Big Law's brightest star". The Lawyer. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Kim, Soyoung (10 August 2020). "Kirkland builds leading M&A practice on big hires, deals". Reuters. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Roa, Anat (17 May 2009). "פוקס עוזב את סקאדן לטובת המתחרה" [Earthquake in the legal business in New York]. Calcalist (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv. Retrieved 10 August 2020.</>
Russell-Kraft, Stephanie (24 January 2018). "Kirkland Nabs Cravath Partner For Growing M&A Practice". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Lowe, Zach (3 May 2010). "Kirkland's Skadden Hires Pay Dividends". The Am Law Daily. Retrieved 10 August 2020.

INTERVIEWS

Gerson, Mark (30 April 2005). "S1E7 - David Fox on II Samuel -- "The Rebuke of David"". Podbay. Retrieved 16 August 2020.
Marcus, David (26 June 2020). "Drinks With The Deal: Kirkland's David Fox". The Deal. Retrieved 3 August 2020.

BOARD MEMBERSHIPS

"Gamida Cell Announces Appointment of David Fox to Its Board of Directors" (Press release). Business Wire. Ten Bridge Communications. 7 July 2020. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
"Board of Directors". Gamida Cell. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
"Company Announces Appointments of Samuel Moed and David Fox Chairman Stephen T. Wills Named Executive Chairman" (Press release). Globe Newswire. LifeSci Advisors. 27 April 2020. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
"Board of Directors". MediWound. Retrieved 11 August 2020.
"Board of Directors". Atrium Europe Real Estate. Retrieved 11 August 2020.

WRITTEN BY DAVID FOX

Fox, David (11 September 2012). "Breakup Fees — Picking Your Number". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (14 August 2012). "NDA Use Restrictions — Use With Caution". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (31 May 2012). "Delaware Decisions: Data Points, Not Doctrine". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (15 May 2012). ""Toehold" Stakes in Target Firms". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (29 December 2011). "Forward-Looking Statements – Deal Market Trends for 2012". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (13 September 2011). "A Closer Look at Antitrust Reverse Termination Fees". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (31 July 2011). ""Exclusivity" — Not As Preclusive As It Sounds?". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (26 July 2011). "General Release — Handle with Caution". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (22 May 2011). "A Quick Survey of Recent Developments in Public M&A Deal Terms". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (18 December 2010). "Crossing State Lines — Cautionary Tender Offer Tales". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (28 November 2010). "Test-Driving a Hybrid Go-Shop". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (5 August 2010). "Shaping Up Your Top-Up Option". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (12 June 2010). "Bankers Beware". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (20 March 2010). ""No Mas" to "Just Say No"?". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (13 February 2010). "Earnouts – A Siren Song?". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (24 January 2010). "Letters of Intent — Ties that Bind?". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (28 November 2009). "Deal Protection — One Size Does Not Fit All". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (2 November 2009). "Some Tender Offer Quirks". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.
Fox, David (18 October 2009). "Deal Certainty – The Fallacy of a New Market". Harvard Law School. Retrieved 10 August 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Dana's content box shows a lot of primary refs, but I think there's enough secondary and tertiaries to keep the article. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 08:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. He is mentioned in the NYTimes and other sources upon the move to Kirkland, but the stories are mostly about the law firms. Other than that, the only source in the article is the "Drinks with the Deal" interview, which I don't think is enough for WP:SIGCOV. The other sources listed by DesertDana seem to mostly be either passing mentions, or white papers written by the subject while a law student (with no evidence of impact). ~~Special comment that the two pieces they list in American Lawyer appear to be in special advertising supplements (so failing independence).~~ I'm watching this discussion, and if DesertDana wants to make a WP:THREE case, or if others can make a solid case for WP:GNG or a special notability, then I will change my !vote. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comment about special advertising supplement -- they are listed as such in the search index for americanlawyer-digital.com, but not on the page or at the front of the issue, and I now think this just indicates that the issue contains an advertising supplement. I'm still thinking about the implications for notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Have to agree with Russ Woodroofe that most references are passing, and the only in depth reference is the "Drinks with the Deal" interview. As it stands, it does not meet WP:SIGCOV --Whiteguru (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THREE Thank you for taking the time to review. Following Russ Woodroofe's suggestion, I have listed what I think are the three best sources. (I also think the Calcalist article is quite strong; however, I realize it is not in English--although easily translated via Chrome--and may be overlooked because of that.) Also please note, there is speculation that the The American Lawyer article is from an advertising supplement; I do not believe this is the case. The article cited below is from an "IP Supplement," which refers to "Intellectual Property." DesertDana (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Li, "Fast-Acting Duo," The American Lawyer, 28 March 2012.
Zachery Kouwe, "In Sign of Industry Shift, a Legal Giant Loses 2 Top Partners," The New York Times, 14 May 2009.
David Marcus, "Drinks With The Deal: Kirkland's David Fox," The Deal, 26 June 2020.
Keep per WP:SIGCOV - based on the top three best sources, which name him as a "top lawyer" at two of the largest and most-respected law firms in the United States. In particular, the Times article names him first and is basically about him. Likewise, the American Lawyer article is about him and a major case he handled. The Deal article is also entirely about him. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to Keep. I was mistaken in believing the American Lawyer article to be an advertising supplement (due to confusing search index display). The NYTimes, American Lawyer/Calcalist, and Drinks with the Deal sources cover him at a career transition, after a major case, and as he steps towards winding down his career. The NYTimes source still seems a little glancing to me, but American Lawyer is less so, and Calcalist and Drinks are both substantial. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:00, 17 August 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. Tone 09:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy TechVillage[edit]

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

Purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBUILDING. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Can't find anything reliable MaysinFourty (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per opening nomination, this fails general notability and appears to be purely promotional about a tech park in Bengaluru. Given the page creator's contributions, this appears to be one of many pointless paid contributions. Updates to the page - given the multitude of IP4 and IPv6 addresses - appear to come from employees in the park. The link to the website in the infobox is dead. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional and lacking any independent coverage that is significant. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 02:27, 19 August 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veena Kumaravel[edit]

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

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly tending towards Keep: Oh dear, I'm not defending the current state of the article, which is pure promotion. However, I've managed to find some reliable sources about this person, chief among them being this 2017 Penguin book Millionaire Housewives: From Homemakers to Wealth Creators, which presents 12 case studies on Indian female entrepreneurs. She is one of them. The profile is on page 41 which says "Her true contribution to women's entrepreneurship, however, lies in creating an over 250-crore business empire from scratch....She started off with a single salon and has now over 550 salons spread across the country." Then, here's a feature on her in The Hindu (looks independent and given Hindu's reputation), this Business Standard story is based on the Penguin book. A Deccan Chronicle story here that talks about her journey and a story in the Entrepreneur magazine. Another in-depth feature in Outlook Business. Given the reliable sources (unless I have grossly misidentified something) and her inclusion in a book covering entrepreneurship by a reputed publisher, the subject looks notable to me. Also, given the gender inequality on Wikipedia (more so for South Asian topics), such an article should be encouraged, as it seems to me she has created something of note from absolute zero. But. But. But. Definitely not in the way it looks now -- needs to be drastically pared down to its bones using the highest quality sources, which are available. I would start with the Penguin book, if I were the editor of the page! (I would have done it myself, but don't have the inclination or the will.) Regards, MaysinFourty (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MaysinFourty, The sources, though reliable and significant, are not independent of the subject when they are interviews. While they can be used as references, they cannot establish the subject's notability per WP:GNG. This seems to be the case in Hindu and DC at least. Ab207 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MaysinFourty. Not sure what Ab207 is referring to wrt to interviews (I see nothing in GNG about interviews), but clearly there's a lot of in-depth coverage discussing her story of business - I glanced at a few of them. II | (t - c) 12:14, 18 August 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. Tone 09:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Henke[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BASIC. He's a run-of-the-mill business exec at some tech companies. Hits are mostly press releases; there's [44], but it's a namedrop. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything better than nominator. Reference 1 (as of now) in the article doesn't mention him at all, Reference 3 is a 404 error, Reference 5 is an interview, the remainder are passing mentions JW 1961 Talk 13:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Search results return only mere mentions of his name. Definitely a WP:ROTM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A clearly non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he had an important position at LinkedIn, which I could verify, but there's not enough coverage in good sources. Ping me if you find anything else. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 21 August 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. Tone 09:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aswathy Sreekanth[edit]

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

Non notable TV person. References: One is 404, others are interviews with her, thus ineligible, or passing mentions

That this is UPE is relevant to this discussion Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 17:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fiddle Faddle 09:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Present in several reliable sources. Do not delete simply because it is a paid article.TamilMirchi (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This person is notable.She has also started acting in a new sitcomUser:Shahoodu (talk) 3:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Delete article I would love to see the article deleted based on poor sourcing and undisclosed paid editing. This article needs a fresh start if subject is really important. Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per User:Sungpeshwe9.Knox490 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist to see if a clearer outcome can be obtained.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 03:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a non-notable television personality. Page creator is blocked for undisclosed paid editing. References are insubstantial, and this person has no notable contribution to the community by way of patronage of service projects, charity, nor championing causes related to her audiences. --Whiteguru (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm thinking this might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. EverybodyEdits (talk) 01:32, 23 August 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 Cheating in chess#Historical. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:20, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umakant Sharma[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is clearly WP:1EVENT. While the incident is clearly notable, the person is not. I propose redirecting it to Cheating in chess. The section there covers this incident near verbatim and also provides a much better historical context of cheating in chess and other similar high profile incidents. This article was nominated for AfD in 2007 just a few days after its creation. While there was no consensus, a lot of editors felt the need to delete or merge it. Cheating in chess was essentially created in response to this AfD and this incident. While the article then just basically covered this incident and was a stub, now it has much better content due to other high profile incidents since then. One can also note that nearly all other people with wikilink in that article are notable in their own right: normally by being current or former Grandmasters, while Umakant Sharma never held any title nor is currently even rated. Roller26 (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nominator. Fails GNG.Knox490 (talk) 04:09, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 03:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Target Cheating_in_chess#Historical. There's already a long para on him. Better to redirect there. (Also, someone please maybe trim that para. Wasn't a very high profile case, nor was he ever a high profile player) - hako9 (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cheating in chess#Historical per Hako9. He does have a fairly significant mention on the page but otherwise is a WP:BLP1E. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 09:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above - he is not notable outside of that one incident. P-K3 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per the sugestion by the nomination. EverybodyEdits (talk) 14:56, 20 August 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ridit Nimdia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:1EVENT, and anyways neither becoming youngest rated player nor beating a rated player at the youngest age should count notable.(Especially since FIDE has continually lowered the bar for entry). Also World School Chess Championship is not a proper World age-group or school Championship. It is only held every year in Turkey with people from Turkey, India or Central Asia winning it. One can see in the result page that often below 2000 rated players are 3rd or 4th even in U15 or U17 groups. Also Ridit is now 16 years old, he peaked at a rating of 1729 and is currently rated at 1561. Roller26 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As per nominator. Also, fails GNG.Knox490 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Roller26 (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 07:27, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per common sense, GNG and WP:NCHESS. Mere participation in national/international competitions can never be notable. - hako9 (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per GNG and NCHESS, not a strong enough player to meet the necessary level of coverage for an article. P-K3 (talk) 11:48, 19 August 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. Tone 09:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of pinball machines[edit]

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

This seems like an indiscriminate catalog listing (and WP:NOTCATALOG). I don't see any source that would support such a grouping per WP:LISTN outside the Interned Pinball Database], and using a catalog/database as source is obviously problematic. Lists of all products of a given type are, outside a few cases were LISTN is met, usually not notable. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Piotrus, are you saying that you don't think that pinball machines are ever discussed as a group? I see multiple books on the subject, including The Complete Pinball Book: Collecting the Game and Its History by Marco Rossignoli (2011), Pinball Machines by Heribert Eiden and Jürgen Lukas (1997) The Pinball Compendium: The Electro-Mechanical Era by Michael Shalhoub (2008) and Pinball Wizards: Jackpots, Drains, and the Cult of the Silver Ball by Adam Ruben (2017). — Toughpigs (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Plenty of blue links there, so aids in navigation, and also collects things of a similar type. Some of those machines listed however don't have an article or a notable company with an article. Need to find references for them. Dream Focus 03:29, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per editors above.Knox490 (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but only the ones with articles. The list provides enough additional info to justify its existence. While "unarticled" examples can be kept in lists, that would be excessive here and verge on NOTCATALOG. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all the above. Maybe trim out the non-blue links, but discuss that first on the article's talkpage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agreed with above. Wiki Macaroons^Cinnamon? 09:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This is a bit of a weird list, but I believe pinball machines have enough justified coverage and notability for an article like this to exist. Foxnpichu (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is quite useful --Devokewater@ 20:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Re: LISTN, if Pinball does not demonstrate discussion of pinball machines as a group, what does the nominator think such a discussion would look like? postdlf (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Guys, seriously. A book about pinballs or such is no justification for having a catalogue list of products, just like we don't have List of phones, or List of cars (bad redirect...). This is just an indiscriminate list of foo-type products. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCATALOG is not relevant here. That guideline specifically talks about "pricing or availability information", i.e. using Wikipedia as a sales catalog of currently available items. This is a historical list of pinball machines produced by many different companies over decades; it is not intended for and it does not function as a catalog. — Toughpigs (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think both of those lists could work if they were done right. Foxnpichu (talk) 10:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note we have multiple list of phones. List of best-selling mobile phones List of mobile phone brands by country List of open-source mobile phones List of 3D-enabled mobile phones and others. Plenty of car list also. Dream Focus 15:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We may not have List of cars but we have List of current automobile marques (and within each of those articles, the individual lists of cars associated with those marques. This is similar (at worse, the lists could be broken out to pinball manufacturer). --Masem (t) 03:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clearly this needs to have valid sourcing and/or blue links for all entries. Pinball machines have a significant legacy, and while this list may not be complete due to lack of RS sourcing, we can at least compile what can be confirmed. --Masem (t) 03:22, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just ordered one of the pinball books, so when that arrives I can help with the sourcing. This is why I have too many books cluttering up my house. :) -- Toughpigs (talk) 03:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respect :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think its a valid list per WP:CLN. It's already useful and it can be a building block of much more // Timothy :: talk 03:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://thepenngazette.com/that-roosevelt/

[2] ttps://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/22/kermit-roosevelt-iii-speaks-in-dc-on-japanese-inte/

[3] ttps://zibbyowens.com/transcript/elyssafriedlandkermitroosevelt

[4] ttps://www.cato-unbound.org/contributors/kermit-roosevelt-iii

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]