Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 4 January 6 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mugmon[edit]

Michael Mugmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

First strike: this article reads like a CV. We've got a nice little list of his achievements and some of his publications. The sources provided are all primary and/or non-independent – we have his profile from two different employer websites, an opinion piece by him, an article by him in the San Jose Business Journal, and a trivial mention of his name because he was the editor of the publication being discussed.

A WP:BEFORE search found no better. He is occasionally trivially mentioned by name in articles like this one, but there is no coverage substantially about him.

Being named a "rising star" by a non-notable organization/publication does not indicate lasting encyclopedic notability. Nor does being placed on a dime-a-dozen listicle of "best X under Y age in Z place". Winning a Burton Award is kind of neat, but as a limited-audience award for an extremely limited topic ("clarity in legal writing") it's not such a significant award that it would shove him over WP:ANYBIO on its own. Add to that the fact that his win generated no significant secondary coverage, it's clear that he simply doesn't meet our notability threshold.

Side note: this article is ineligible for PROD as it was PROD'd by an IP in 2017 and de-PROD'd by KrakatoaKatie (courtesy ping). Unclear why the de-PROD was made exactly - the IP PROD'd a run of about a dozen articles in a very short time, so I'm guessing it was more of an objection to the PROD spree than a strong belief in this particular guy's notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Premeditated Chaos: I have no idea why I de-prodded this thing. Clearly not my best day. :-/ But I think you can G5 this as created by a sock of Evidence-based (talk · contribs). Katietalk 01:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • KrakatoaKatie I don't think it qualifies - Evidence-based was blocked Apr 17 2008, this article was created Apr 11, so it's prior to the indef. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ugh, I thought it was the other way around. You mean we can't just make up our own calendar? And rules? Katietalk 02:05, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm not on Arbcom so I'm not allowed to do that anymore :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough significant coverage to establish GNG. Reads like a resume as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails GNG Dartslilly (talk) 16:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG, no signficant independent coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:31, 12 January 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. Closing, the nominator is a sock puppet and it's pretty obvious she's a notable figure given her award nominations etc. Missvain (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhreagh MacNeil[edit]

Bhreagh MacNeil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete: Not a notable actress, winning minor Canadian awards is not the same as notability.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC) nom blocked for sockpuppetry[reply]
  • Keep. Both the Canadian Screen Award nomination and the VFCC award win are major, not "minor", awards which are notability clinchers for an actress; the Atlantic Film Festival less so, admittedly, but that's not her primary notability claim and the other two are most certainly more than enough. The Canadian Screen Award for Best Actress is a top-level national acting award, for which there can be zero people in that list who are somehow off limits for us to have an article about — if her name appears in that list at all, then an article must be unconditionally allowed to exist, and notability questions are automatically off the table forever. In the entire history of that award, there are just four actresses who don't have articles yet — and even that's only because nobody's gotten around to them yet, not because they're somehow not notable in the first place: everybody in that list must be either an existing article or a valid potential article topic, with zero exceptions. And furthermore, the article cites numerous reliable sources — the only one that's even slightly questionable is supporting the weakest notability claim (AFF), while the stronger ones are supported by the Halifax Chronicle Herald and the bloody mothertrucking CBC, so the sourcing is not a problem here. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:13, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: has only had one significant role (as far as I can see), so I don't think she quite meets WP:NACTOR at the moment. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Except that she got nominated for a top-level national acting award for it, and won another notable acting award for it, both of which mean an article must be allowed to exist about her. Notable acting awards are, in and of themselves, notability clinchers for an actor regardless of how many other roles she has or hasn't had. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom. Important to note the nom was blocked for sockpuppetry. ミラP 20:37, 10 January 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. Snowball, significant coverage and yes, Gemma Hickey does matter and is notable. Missvain (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Hickey[edit]

Gemma Hickey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

*Delete: I am trying to understand the rational for Hickey being notable. The first homosexuals to marry in NL do not have Wikipedia articles and they were also engaged in activism. Are we saying that Hickey is notable as a filmmaker?--NL19931993 (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Also Hickey was the head of a national organization but this does not automatically make someone notable. Also doing international travel to promote your organization does not automatically make you notable. Having a local non-profit in a small city, with no staff or major operations, also does not automatically make you notable.--NL19931993 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC) banned sock[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Following my speedy close of the DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 January 10 I am relisting this. Note that the nominator's opinion should be discounted, as they have been banned, but subsequent good faith !votes should be assessed as normal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 10 January 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insight Communications[edit]

Insight Communications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing what makes this pass WP:COMPANY. BEFORE does not show anything that's not a passing mention/press release. Could redirect to list of TWC acquisitions or such, perhaps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Being the 9th largest cable TV operator in the U.S. at the time of acquisition would probably make it reasonably notable. It also operated the major city cable systems in downstate Illinois and some of Indiana and Kentucky; for some reason, some of them went from TCI to AT&T to Insight, then to Comcast in 2007, instead of straight from AT&T to Comcast. (See https://callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com/news/2007/04/04/2463307.htm for an article that originally was from the Peoria Journal Star.) So it's not just a TWC predecessor. It appears that TCI may have owned part of Insight when AT&T bought TCI, so that might have been a factor too. It may take a little digging to get pre-TWC information, since all this cable company consolidation and system swapping was before and during the time that news publications started putting their stories on the web. --Closeapple (talk) 10:21, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect I don't believe the 9th largest of anything imbues notability. NCORP establishes specific guidelines for notability which includes a level of referencing that this article doesn't have, nor seems to be available to it. BIG BURLEY 23:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Burley22. Size has nothing to do with WP:Notability, as evidenced by the AfD for Central 1 Credit Union, which had ~$100 billion in AUA but little press or other reliable, independent source coverage that met WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. As such, it failed WP:NCORP. I'd offer the weakest of support for a "redirect," as I'm not sure it's helpful in this case. This is an ultra-short stub-class article and there is nothing especially intellectually original worth preserving attribution history that isn't already mentioned in parent company articles. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:42, 12 January 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 09:51, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Resources[edit]

Samson Resources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What makes this pass WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY? Curren references (and all other I see) are either mentions in passing or press releases or reprints of such. Prod declined by anon with no useful comment. Could perhaps redirect to company that acquired it few years back (Kohlberg Kravis Roberts). Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:19, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. It's not even wrong that it might be "largest privately held company of crude oil and natural gas" since the lead makes no sense. It's all unverifiable. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kohlberg_Kravis_Roberts#2010_to_present_day, where the company is mentioned. In looking for sources, only its acquisition by KKR and bankruptcy seem to have generated independent press coverage. Both events are mentioned in the indicated KKR article section, and I think that is probably due weight for the independently verifiable material about the company. For verifiable material, alternatives to deletion, such as a redirect to a relevant article, are preferred to deletion per our policy WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 23:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect could be a problem, as the current post-2017 company, Samson Resources II, whose site is linked in the article, appears to be distinct from KKR? (Which still leaves the question as to whether Samson Investment Company, Samson Resources or now Samson Resources II has ever attained notability?) AllyD (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonetheless, the company Samson Resources itself was part of KKR for a time, so the redirect seems reasonable. In my view, that another company was formed from the wreckage of Samson Resources after bankruptcy does not change the historical facts or their modest independent coverage. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and AllyD. I agree a redirect is problematic here, but for a different reason. Sure, it's a somewhat generic company name and having a redirect could discourage article creation per WP:REDLINK, but this is just an investment holding company of a private equity firm. It's quite unlikely someone would be searching Wikipedia for a non-operating investment company subsidiary of a private equity firm. --Doug Mehus T·C 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am not seeing coverage specifically about this firm under any of its several forms. Such coverage as exists appears to be merely point-in-time announcements regarding acquisition and bankruptcy, which falls under the Trivial Coverage provision ("expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business") of WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:29, 13 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brouwerij 't Koelschip[edit]

Brouwerij 't Koelschip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not seeing what makes this company pass WP:NCOMPANY/WP:GNG. Through maybe there is some coverage in Dutch since the only plausibly substantial stuff I am getting is not in English (everything else, including current refs, are passing coverage, not in-depth). Dutch wiki entry on this is not much better, so it is of little help. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a notable brewery and has held the title of strongest beer in the world, and its quads routinely win awards. Article should be expanded, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.246.51.142 (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:20, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It apparently made a very high ABV beer and that got some attention (and not enough to merit its own article), the company itself is not notable. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very few passing mentions located in various gSearches (most in Dutch). I agree that this article subject fails WP:ORG and it also lacks WP:SIGCOV.The "world's strongest beer" might itself be notable (though I see that title might be disputed), but the organization does not necessarily inherit the notability of one product, so the beer itself belongs in the beer article or elsewhere.Geoff | Who, me? 21:56, 7 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assumption School (Millbury)[edit]

Assumption School (Millbury) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional. No evidence of notability Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletin discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 6 January 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 Milpitas Unified School District. RL0919 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Spangler Elementary School[edit]

Anthony Spangler Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Attempted to redirect however it’s been contested. This is not a notable elementary school so nominating for delete and redirect. Praxidicae (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Milpitas Unified School District. Elementary schools are generally not notable, and while I can find information that proves this school exists, I can't find anything that would fulfill GNG. Hog Farm (talk) 22:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: our assumption for an elementary school is that it is not notable, and this article does not show otherwise. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 04:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:21, 6 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Turek[edit]

Amy Turek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:NHOCKEY and fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I tried to do some digging for references since it asserted she played for the Team Canada senior team (listed here for the 99/00 season, she played two total games). She made no appearances in a World Championships or Olympics, just two exhibition games against the US before the 2000 National Hockey League All-Star Game, where she scored a goal. This source is about the only thing I found that is more than a mere mention in a list, and it still only consists of a single paragraph about her after scoring her one goal. Also according to that article, she is the daughter of Ed Turek as a possible merge/redirect target, but even his article could use some help. Yosemiter (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per GNG. Finished my searches, not finding any news hits, doesn't appear to be discussed in books, and a Google search only turns up few stats sites and mentions (The Globe and Mail paragraph I previously posted still being the best, the rest are all single sentence mentions in the WP:ROUTINE "Turek scored a goal..." vein or just part of list). Yosemiter (talk) 23:33, 10 January 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. North America1000 08:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordyn Jackson[edit]

Jordyn Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer who doesn't meet WP:SINGER. Albums appear to be self-released. The AllAboutJazz information is from a part of that website that can be user-submitted; several other sites repeat the same information. There is some local media coverage of her, but much of it is in the style of press releases and other promotional material, and I don't see enough to meet WP:GNG. EddieHugh (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:22, 6 January 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 09:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tolani Fatilewa[edit]

Tolani Fatilewa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Majority of the sources cited in the article are not reliable. The subject is an up-and-coming artist who has not made a mark in the Nigeria music industry. Maybe in a few years, he may be notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Asides the obvious COI between article creator and it’s subject, the subject of article in itself doesn’t satisfy WP:ANYBIO & WP:GNG as he hasn’t been discussed with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I'm not sure if it's fan- or PR-created, but in any case, there's no coverage in reliable sources that I can see. If you find anything good, please ping me. Bearian (talk)
  • Delete it may be WP:TOOSOON Dartslilly (talk) 16:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur on the WP:TOOSOON Missvain (talk) 02:22, 11 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maricoxi[edit]

Maricoxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to be an established mythological or scientific topic; all reports seem to originate from Percy Fawcett. –dlthewave ☎ 21:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:48, 6 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easistore Self Storage[edit]

Easistore Self Storage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, just more WP:MILL and I'm not sure that awards by such a small industry specific award is very meaningful or helpful. Praxidicae (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: Where have you been dude? I’ve done hundreds of AfDs! TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 01:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Timtempleton, Cool! I've only started participating in AfD in the last 4-6 months, so if you've been in that area before that, I wouldn't have seen them. And maybe you just don't normally participate in company AfDs, or at least not Canadian bank and credit union AfDs? Doug Mehus T·C 01:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The awards are industry-niche and best toilet awards, while gratifying, are not indicative of encyclopaedic notability. Searches find nothing to demonstrate this to be more than a firm going about its business. AllyD (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per nom Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:26, 11 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xecced[edit]

Xecced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PR spam, no coverage, it's all funding and WP:MILL Praxidicae (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: baseless and wholly unfair... Simply reading the first reference would clearly prove otherwise... Nneka Francis (talk) 21:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How so? None of your sources are in depth coverage, they're all PR, announcements and funding information. Praxidicae (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have been attacking my submissions with clearly baseless and inflammatory remarks... Wikipedia stipulates evidence based discourse at all times... Even the first reference is clearly an in-depth interview of the organisation (attached below):[1] Nneka Francis (talk) 22:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Daniel Mpala [https://ventureburn.com/2019/11/xecced-ventures-4thiria-fund "Xecced Ventures to invest in African startups through $100m Industry 4.0 fund", VentureBurn, 19 November 2019
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak DeleteThis article has pretty clearly been WP:REFBOMBED. The sources themselves are mostly a combination of PR and funding, from sources that do not seem entirely reliable. The AfrikanHeroes one seems decent enough, but all the rest are either just repeating a company announcement, or are pretty clearly promotional, including the Ventureburn one. Of course, as subsaharan startups are not the most reported on of subjects, I could potentially be missing something. Also, the behaviour of User:Nneka Francis does lead me to suspect there may be a conflict of interest in relation to the creation of this article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn’t know better, I would say you were chummy with Praxidicae, whom appears to have a penchant for this... Daniel Mpala and VentureBurn are a bonafide tech journalist and newspaper, reporting “facts of the operations” of an “impact investor”... I’ve a bonafide track record of making high quality edits, e.g. received thanks for edit... However, WP:N says: “Article and list topics must be notable, or worthy of notice". The criteria for the Guinness of Records is being first and only, which this evidently is, and thus by definition “notable, or "worthy of notice”... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 11:54, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, Wikipedia’s Encyclopedic criteria (WP:N) means the article should not just be notable but also significant, e.g. this is precisely the sort of information cash-strapped Africans - a 1/4 of the world’s population - would actively search for given the low availability of venture capital (read Africa section) in Africa, and the rapidly growing impact of AI, e.g. automation rapidly replacing human workers... Nneka Francis (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It’s evidently received significant coverage by reliable, independent, Africa-tech focused sources, as it’s the continent’s first and only AI VC fund, i.e. western media seldom cover such Africa news... It saddens me that Wikipedia now appears to reflect global inequalities, i.e. a lot of the entries seem unencyclopedic, but subjectively significant to westerners... “If a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it.” - WP:IAR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently fails GNG and NCORP. Most of the coverage is PR churnalism and the other coverage isn't enough to put it over the notability threshold. Could be a case of too WP:TOOSOON. Additionally, there is no indication that the significance of being the first AI VC fund or any area-specific fund, for that matter, on any continent or region (or even just being the first AI VC fund in general) is enough to meet notability requirements. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AI now shapes virtually all aspects of our lives, e.g. Wikipedia bots to Netflix recommendations and the machines that assemble our cars. The fact this is the only fund covering a 1/4 of human civilisation should in of itself warrant an exception WP:IAR, even before what has now become a subjective debate on whether non-western sources have no cachet... I’ve more than a passing interest in making Wikipedia live up to its egalitarian ideals, e.g. the fact those advocating for deletion appear to be Caucasian American should give us pause for thought... Nneka Francis (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Promotional article whose sources are either press releases or articles about fundraising. Neither establish notability. Article creator is strictly promoting this company (spam added to List of venture capital firms has been reverted) and resorting to personal attacks (i.e., blind accusations of racism in response to GPL93) on anyone who disagrees with her is certainly not advised. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 18:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beemer69, wow, I merely pointed out an observational fact... If it isn't true, disprove it. After all, this is meant to be a civilized forum of debate, and Wikipedia's goal is to be egalitarian... Furthermore, I added it to the list of List of venture capital firms after a comment asked me to de-orphan articles, and I'll go further to say that this entry is more notable and significant than many on the list, e.g. please compare with Sevin Rosen Funds on the same list... Any source on an impact investor will invariably be about it's investing, which appears to rankle some here...Nneka Francis (talk • contribs
  • Suspected suckpuppeting or collusion: I'm getting the same comment, slightly different wording, at nearly the same time, giving the impression of suckpuppeting or collusion... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nneka Francis (talk • contribs) 19:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please refrain from personal attacks. Just because people are commenting with the same policy doesn't mean they are sock puppets. At some point you have to ask if everyone else sees something and you don't are you the one in the wrong. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 19:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever considered that why we are saying the same thing is because we see the same issues with the article? It appears that the only editor in this discussion to fail Wikipedia's "egalitarian ideals" has been you. GPL93 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a sockpuppet now? Please grow up and stop ranting to every comment that disagrees with you, as it's doing nothing but clogging up the discussion while your continued incivility will result in you being blocked. Much appreciated. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 19:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: This user opened their account barely two weeks ago and wasted no time in creating an article about Muhtari Adanan, which was recently deleted due to lack of notability, and editors were badgered over there as well. Adanan's name is also prominently featured in this article, so it's clear Nneka Francis is a promotional account for this individual. For that, in addition to their ongoing uncivil behavior, in my opinion a permanent block is warranted. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beemer69 Hypothetically speaking if she’s a single purpose promo account then it wouldn’t be a stretch to say they may have received a financial reward, at least a part payment for the creation of the deleted article & this soon to be deleted one. You can only imagine their dilemma/trauma/panic right now. Yep! an indef block is best.Celestina007 (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Beemer69: @Celestina007: Although I agree that it is likely a COI/UPE editor I think that the current block is the right call for now in the off chance Nneka Francis is just an over-zealous editor who's passion for a subject got in the way of his/her better judgement. This article will in all likelihood be deleted before the current block ends and how Nneka Francis edits once the block is lifted will either confirm his/her intentions either way. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GPL93: Yeah, I discussed this with User:Bishonen recently and she concluded that the three-day block was fitting in lieu of an immediate permanent one, which makes sense. The article will soon be gone anyway while the paid-SPA editor will be on a very short leash when s/he returns. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Beemer69 & GPL93 forgive the digression, I see a he/she used to address the article creator which is a bright idea when unsure of the gender, I’m no expert but “Nneka francis” per editor first name “Nneka” is a Nigerian name usually used by the igbo people of Nigeria for a female. So yeah it’s okay for you both to refer to article creator as a “she” & yes her overzealous nature without understanding core policies is quite annoying.Celestina007 (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete the article and the spam editor. scope_creepTalk 14:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Lots of sourcing, but looks like classic overcite.Slatersteven (talk) 19:22, 12 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ban-manush[edit]

Ban-manush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG due to lack of RS coverage. Current sources (Calcutta Review and Report on the Census) refer to a tribe, not a folkloric entity, however neither topic has received significant coverage outside of fringe sources. –dlthewave ☎ 20:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. this article low important and Not a philanthropic entity, but both subjects did not receive significant coverage beyond border sources. Fail WP:GNG.-Nahal(T) 19:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom looking at the sources. Sure they are not 15 meters tall?—eric 01:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fail WP:GNG - MA Javadi (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. :bloodofox: (talk) 03:26, 9 January 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) 12:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Ragle[edit]

Charlie Ragle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not my field, but I doubt notability -- never a head coach at a college level, never a notable player DGG ( talk ) 20:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as either a coach or player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete part of the List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches page. While not a head coach, he is a coordinator at a Power 5 conference school, as well as a multiple time state champion head coach at the high school level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowers77 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've found a number of substantive articles in reliable third-party sources about the subject: [14] [15] [16]. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Jweiss11's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's the subject of multiple in-depth profiles, beyond even what Jweiss11 found. There's considerable scope of expansion. Note: Jweiss11 notified me of this debate because I'd previously expressed concern about Wikipedia's coverage of likely future head coaches in the coordinator ranks, such as Sam Pittman. WP:CRYSTALBALL and all that, but Ragle fits that description. Mackensen (talk) 02:33, 13 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caring.com[edit]

Caring.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is nothing more than a PR puff piece about a website which as far as I can tell, has received no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Promo article for a website with no significant coverage or notability. Celestina007 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:54, 6 January 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. MER-C 03:24, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wunder (creative agency)[edit]

Wunder (creative agency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Excessive references most of which don't even mention this company. The agency has worked with some notable companies but notability is not inherent. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for possibly over-referencing some of the work, I did not consider how that might be seen as an issue. I’ve further trimmed the list of references while still keeping the article well referenced by a combination of industry magazines, news publications, and international awards.
In terms of notability, I live in the region and this agency is well known in Atlantic Canada for the campaigns they’ve produced. As such, they are most certainly of interest to Nova Scotians, Canadians, and other Wikipedia users with an interest in business and marketing agencies.
I believe that having their work covered in the media (even if it only briefly mentions the agency) says more about an agency than having a self-written press release published. I realize notability is a subjective standard, but this agency far exceeds the standard established by many similar advertising agency pages: AdGear, Due_North_Communications, Groupaction, Kaboose, Lowe_Roche, McMillan_(agency), Razor_Creative, Round_Table_Advertising. JMacD77 (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OSE and WP:COI. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:55, 6 January 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 Albania under the Ottoman Empire with history left intact. The article has interesting sources but is of very limited scope; there is a significant consensus here that it does not belong as a standalone article but good suggestions have been made that it potentially deserves mention in related article(s) and potentially a Wiktionary entry. The history is left available if anyone wishes to do either of those things. ~ mazca talk 20:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanokratia[edit]

Albanokratia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTABILITY, this entire article can be condensed to more or less a single sentence at Albania under the Ottoman Empire and/or a Wiktionary entry. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, Peterkingiron, I think it should be transwikified as Albanokratia, which roughly translates to Albanocracy. The rest of the content can be included in Albania under the Ottoman Empire and this article deleted. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, since it is a term used in 18th century Greece to denounce Albanian leaders in Morea. It is therefore relevant. --Albert Falk (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal(T) 19:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fa alk, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Historical uses of the term can be added to related articles, but it does not merit an article of its own. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 19:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:49, 5 January 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 09:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CIGNEX Datamatics[edit]

CIGNEX Datamatics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. ∯WBGconverse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ∯WBGconverse 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Tech editor007, thank you for your comment! Unfortunately none of these really work as reasons to keep the article. As per Wikipedia's guidelines on notability for corporations, both of the sources you give are considered "trivial coverage" and cannot be used for the purpose of establishing notability. Age of an article is not used as a reason to either keep or delete; and other "unknown celebrities and smaller companies" having articles is also not a reason since we must evaluate on a case-by-case basis. If you find an article covering something that isn't notable per Wikipedia's guidelines, then perhaps it too is a candidate for deletion. –Erakura(talk) 22:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Practically all coverage I can find, and nearly all of the existing article references, are either trivial per WP:NCORP or the company's own marketing literature and press releases. –Erakura(talk) 21:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't we merge this article with an article about the company's parent company, Datamatics?--Tech editor007 (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That could feasibly be done; however, Datamatics itself appears to have a number of subsidiaries just like this one, so the section would be pretty short. I also think at this time that merging it into Datamatics may be a waste of effort; it appears that CIGNEX Datamatics is being acquired by Relevance Lab, another company which itself doesn't have an article and for which I'm having some difficulty in establishing notability. That said, all this is my personal take on the situation, so perhaps others will chime in with their thoughts. –Erakura(talk) 20:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:47, 5 January 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cohen@Mushon[edit]

Cohen@Mushon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Barely any coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MUSICBIO. No fans, no social media, no plays. scope_creepTalk 11:31, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Sorry I can't give a stronger vote on this, but there may be enough notice for a brief stub article on this group. Three of the footnotes currently in the article are to fairly robust profiles in a publication called Mako that appears to be a somewhat reliable music source in their country. Also note that very little comes up with a search of "Cohen@Mushon", but a search via the Hebrew spelling ("כהן@מושון") brings up some more media sources from their country in their own language, showing that they have been noticed as a hip-hop act from an unlikely location. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:55, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I added a couple of sources, more material came up in search. Seems to suffice.NotButtigieg (talk) 16:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just released his debut album, all indicative of being non-notable. scope_creepTalk 17:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One is press release about Michael Cohen, not Cohen@Mushon and the other one about Cohen, so neither is about Cohen@Mushon. scope_creepTalk 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is a press release, both are signed news articles about one of the duo that ran in reputable news papers with brief mentions of this duo. There is more coverage like this: [17]. Coverage can be brief but still be coverage. NotButtigieg (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What an abusive message. Coverage that is brief is not coverage. scope_creepTalk 19:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
<Abusive? seriously?NotButtigieg (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After perusing the Hebrew material, I suggest that this musical duo be discussed on the pages of each of the two performers.NotButtigieg (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at 1000's of press releases over the last 5 years over 100's of articles, as part of NPP and AFC, COI and SPAM, you get to be very good at recognising what is a press release and what isn't. That last ref again is a name drop. It not coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Its a mention. scope_creepTalk 20:17, 8 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Onsight Deeda[edit]

Onsight Deeda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources cited in the article are not reliable. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:MUSICIAN with no viable third-party coverage. Article creator has had a spate of BLPs recently deleted due to lack of notability and this is no exception. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 06:27, 6 January 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. Consensus is that the article has been improved since nomination such that notability is established through reliable sources. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ulric Browne[edit]

Ulric Browne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet any of the three points on WP:NACTOR. Browne has portrayed the role of an extra in 103 episodes of EastEnders, and that's about it other than minor guest appearances. DarkGlow (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow (talk) 15:26, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: Somehow, having played a small part/extra in over 100 episodes of EastEnders almost seems notable in and of itself! I am inclined to agree with the nomination/nominator, however. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Browne speaking practically broke the internet in 2017. It might be some silly celeb news sites, but, he is indeed the longest serving extra on Britain's longest running show and he clearly has a cult following. Missvain (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Missvain's added sources. That looks like a cult following to me. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Silly celeb news sites" are not RS. RobinCarmody (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Digital Spy, one of the "silly celeb news sites" used in the article, has been defended as a RS many times: 1, 2, 3 etc. -- Toughpigs (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - lots of RS including Metro, BBC 1Xtra, Irish News, Digital Spy, The Observer, these are not “silly celeb news sites”.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record: I LOVE reading my silly celeb news sites! Missvain (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Missvain's expansion / improvement (although please do not cite The Sun in BLPs). [18] Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 13 January 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 deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clensta International[edit]

Clensta International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH scope_creepTalk 11:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 13:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The overall consensus seems to support keeping this article, as unlike some of the other, recently redirected similar D&D monsters, this has at least received some coverage in what many participants consider decent sources for this kind of material. Merging this to the list article is a reasonable argument given the good-faith disagreement on the exact line of notability for these kind of things, but multiple users assert that there is enough sourceable content that it would be excessive for an entry on a list article - supporting its continued existence as a standalone article at this time. ~ mazca talk 11:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gelatinous cube[edit]

Gelatinous cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All other oozes were redirected to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. This one has a bit better sourcing, through I think it is insufficient to merit a pass at GNG/NFICTION for the stand-alone article (two paragraphs in a niche column that is close to blog quality, one paragraph in a list of monsters, another paragraph at another list. Neither is an in-depth analysis, just a fan 'journalist' tongue-in-cheek commentary. Redirect to Ooze (Dungeons & Dragons) or one of the monster lists? Or would anyone want to argue the current refs suffice for keep? BEFORE does not show anything much better, I am afraid (ok, [19] is in-depth but it is a niche fan-site not far from blog level again). It's better than most other DnD monsters, but I am afraid it still falls on the wrong side of GNG, not enough reliable sources/in-depth coverage, just few fan-pages. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ennis, Tricia (2018-06-08). "Chosen One of the Day: The Gelatinous Cube from Dungeons and Dragons". SYFY WIRE. Retrieved 2019-12-21.
  2. ^ Hall, Charlie (2015-09-02). "Out of the Abyss: D&D's next campaign goes deep into the Underdark". Polygon. Retrieved 2019-12-21.
  3. ^ Hutchinson, Kate (2016-08-11). "Thee Oh Sees: A Weird Exits review – cult garage-rockers on pummelling form". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-12-21.
  • Delete As non-notable, almost all "sources" are minor listicles. "It's big in Dungeons and Dragons" is not a valid argument for keep. It's possible that the overall monster trope, blob monster, may be notable enough for an article, but the gelatinous cube itself doesn't seem so.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:25, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; iconic, and there are a few good enough sources. There are probably more out there. There are a few hits on Google Scholar (though nothing substantial, I don't think) but Google News throws up lots of pages that could work as sources; this, this, this, and this from the first page, for instance. There's enough out there for an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most are pop culture listicles. "9 scariest monsters", "15 weirdest creatures", "125 greatest monsters". It's certainly not "significant" coverage.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you say so. Plenty of hits on Google Books, too; some third-party material about their role in the game, for example. I can't access all the pages, but there's perhaps useful stuff in Dungeons and Drawings: An Illustrated Compendium of Creatures, Through Dungeons Deeper, and The Monsters Know What They're Doing. I'm pretty sure there's enough out there to write a decent article, and I don't think the current article is that shabby, so I stand by my comment. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example of the sort of thing that's out there. I could add more, but I don't want to spend too long on the article if it's going to end up deleted. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That example, which is about gelatinous/ooze/blob creatures in fiction, seems like it would work a lot better in a broad concept article like maybe Blob monster. Gelatinous ooze on its own is simply too narrow a topic. As an example, I created the article Gargoyle (monster) which is notable, even though Gargoyle (Dungeons & Dragons) probably would not survive AfD.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; it perhaps has a place in both articles (if they exist). My point is that there's something to say; the article can be much more than in-universe information or lists of books in which it appears. We can have some discussion about inspirations and origins, roles/uses in the game, critical response, and real-world impact (e.g., perhaps the band mentioned above if we have a good source). That's a whole lot more than most other D&D monsters, which doesn't surprise me, because it's so iconic. Again, if all these sources were pulled together, we could end up with a decent article. I think there's room for legitimate disagreement in cases like this; it crosses the bar in my eyes, but perhaps not in yours. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have expanded the article some more, please take that into account. Daranios (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters. Not convinced that it passes the GNG sufficiently to need a stand-alone article. The Reception section just says it's notable within the franchise and should be covered somewhere on wikipedia. The other three section can fit in the two columns of the merge target. – sgeureka t•c 07:21, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -Listicles, especially ones so extremely focused on a single characteristic like "X D&D monster," are bottom of the barrel in terms of establishing notability. They are basically filler sources to bolster an already notable article. They should never be the primary means of trying to establish notability. TTN (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/Merge to Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters. There is some non-primary coverage, but it appears to amount to being little more than just a description of what it is. Even those lists being used as sources are just brief paragraphs describing the creature, and does not contain any real information that could be used to sustain an independent article. That said, the coverage does at least make it one of the few D&D creatures that should actually be on the target article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is sufficient information that it would be too much for Monsters in Dungeons & Dragons#Notable monsters.— Preceding unsigned comment added by FobTown (talk • contribs) 18:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A few blurbs in "The 9 scariest most unforgettable monsters from dungeons dragons" type of lists is hardly iconic-establishing. A redirect of the name to a DnD list is fine. ValarianB (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep sources listed above are multiple, indepenent and cover the topic in-depth. So WP:N is met. Doesn't need to be "iconic-establishing". Also [20], [21] and many others show that the monster exists in fiction outside of D&D. Hobit (talk) 05:59, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments of User:BOZ, User:FobTown and User:Hobit. In addition to all the secondary sources mentioned, The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters, p. 193, has something to say about the origin and role of the gelatinous cube as a tertiary source. Daranios (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interestingly, The Ashgate Encyclopedia does call the gelatinous cube "iconic" on p. 194. Daranios (talk) 16:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great spot; the mention on the previous page is also useful. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Of Dice and Men and Ashgate Encyclopedia are quality sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I love that a gelatinous cube is a thing. Missvain (talk) 04:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know that WP:NEXIST says that existence of sources trumps their use in the article, but I still think its useful to look at how sources are actually used here. If there are good sources that support notability, as some editors are claiming, then they should be used to back up non-trivial statements. But at least at this point, everything sourced in the article is trivial: publication history (which exists for every D&D monster), a note on amebas, fictional ecology, and a fairly unimpressive "reception" section that boils down to: some people like the monster. I don't think this qualifies as non-trivial coverage. If the sources offer anything more, it should at least be mentioned here, and preferable added to the article. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • BenKuykendall, you just named practically every section of the article and said that they were all trivial. There are quality sources backing up "Creative origin" and "Fictional ecology", both of them relevant to the subject. -- Toughpigs (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there are more sources above that cover other aspects - such as the role they play in the game. But to repeat what I have already said, I'm not going to spend time improving the article if it's just going to be deleted. As you yourself accept, BenKuykendall, you're holding the article to a higher standard than the relevant policies/guidelines demand. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:48, 12 January 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. Sandstein 09:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satyendra Pakhale[edit]

Satyendra Pakhale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:GNG with very few reliable sources about the person. I also get an eery feeling that this might be self-promo, as all IPs are from the Netherlands (where he is based) while there is no article in Dutch. The Banner talk 20:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I agree that the article itself has many statements for which there are no sources whatsoever, and does not particularly come across as WP:NEUTRAL. That being said, after some searching, I did find a few sources (e.g. New Indian Express, Telegraph India and TL magazine), though most of these are articles seem to be interviews. He does seem to have some possibly notable works, e.g. BM horse chair, Horse stool in V&A and Chair in Stedelijk Museum. The reason I put this as a comment, is because I am not knowledgeable enough about designers to know if these are actually passing WP:ARTIST, but wanted to share what I found. Achaea (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point for this nomination is that it is a BLP, so sources should be about the person. The Banner talk 17:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Banner: Sure, that is why I put in those sources about him. I wanted to add the works, because they can count towards WP:ARTISTS, specifically under "4. The person's work (or works) has: (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.", so the works are still relevant to the BLP. Achaea (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do know design and he does check out! He passes GNG for artists. He's probably more of a household design name in the Netherlands, but, I do consider him notable enough for inclusion, the article just needs work. I'll drop some citations on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also dropping a few reliable secondary sources on the talk page. Missvain (talk) 04:46, 11 January 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. Sandstein 09:35, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball (video game)[edit]

Major League Baseball (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to establish any kind of notability. The only reviews present are ones from Allgame and Nintendo Power, but as others have pointed out NP barely talks about the game, instead just comparing it to other baseball games on the NES. Could find nothing else on either MobyGames or the Wayback Machine. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the first MLB-licensed games for the NES; searching for "Major League Baseball" + "LJN" would for sure find more sources. Nate • (chatter) 19:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how many of those come from reliable sources? Its historical importance is not an argument to keep something if there exists little to no sources for it. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mrschimpf Currently undecided, but did you seriously just left the search term (as a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES classic case) without you doing your own proper research to keep (or you think the nominator didn't do that which is a failure of WP:AGF since you said "would for sure find more")? Whatever the case is, it's bad. The search term just manages to find two press releases (in reliable sources, but still PR) about the lawsuit by a 9 year old where the game is barely mentioned. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there's a questionable or too broad title, it certainly isn't a bad thing to suggest good Boolean searches to the nominator to help them out (I've done this many times without any objection). The game was a wide-selling NES game, thus I feel it easily merits a keep. Nate • (chatter) 05:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sales figures do not make something automatically notable. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found a ref in Bleacher Report [22] and a book ref [23]/[24]. Will try to find more if I can, but I would advocate a merge to a bigger article about MLB video games as whole. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep was noted as one of the best selling video games of 1988 by the LA Times (added to article.) Very difficult to search for given the title, but it does get mentioned in books [25] and a "review" from Golf Digest in 2018 [26]. I don't know how to search period magazines, but I'd be shocked if this wasn't notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brief mentions in other sources do not make something notable. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of those sources aren't brief, including one of the books. It's been notable enough to be reviewed by a major newspaper again as a NES baseball game in 2018, I can't search period magazines, but I have to assume period reviews would be available if it was one of the best selling games per retailers/the LA Times source. SportingFlyer T·C 23:11, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh. Sources found above are close to the GNG bar. I can't see the LA times article, but it looks like there was a capsule review of this? The Golf Digest one isn't great (basically a whiny capsule review) either. But given it's still be written about and how hard it is to search for, and it was on the NES and sold well, there are certainly detailed contemporaneous reviews out there. So basically "just at the bar of GNG and darn good reason to believe there is plenty of coverage out there". weak keep. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 7 January 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. Sandstein 09:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Leitner[edit]

Karin Leitner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A declined A7. Could not find any indication on notability, either in the article, or in a WP:BEFORE. None of her works have ever materially charted, and no proper RS has ever done any kind of piece on her (e.g. zero SIGCOV) – E.g. why would Wikipedia? All I find are blogs, Instagram-type posts and some small refs like local Irish free newspapers on upcoming preformances (here). I will leave it to the AfD community to decide. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO and every other basic notability criterion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looking at http://db.musicaustria.at/node/81882 - she has a list of recordings and international positions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC) - Also adding https://www.egonwellesz.at/e_wellesz_archiv.htm - rare repertoire in South Africa[reply]
    • Comment That is a discography; if that was the criteria for a BLP, we could include everybody who every recorded a classical/jazz piece. The problem is that her Wikipedia article is the major "plank" of her notability – it should be the other way around (e.g. us summarising RS on her, not disography lists). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is a discography? An entry in the Austrian musicians' database? A list of concerts? Here's also https://www.wienerzeitung.at/startseite/archiv/68963_Konzert-am-Wochenende.html performance at traditional Vienna hall as soloist. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is existence, but not notability? If the rap music sector got its act together and started equivalent databases for every rap performance, would we allow them to be used for GNG, of course not? I could make the same argument for authors (all of whose publications are recorded on various databases, but that doesn't justify a BLP). We need to be chronicling RS that profile her as a notable subject (e.g. even one SIGCOV); but these are just directory-type listings I am afraid. I don't think that classical musicians should be held to a lower GNG standard than all others just because a database records their existence; but no classical music magazine wants to do a piece on her – think about it, if the many magazines/journals of the classical music industry don't want to do a piece on her, why would Wikipedia? sorry for this. Britishfinance (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need sources that go beyond showing professional performances to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no more time for her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:MUSICBIO#1 - the page of Reviews on her website [27] includes reviews of her CDs and performances from 1993 to 2019, from Die Presse, Vienna; The Cape Times (South Africa); Gazeta Wyborcza, Warsaw; Irish Music (magazine); and others. These can easily be added to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MUSICBIO#1 is not WP:GNG, which she must meet, but doesn’t. References to recordings in minor RS does not make a BLP. Britishfinance (talk) 14:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no, actually. WP:N states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right;" (my emphasis)
WP:MUSICBIO is one of the subject-specific guidelines, which are explicitly stated to be an alternative to WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, I don't think MUSICBIO overrides GNG (unlike say WP:NPROF). The header of WP:MUSICBIO usefully states: Many who spend significant time improving Wikipedia's musical coverage feel that notability is required for a musical topic (such as a band or musical theatre group) to deserve an encyclopedia article. Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. In addition, the sentence introducing the 12 criteria also states: may be notable. I have never read the 12 criteria of MUSICBIO as being SNGs that override GNG (unlike for example, the 8 criteria of WP:NPROF that explicitly state: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable, or WP:NBOOK that also explicitly state A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria; and thus both do override GNG).
However, let me go through the media list on her website (I am on mobile at the moment and can't seem to access the links through several of them; of the ones I have seen, they look like small regional papers/non-RS (e.g. Irish Music (magazine) is pretty low-grade as an RS and while it could scrape for an Irish traditional musician, it would not really be applicable to an international classical musician); however, let me give it a full look and I will return to see if they could meet GNG. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She meets WP:MUSICBIO#1 Subject must meet SNG or GNG. This one meets SNG. But RebeccaGreen has found some RS. Lightburst (talk) 17:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my comment above – MUSICBIO is not the same as NPROF (i.e. it does not over-ride GNG); GNG still applies. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is your opinion - as I quoted above, the intro to WP:N states that the subject-specific guidelines are alternatives to WP:GNG. Within WP:NMUSIC, WP:NALBUMS specifically requires that "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings should meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." WP:MUSICBIO and WP:COMPOSER don't say that.
However, the criterion which I believe that she meets actually requires "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself", so arguments about whether SNGs override or are alternatives to the GNG are moot, for this AfD. I would not call capital city newspapers in Austria, Poland and South Africa "small regional papers", myself - they are exactly where I would look for reviews of musicians performing in those capital cities. You may not have read the reviews in Irish Music (magazine), or the partial track listings on her CD page - they do make clear that some of her albums, such as Music of Irish Drawing Rooms, Sky Magic, Fire Magic, Music of Great Irish Houses, etc - include traditional and classic Irish tunes, and Celtic musical traditions more generally. Irish Music seems eminently well placed to review them, and any other musicians playing Irish music. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The wordings of WP notability guidelines are (unhelpfully) variant, however, where an SNG explicitly states that it does not guarantee notability (as per WP:MUSICBIO, and several other SNGs, like WP:NFOOTY), then GNG still must be met. At this stage, this BLP doesn't have a write up in a material RS that would meet GNG (e.g. SIGCOV)?
She would never be considered an Irish traditional musician (in any sense), and her Music of Irish Drawing Rooms is the recital of international classical pieces in Irish stately homes. There is a legion of classical musicians who do this circuit in Ireland (and Britain), all of whom have CDs for sale after their recitals, but none of whom are worthy of a Wikipedia BLP?
Having a BLP in Wikipedia should mean something – E.g. you should be clearly notable. Mentions of your recordings/pieces and coverage in small or non-notable RS, does not add up to a BLP, and there is no WP:PRESERVE here. Why bother having notability if cases like this could pass it (e.g almost all recorded traveling professional classical musicians can have a BLP)?
Her Wikipedia BLP would be – by far – the biggest "plank" in her notability? However, it should be the other way around? Britishfinance (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added reviews to the article, so other editors can assess whether there are "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician". RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Excellent job by Gerda Arendt, RebeccaGreen and Wm335td to fix this article's issues, by removing cruft and adding sources. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Bearian stated before me, great work and now passes WP:GNG. Missvain (talk) 05:01, 11 January 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 09:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene Krizek[edit]

Eugene Krizek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Asides the WP:COI with the article creator and article subject, I just cannot see subject of article having in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was not finished adding sources to article- added 9 new sources today. Emarias22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I appreciate the addition of more references, the subject still does not meet the general notability guidelines, as none of the references cited meet all three criteria: significant coverage, reliable sources, and independent of the subject:
  • U.S. Census: Not significant coverage
  • Classmates.com: Neither reliable nor significant
  • Congressional record (both House and Senate versions): Not significant coverage
  • Library of Congress interview: Not significant coverage
  • Runner's World: Not significant coverage
  • Asian American Press: Not independent (it's a press release)
  • Mount Vernon Gazette: The closest of all provided sources to meeting the criteria, but it's only a local newspaper
  • Christian Relief Services: Not independent
My search has not uncovered any better sources either. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Mount Vernon Gazette is a very local paper, and even if we could ignore that one source does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is coverage of his accomplishments in major newspapers [28].NotButtigieg (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While he is mentioned in these article, they are not actually about him - they only mention him in relation to Billy Mills. Jmertel23 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:17, 5 January 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. The "keep" opinions do not cite any actual sources that could be relevant for notability. Sandstein 09:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doist[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Doist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted, now recreated but still fails WP:NORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. SharabSalam (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree with the nomination rationale. I want to note that it says "It employes 40 people in more than 20 countries". This doesn't make sense because the only number which is more than 20 that 40 can be divided by is 40 itself.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair the source says more than 40 people.--SharabSalam (talk) 19:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Storm nominated this article for deletion 2 years ago and Storm created the article again in 2019?--SharabSalam (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think it is a unique (remote) company, and for which coverage exists. The company is already known for some notable softwares. I will try to add more sources. Störm (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed my vote because I feel that one of their apps is notable in google play and has more than 10 million downloads [29].--SharabSalam (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If sources are added. I believe the subject of notable enough to have some RS, it just needs to be added in. Puddleglum 2.0 15:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is it just me? Or are you saying, as it currently stands, the subject is not notable but you believe that if some other editor finds good sources (but not you, you can't find any), then it will be notable? And that's your sole reason for !voting to Keep? HighKing++ 15:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If an article is nom'd for deletion by someone and recreated by that person without reasoning that in many ways is a concerning thing; as it avoids in my view an unethical avoidance of attribution. This creation was in fact a somewhat untypically article for this creator; and the creator has nominated better for deletion themselves so there might be questions if this article was created in expectation it might be sent for deletion. There are possibilies WP:RS may exist for article retention and if so I have objection to WP:REFUND of the deleted article of perhaps Barkeep49 might indicate if a histmerge is possible. Thankyou.86.158.216.81 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This article's history is entirely independent of the previous version and so no merge (in reality it would just be the opposite of revision deletion) is necessary. All the edits on the page now are properly attributed to the editors who've done them - the previous version of the article being quite different. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 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. Now that two decent sources have been provided, with no further concerns raised, the very valid concern that the original Keep votes were not in line with policy has been successfully alleviated. An informed consensus to keep can therefore be found here.

Note that this was originally non-admin-closed by the article creator [30] and very correctly undone by Britishfinance. The outcome ultimately was not in doubt, but the procedure very much was. ~ mazca talk 21:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Packages Mall[edit]

Packages Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPLACE and WP:GNG criteria. Redirect to Packages Limited. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:17, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A large mall with 200 stores, Multiplex Cinema, Food Court, Play Area, etc. Any mall of this size in the US would be clearly notable. This article is just once sentence with one ref, but AFD is not cleanup. Article should be kept and expanded. Searching finds many hits, but it's hard to find good coverage amongst all the store listings. This is one. MB 02:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The mall is relatively new that is why some key information is scarcely available on the internet, but the mall is among the top three largest malls of Pakistan, and is considered a tourist and shopping attraction. Pakieditor (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a notable mall located in Lahore and is considered one of the major malls. Question: User:Vegan Gypsy is nominating articles started by me but never notified me, why? Störm (talk) 14:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. I agree AfD is not a platform to be used for cleanup. It's been said right here by so many editors before today. Personally I try to show respect for other people's time spent on editing and creating new articles. That's why I have never voted for 'Deletion' of any article here in my 6 years of editing on Wikipedia. How about simply tagging the articles on TOP of the article itself FIRST and allowing people some reasonable time to improve it? Ngrewal1 (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: None of the Keep voters above have come up with a single source with in-depth coverage. Not to forget that AfD is not a place for vote count. Vegan Gypsy (talk) 21:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note:I have added references to the main article on the mall, so there is no need for relisting. You can not force delete an article when majority is against it. Pakieditor (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - huge mall, two good sources. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 8 January 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 09:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arrivals (documentary series)[edit]

The Arrivals (documentary series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a YouTube documentary series, not reliably sourced as the subject of any significant media coverage for the purposes of clearing our notability standards for web content. The only reference cited here is a blog entry which is not about The Arrivals at all, but just briefly namechecks its existence in an article about the Netflix series Messiah -- but the notability test is not getting mentioned in coverage of other things, it is being the subject of a sufficient volume of coverage about the topic itself to clear WP:GNG. And while I have been able to find technical verification of the fact that The Arrivals exists, I literally can't find anything that would count as a reliable or notability-supporting source about it. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication of notability, and fails WP:GNG. My speedy delete request ("Speedy delete. A7 applies because this "documentary film" is web content only") was declined by user:Espresso Addict ("Declining A7; fundamentally television not web content, despite Netflix distribution, so A7 inapplicable IMO"). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I may have misread this one; if this is definitely Youtube only then I'm happy to speedy delete under A7. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I was incredibly confused by the fact that the sole source was about a Netflix series too, until I sorted out that Messiah and The Arrivals were two different things and not just alternate names for the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Isabella Bardua[edit]

Sarah Isabella Bardua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSKATE. New Zealand does not regularly qualify for the Olympics so her national title isn't sufficient on its own. Hergilei (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 23:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG; doesn't appear to get any news coverage. Schwede66 10:30, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Page was recently moved to shorter name, but I moved it back on the basis that page moves during AfD discussions should be avoided. PamD 10:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned above, fails both GNG and NSKATE. TheAnayalator (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ′Delete I agree. I tried searching for her under various combinations of her name in the databases I have access to and all I can find is mentions relating to her peerage. Idolmm (talk) 03:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per reasons cited above. Zawed (talk) 04:22, 12 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Education Loan Finance[edit]

Education Loan Finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Lots of passing mention but no significant coverage. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure advertising for a throughtly non-notable company. DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a promotional entry without the backing of significant independent reliable sources coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 01:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Top Records catalog[edit]

Black Top Records catalog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP is not a catalog. It wouldn't be so bad if WP had articles on these albums but they are all niche Blues records. Mattg82 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mattg82 (talk) 16:53, 5 January 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. Consensus is that the actor has had significant roles in major productions, and that N:ACTOR is met. This was certainly not at all evident when the article was nominated. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Francis[edit]

Jordan Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Failed PROD, as previously PRODded. Article consists only of a list of credits, without evidence that any are significant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The sourcing we have here is IMDb and the person's own website. We need reliable 3rd party sources. Especially since the article has existed for 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft. Keep. A brief (but by no means comprehensive) news search indicates that there are reliable sources providing reasonably in-depth coverage of this subject, although they have not made it into the article. This one is certainly promising. BD2412 T 05:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft There is not that much coverage but he does have a couple of singles on Spotify that have more than 7 millions plays. One of them 10 million plays. He has fans and is signed. scope_creepTalk 12:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:NACTOR. -- LACaliNYC✉ 21:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to draft as he does have coverage that can be used to improve the article before it is ready for mainspace, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:45, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added sources and information to the article ,its still a work in progress but it can be improvedGeorgiamarlins (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:16, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca talk 16:01, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Relisted one more time, any assessment from new or previous participants as to whether the late changes made by User:Georgiamarlins sufficiently solve the problems with the article would help us conclude what the consensus is here. ~ mazca talk 16:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets WP:NACTOR#1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". He was part of the main cast of Carl², Connor Undercover, Da Boom Crew, The Save-Ums! and Cross Country Fun Hunt, which doesn't have a WP article yet, but appears to have got a lot of coverage in Canada. The filmography showed him as having a main role in only one production, but in fact he had significant roles in several - either the lead, or a main supporting role. I have done some editing on the article, and will add more sources for his roles and music. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no great objection to keeping it now, as somewhat improved and subject to likely further improvement. BD2412 T 17:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now I have no objection to keeping, provided that the "Main role"s are legitimate. Again, there not being individualized references, I'm not sure which of the sources (if any) support the statements. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I have changed my !vote above to Keep. BD2412 T 06:06, 13 January 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. Missvain (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhaned abu khumra[edit]

Muhaned abu khumra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in secondary reliable sources hence does not satisfy WP:GNG. Subject has won no notable award so WP:ANYBIO is not met either. Subject of article fails WP:CREATIVE also as I can’t see any criterion satisfied as his main works haven’t received WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned it up, but I can't find any RS to back this up, so move to the creator's page and delete. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft Delete. They're some references in Arabic but not enough for a page currently fails WP:GNG. Lapablo (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Abu Kumra is a notable director in Arabic world he already has a page in Arabic Wikipedia since 2012 also his work is widely known for Arabs and here is a list with his notable works in Arabic 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 78 and in English Wikipedia: Fashafeesh and Hawa Baghdad. Firasalbadri (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That I had edited the article due to a few grammatical mistakes and reviewed it.

Then Cited the article with more noticeable English articles, from verified websites as newspapers and IMDb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mi.hossam.hassan (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is enough information in a range of sources to support a decent bio article. There isn’t much in the sourcing that provides depth but there’s much more than we have for a lot of bios of eg. footballers and cricketers. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 12 January 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 Bullet for My Valentine#Members. RL0919 (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Paget[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael Paget (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion declined because of his membership of Bullet for my Valentine, but this isn't a qualification of WP:MUSICBIO. All his success and discography has been via the band, he has had no individual notability (or been a prominent member of another notable group). Particularly worrying is the impression that this article is being used to promote his sponsorship by ESP Guitars. At best this should be redirected to Bullet for my Valentine, as per the previous AfD outcome. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Sionk (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bullet for My Valentine, as was already done the first time the article was nominated. He has done nothing outside of that band so there is nothing precise to say about him in a personal article that could not be said at the band's article. Also, this personal article appears to be an attempted list of his gear, which is not necessarily out of the ordinary and has only been noticed by a non-reliable gearhead website. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above, not independently notable from the band and a promotional laundry list of his equipment is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect As per nom. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Koas[edit]

Ron Koas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails notability criteria: WP:BASIC and if we go to SNG - also fails WP:NACADEMICS, WP:JOURNALIST, WP:AUTHOR. Less Unless (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to indicate notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 09:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG across the board at this point in time. Missvain (talk) 05:06, 11 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Thessaly[edit]

Northern Thessaly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Complete nonsense; a historiographical hapax used in the context of nationalist literature during World War I is not a serious encyclopedic topic. Constantine ✍ 13:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, and, no surprise, the term is not actually in the cited work. It appears to be yet another fake OR/POV creation by this author. Constantine ✍ 16:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See page LX for „another fake OR/POV creation by this author”. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have seen it.In page XL, Ivanov writes of "Epirus and Thessaly" together, as indeed he does elsewhere in his work. Ivanov documents instances of "Bulgarians" or "Bulgarian language" in the region of Thessaly, but nowhere does he attempt to define a distinct region of "Northern Thessaly"; that is your OR, and reflects your POV (which you helpfully reveal with the completely unrelated analogy to Northern Epirus below). I still can't quite tell whether you are seriously POV-pushing this term or merely trolling, or both, but the end result will be the same. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not a notable term historically or geographically. --T*U (talk) 16:08, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Elementary, my dear Watson. Northern Thessaly is not only a geographical, historical, anthropological, but also a geological differentiation [31] of the area of the Thessalian plain - by Phthiotis, whose other non-Greek name in the Middle Ages was Ravenica. The delete suggestion is as deep as Lake Xynias (Ezeros). But act, you're home.

ps. For the Non-greek world, North Thessaly has the value of the neologism of Northern Epirus for Greece. Angel Angel 2 (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and T*U. Typical POV-push by the account who created this article. Dr. K. 17:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even if it was an established term and not just used in one book, this two sentence article could easily fit into Bulgarians in North Macedonia. Arved (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, WP:OR, and WP:SOAP -- or if you insist, redirect as suggested by Arved, Bearian (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Northern Thessaly has absolutely nothing to do with North Macedonia, though; they are separated by the entirety of South/Greek Macedonia. Constantine ✍ 14:45, 11 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Hartstein[edit]

Russell Hartstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PR puff piece about a non-notable animal behaviorist. Lots of interviews and passing mentions but nothing substantial or meaningful. Praxidicae (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lots of passing mention, but no significant biographic information in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly a speedy delete as entirely promotional, complete with the name-dropping of his celebrity clients. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that he is notable, even though he may work for celebrities.NotButtigieg (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should be G11 case, DGG. scope_creepTalk 13:41, 12 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Moukala[edit]

Alex Moukala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no sources that verify the only claims of notability here - including imdb. In the absence of that and any independent coverage, I can't see how he is possibly notable. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 5 January 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 provided at end strongly imply notability, although the first appear to be the same article run across different sites. It appears that GNG as well as NACTOR is met, negating the delete arguments. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 22:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pramod Khanna[edit]

Pramod Khanna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply put under WP:N and applicable here, Khanna fails to meet the requirement as he "has [failed to] receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject[.]" Therefore, "it is presumed to [not] be suitable for a stand-alone article." Dr42 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dr42 (talk) 04:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 22:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG. Plenty of profiles about him given the recent movie he starred in - which was a major character. The movie is a franchise that is big in India and starring in a film with Salman Khan is no laughing matter. He's a HUGE star.[32][33][34][35][36] He's also a subject matter expert about rugby.[37][38][39] etc... Missvain (talk) 05:15, 11 January 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. Disregarding the socks, per ThatMontrealIP's comment. Sandstein 10:50, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pino Concialdi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Pino Concialdi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing has changed since the last AFD other than his death. He is still not notable and there is no evidence to support inclusion of this article. Praxidicae (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - he is in the collection of the Museum Bagheria in Italy [40]; and was in a show (it's not clear if it's from the collection, or just part of a collection of works shown) at the Museo del Arte Mediterraneo [41]. He's in the journal Arte Moderna, Issue 33, page 108 (but just seeing a snippet view). That is probably not enough to establish notability - it would be nice if a native-Italian speaking editor could do some research. The Italian WP has quite a few more citations the enWP. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Netherzone Where do you see this on itwp? its salted there. Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry Praxidicae, my mistake - it's on French WP here: [42]
  • Comment In line with what Netherzone is saying above, there is a strong hint of notability. The French Wikipedia page has a couple decent sources (and several bad ones), and mentions a museum collection.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources on frwp are not good. Alchetron, for example is completely unreliable. The rest are blogs and links that are already here. This has been a several year long campaign by meatpuppets on several projects (including itwiki where it's been repeatedly evaluated and found every time, even as recently as January 2019, not to be notable.) I would say we should trust the judgement of native Italian speakers. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I said, there were several bad ones. But the first two look like low level news articles that are independent. There is a hint of notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the citations on frWP is actually a press release that I had mistaken for an article. It's looking somewhat doubtful unless better sources can be found. Netherzone (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment leaning towards Delete: We have typically required inclusion in two or more notable museum collections; Museum Bagheria is a private museum founded by an art dealer, and does not have a en wiki page. For me, it is not enough alone to establish NARTIST. That said, I do want to have someone with Italian language skills to do a proper WP:BEFORE. --Theredproject (talk) 18:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 22:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The museum has an article in itWP: it: Museum - Osservatorio dell'arte in Sicilia. Checking the other artists it has listed there, most of them have long established articles in the enWP :Ferdinando Scianna, Giuseppe Tornatore, Fosco Maraini, or in the deWP de:Nino Franchina, Salvatore Scarpitta. I conclude it's a very important regional museum, and its enough to turn the balance. DGG ( talk ) 02:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'll go with DGG's reasoning. The museum's IT WP page says it was founded in 1927. if they can keep things going for 90 years, they are doing something right. The notability overall here is a bit weak, but it is there.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Artist recognized and appreciated at provincial and regional level, criticized and honored in Sicily, with a definitely unique and interesting pictorial style reminiscent of American expressionists, but still certainly far from the criteria of national or international relevance that you need to have to appear on wikipedia --c (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)— 5.171.192.176 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tloks]]. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so far all of the solid delete !votes here are by accounts or IPs with less than five edits.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two Three sets of !votes by socks have been removed per the results of this SPIThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having only one work in a museum at a regional level where there are works by other important artists does not, however, confer notability on an evidently lesser artist, as in this case it is Concialdi. I would like to remind you that Giuseppe Tornatore (Oscar-winning director) and Ferdinando Scianna (photographer) are international figures, who have distinguished themselves in their fields, all proven by third party and reliable sources. It is clearly evident that Concialdi is not comparable to these two.--5.171.192.18 (talk) 11:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)— 5.171.192.18 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and this XFD page. There's an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tloks. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Sockpuppet IP, is this a family operation, or have you asked the neighbours to vote? You are (5.171.192.18 and your friend above is 5.171.192.176).ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although page needs to be improved. They are in collections and enough coverage to convince me that it's a weak keep. Netherzone (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Netherzone here.NotButtigieg (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. We tend to keep those artist's articles whose work is in major collections. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Third party sources that certify that his work is in museum collections of national or international importance have not been received. Relevance is only local. I absolutely don't understand its importance--5.171.252.222 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: It's amazing to see such great participation from all the delete vote IPs on the 5.171.*.* Telecom Italia Mobile network! Thank you to
Now, since no good faith users have actually voted delete, I think this could be closed. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of The Sopranos characters. There is a clear consensus that this subject does not merit a separate article at this time, and a disagreement as to the next step. A subject need only be noteworthy to be mentioned in an article, and that is clearly the case here. Concerns about manipulation of the resulting redirect can be dealt with through a request for page protection with respect to that redirect. BD2412 T 04:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Pussy Bonpensiero[edit]

Big Pussy Bonpensiero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

What makes this fictional character notable? Seems like the usual PLOT with PRIMARY, failing GNG/NFICTION. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to List of The Sopranos characters. Article is entirely fancruft with no out-of-universe content. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 03:56, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Simply not following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction, does not mean it should be deleted. It definitely needs improvement, however, fairly easily passes WP:GNG with several book sources and some NYT sources. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 04:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim and Merge into List of The Sopranos characters. WP:ALLPLOT, only a main character for two seasons (a third of the show's run), no reason why this needs a stand-alone article per WP:SPINOUT. – sgeureka t•c 12:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the inclination to bring articles like this to AFD, since they are largely just plot summary. But I feel like much of the time if just a cursory search for sources is done, it's easy to establish notability, and in the case of this character in particular I think he does satisfy WP:GNG. There are a great deal of books that analyze The Sopranos from a critical perspective, and with just a little bit of minor searching I was able to find several that discuss this character. For example, the book Sopranos and Philosophy: I Kill Therefore I Am discusses how the character reflects mob culture, and how his act of betrayal runs counter to that culture; and the book Tony Soprano's America: Gangsters, Guns, and Money discusses how Tony's feelings about Bonpensiero's death reflect the recurring feelings of guilt Tony occasionally feels for actions, and also has some interesting discussions about how the way Bonpensiero manifests himself in visions and dream sequences post-death are some of the show's strongest examples of postmodernism. Those are just a few examples, there are more. And there are a number of news articles that discuss the character as well; one strong example I found very quickly is this oral history by Variety which discusses how the cast and crew of the show had issues with the way this character was killed off, and how it affected production of the show afterward. These are just a few examples of reliable sources that help establish notability here. The problem here isn't that the article needs to be deleted; it needs to be improved. I'd love to try to do so myself during the AFD process to help demonstrate that notability, as I've done in the past and am currently doing on other pages, but especially with the holidays and all I just don't think I'll have the time. But there is no deadline for such improvements to be made, so in the meantime I believe the article should be kept. — Hunter Kahn 15:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE The article, as it stands, is 95+% fancruft. It should be blown up for now and redirected to the List of The Sopranos characters article. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 17:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Sourcing has not been shown to be sufficient to establish notability. I'd say even if there are sources, unless extremely overwhelming, that they'd be better spent trying to get the character list to FA/FL status rather than regurgitate all this info over two dozen articles. TTN (talk) 17:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 22:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect. A side char, esp one that was only in for a few seasons, doesn't quite get the coverage that the main fictional chars have gotten, to justify a whole article. ValarianB (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the result is redirect, there's no need to delete. We can simply redirect it, and that will keep the edit history intact in case anything needs to be merged to the list article, or if sufficient sources are found for someone to restore and improve the article later. — Hunter Kahn 16:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My preference is to avoid any of that, honestly. A plain redirect just makes it into a juicy target for malcontents to come along and revert when they think no one is looking. The likelihood that anything new will be produced about a character who was killed off nearly 20 years ago, i.e. citations to support an article, are nil. ValarianB (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hear what you're saying, though I don't agree; there actually are a ton of sources about this character out there. The books I cited above discuss the character at length, and there are a multitude of news articles and reviews that discuss his role in the show and the parallels to real life mob culture. I just unfortunately don't have the time to add them to the article myself, and it doesn't seem like anyone else has been inclined to do so. So I think if someone decided to restore the page, there would be a great deal of sources they could draw from, and having the edit history intact would allow them to do so without starting the plot summary section from scratch... — Hunter Kahn 14:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is more than notable enough to have a redirect; any other concerns are conjecture and can be reverted on the unlikely chance his page is restored. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:15, 8 January 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. RL0919 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration of 1700 years of Edict of Milan in Niš[edit]

Celebration of 1700 years of Edict of Milan in Niš (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm struggling to see the benefits of keeping this lengthy, unsourced article about a celebration in Niš of 1700 years since the Edict of Milan. It basically says, in essence, not a lot more than that - and the Niš article already mentions the fountains which were created. Article created by a single-issue editor and remains unsourced after 6 years. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 11:22, 5 January 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. Susan Templeton is listed as a contact for Marc Cushman in [43], so I'm disregarding the opinion by Susantempleton per WP:COI. Sandstein 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cushman[edit]

Marc Cushman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find lots of PR for this guy, and a fair bit of fan bloggery and such, but I am really struggling to fix its lack of a single reliable independent secondary source. I't's got lots of inline links to sales pages, which contributes to a strong whiff of processed meat products and doesn't help the overall impression of being a promotional piece. Guy (help!) 11:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable source secondary indepdent coverage. We do not build articles on PR buzz.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing here to support notability.NotButtigieg (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Marc Cushman writes in-depth books on the history of pop culture and has been recognized by several people, including the main cast of Star Trek, and the Saturn Awards, along with other accolades. If any of the above users had read even one of Mr. Cushman's books and the details he gives, they would not request deletion. He directly pitched television scripts to and wrote for Gene Roddenberry, which is mentioned in his "These Are the Voyages" series. His books are authorized so this is not a random writer trying to use Wikipedia for publicity. User:Susantempleton 7:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 10:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahujan cinema[edit]

Bahujan cinema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. No mention of "Bahujan cinema" in any reliable sources, not even in IMDB. The article was originally created as Bahujanwood but that term also lacks any significance in reliable sources. WalkingDisks (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WalkingDisks (talk) 07:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the term ‘Bahujanwood’ is used in the first two sources cited. It may be possible to simply find an appropriate title for this article,or perhaps the content can be merged elsewhere, but straight deletion seems pretty drastic. Mccapra (talk) 10:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Total lack of sources meeting WP:GNG. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:35, 7 January 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. As nominator, I've decided I don't have the right language skills to handle this one. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1914–15 SK Rapid Wien season[edit]

1914–15 SK Rapid Wien season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable season. I can find nothing besides statistical records for this season, although maybe sources exist in Austrian (if so, I can't find them). This article has literally one sentence of prose. Fails WP:GNG and especially WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. WP:NSEASON strongly suggests a redirect to the overall team article, but this season is not mentioned in the team article, and this era of team history is only briefly discussed in the overall team article, so I'm not sure how much value this would serve as a redirect. Hog Farm (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment they finished 3rd in Austria this season in spite of the season being shortened (probably due to the war?) I'd be surprised if they didn't receive any secondary coverage this season, but struggled to do an Austrian newspaper historical search, so can't vote. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IDK, maybe it's just me, but somehow the fact that the nominator says that he went looking for sources in a non-existent language makes me wonder exactly how much WP:BEFORE was done here prior to filing this AfD nomination. Ejgreen77 (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdrawn. I honest to goodness thought that Austrian was a language. Well, that's embarrassing (and also explains some things). Since it's evident that I don't have the language skills required for this article, I'm going to withdrawn my nomination. Hog Farm (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Jaden Donald[edit]

Shooting of Jaden Donald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating an article I created years ago for deletion. At the time, I thought there would be lasting coverage as it was covered in a few national publications/news services. However, there has not been lasting coverage nor is the incident notable in any way in the grand scheme of violence in Chicago. Andise1 (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 06:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 06:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No lasting impact nor media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. Seems to be just another in the long list of Chicago shootings.Sandals1 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election[edit]

2020 Sri Lankan parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator of this article failed to realise this article already exists, at Next Sri Lankan parliamentary election. Rather than moving the article name, this user has created a whole new article leaving two separate articles in existance. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Blackknight12 (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 05:29, 5 January 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. Sandstein 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Labyrinth of Evil[edit]

Labyrinth of Evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any reliable sources that meaningfully discuss this novel. Furthermore, Template:Star Wars Legends novels is a massive collection of fancruft. The vast majority of its contents should be deleted. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:18, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After just a brief search I was already able to find a couple of reliable sources that discuss this novel, and I've added a few of them to the article. I won't have time to do more until later, but I believe there is much more out there, and I will try to dig up more sources and add them as well. (A search on Newsbank appears to turn up a few more.) I also think this novel's direct connection to one of the Star Wars films, and the fact that it directly inspired plotlines in one of the Star Wars television shows, make it that much more notable. — Hunter Kahn 15:53, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The added sources do not fill me with confidence. The Verge, Wired and Entertainment Weekly articles mention the book in passing. The remaining three are two "Best of" lists and a primary source. ―Susmuffin Talk 18:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBOOK criterion 1 and Hunter Kahn. The novel appeared on the New York Times best seller for three weeks and received several non-trivial reviews. I added a couple of the reviews I found to the article. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 20:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hunter Kahn and Fearstreetsaga's additions. The Verge article is an interview with the author about this book series, not a passing mention. I think being an NYT best-seller makes its notability clear. Toughpigs (talk) 21:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, bestseller and reviews, article reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:10, 6 January 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) 08:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 J.League Asia Challenge[edit]

2022 J.League Asia Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable future event. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CRYSTAL. buidhe 04:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too far in future, WP:CRYSTAL applies. GiantSnowman 18:26, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with both the above. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an organized event two years in the future for which no claim of significance is made, much less any indication of notability (also too soon) or coverage in RS. I'd actually say this meets WP:CSD#A7 (organized event), but please tell me if this criterion isn't applicable. ComplexRational (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd probably have WP:CSD#A7'd this as well, even though I'm not a big WP:CSD#A7 fan. Even with the infobox, it's difficult to tell why this event is notable. SportingFlyer T·C 14:44, 11 January 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 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superior border[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Superior border (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Impossibly broad redirect, not serving a useful purpose. Linked terms are now all redirects (different to situation in 2016). Propose deletion. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:06, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete one included is ref to margin not to border.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:25, 5 January 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 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inferior border[edit]

Inferior border (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All links are now redirects. This is an impossibly broad disambig that servies no useful purpose. Propose deletion Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per reasons given.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 04:26, 5 January 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 10:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BIMCO (congress)[edit]

BIMCO (congress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NN. Deleted in Russia Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability at all. Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 12 January 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. Sandstein 10:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint Park (TV series)[edit]

Peppermint Park (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This show has been acknowledged by Cracked and Screen Rant, but this does not seem to be enough to meet WP:GNG. Newspapers.com and Google Books yielded no results. The other sources are TV publications that only give directory listings as well, along with a blog that does not seem to be an RS. Prod declined. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I have mixed feelings about this one. It has received some coverage in at least two secondary sources, according to the article's own references, indicating some level of notability, but the other refs at the article are all primary sources that don't count towards notability. The missing part of the picture is whether it got any media/press coverage at the time of its release in the 1980s – my suspicion is that might have (i.e. WP:NEXIST), but probably not much... My feeling here is that this is probably just barely notable, but it would be preferred if one or two more secondary sources for this could be found to "clinch" it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the "notability" of this subject stems from what an awful failure it was. In addition to the mentions on Cracked and Screen Rant, there's a page on TV Tropes and some YouTube videos dedicated to mocking the series. This kind of thing isn't usually considered significant coverage in reliable sources, but for this kind of topic, I think it indicates that there's legitimate public interest in this topic. At least all of the mentions of it are independent of the source -- the company that produced Peppermint Park is long gone, and the page wasn't written to advertise the series. I think it bends notability slightly but doesn't come close to breaking it. -- Toughpigs (talk) 04:45, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Toughpigs: Having a TV Tropes page is not an assertation of notability. "Legitimate public interest" is not the same thing as Wikipedia-level notability, and this doesn't seem to pass it. Cracked and Screen Rant are literally the only coverage forms that are anywhere close to reliable, and I see no reason to invoke WP:IAR just because you think it's of interest to someone. All rare media is of interest to someone. Does that mean everything on Lost Media Wiki should have a page here? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:56, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Well, notability is defined as "worthy of notice", and I think demonstrating "legitimate public interest" plays a role in that.
I looked on newspapers.com, and I found a couple mentions, which I acknowledge are very marginal:
  • Jordan Valley Sentinel (Murray, UT), Jan 14 1988, "Consumer Electronics Show: The Latest of Everything and Then Some": "E.J. Levine and the gang from Unicorn Video were there as were the people from the Peppermint Park video series which is a marvelous series for teaching preschoolers from Mark V Productions."
  • West Valley View (Salt Lake City, UT), Dec 17 1987, "Home on the Video Scene Dept.": "If you have preschoolers at home you can turn your VCR into a very pleasant learning tool with the Peppermint Park series of educational tapes which feature live action characters in various settings."
Looking at Lost Media Wiki, quite a bit of the articles featured there do have Wikipedia pages -- the current featured articles on the home page are Getting Together, Hortensius, Boone, the original version of The Good Dinosaur, Star-ving and a computer game called Big Brother that Wikipedia doesn't cover. I don't know if everything on Lost Media Wiki should have a page here -- I hadn't heard of it until I was looking up Peppermint Park yesterday -- but if that's meant to be a slippery slope argument then it doesn't scare me, particularly. -- Toughpigs (talk) 22:46, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: The two articles you cited are both trivial mentions and not enough for notability. "But other stuff has Wikipedia articles too" is not a valid reason to keep this one. Have you found any reliable coverage? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: I have not. Just Cracked and Screen Rant, and (to the extent that it matters) TV Tropes. -- Toughpigs (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then that is not reliable source coverage, and therefore not notability. If you can't find anything, then it must not be notable. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:04, 8 January 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. Without prejudice to a possible recreation of separate articles about the person and his company, if good sources can be found for either. Sandstein 10:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alain Afflelou[edit]

Alain Afflelou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient evidence for notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The "delete" opinions don't address the sources cited by the "keep" side. Sandstein 10:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Nkesti[edit]

Faith Nkesti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a non-notable model who fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The creator of the article fails to highlight why she might be notable, only writing it in a promotional tone. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I agree the article is not well-written and needs some big improvements, I think considering the news coverage of her (e.g. in Times Live, Cosmopolitan, Sowetan Live and Channel 24 among others), she does pass WP:GNG. According to these sources she's the first SA woman to have her own reality show on MTV, which I would say counts towards WP:ENTERTAINER. Achaea (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the page considerably and added some sources, hope this helps! Achaea (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable to meet WP:GNG. --17:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)--Richie Campbell (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of sources show she meets GNG and I just added two more. Thanks to Achaea for cleaning up the article! :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:27, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG.-Splinemath (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per meeting WP:GNG based on the sources now present in the article. TJMSmith (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Cosmopolitan, Times Live, Standard (Africa), so passes WP:GNG and deserves to be kept, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG per the sources provided by Achaea. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes general notability guidelines. Missvain (talk) 05:18, 11 January 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 10:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrel baffle[edit]

Squirrel baffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic. There's already a paragraph about this at Bird feeder#Squirrels, which covers the topic in about as much detail as needed. We could redirect to there, but (see below) because of copyvio issues, somebody would have to put in the effort to figure out what part of the history is clean. Easier to just delete and redirect, but I'd have no objection to keeping the history if somebody actually wanted to put in the effort to figure out which revisions were copyvio free.

About half of this article was copyvios and listings for specific products, which I've removed. The rest is unsourced, and mostly WP:OR. My own searching failed to find any useful sources. Lots of mentions, but they're all just places that sell these things. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to main per nom. Reywas92Talk 08:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to remove the copyvios, then Redirect per nom's observations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there's nothing to merge, so a delete is the best option. I'm not sure about a redirect, but can be done if anyone wishes after deletion. --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.theres nothing encyclopaedic to say about this topic. Mccapra (talk) 06:02, 12 January 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 10:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Segment (company)[edit]

Segment (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like a typical vanispamcruftisment; however I am not endorsing the WP:G11 tag as an "advert" tag was removed by BeenAroundAWhile who has done some cleanup. Nevertheless, I am sceptical we can write a detailed, neutral encyclopedia article about this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, it was me who started this article because I found multiple independent reliable sources that showed to me it looks quite notable. I also started several other articles about different subjects some time ago that also look notable - those include popular people, software, also open-source, cultural nonprofit project... Tried best to see notability proved in/by citations. However, I am just several-month-old as a Wikipedia editor, I do not have any connections with any of those subjects or any desire to advertise any of them or anything at all, and I want to learn to keep advancing as an editor, so it is interesting to understand why this subject is not notable and cannot be described on Wikipedia in a good way (if you and someone else think so) as personally I think it is notable and can be. The sources referenced in the article look like the article can be improved and extended and written in a neutral way, why not, and a quick search now shows me there can also be more of good sources found that could add more and help in further edits. I do not think this article needs to be deleted. I think this article may be extended and improved further. This is just my opinion however. Thank you. Avbgok (talk) 09:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:20, 5 January 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 Crochet bikini. And merge such content from the history as may be appropriate and supported by editorial consensus. Consensus seems to be that the concept and the related lawsuits are notable, and that how to present them neutrally and comprehensively is a matter for editors, not for AfD, and that an article about the broader concept rather than a specific product or brand is preferable. Sandstein 10:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kiini[edit]

Kiini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is entitled "Kiini" and refers to it as a design concept and clothing item, referring back to a series of articles first published in the NY Times. It also directly attributes "Kiini" (as a design concept) to a purported "original creator" named Maria Solange Ferrarini. My strong concerns with this attribution and mischaracterization are as follows:

- "Kiini" is a name of a bikini business founded in New York City by Ipek Irgit. The word "Kiini" is a trademark owned by said business.

- The term "Kiini" has only ever been used by this business, in reference to the brand itself.

- The original NY Times article purports that the concepts of the bikini designs sold by Kiini (the company) were created by an individual by the name of "Maria Solange Ferrarini"[1]. The article asserts that Kiini (the company) stole or otherwise took these ideas from Ferrarini, and later claimed a copyright on the design.

- It is worth noting that these claims have not been proven in any court of law, and the author of the article very clearly takes a stance on the matter—not shedding much light on Kiini's take of the situation, and instead, insinuating guilt. There is no concrete evidence offered in the article, only references to hearsay from ex-associates of the company.

- Regardless of the truthfulness of these claims—the article, and every other subsequent article detailing this saga, very clearly use the term "Kiini" to refer to the company, and the brand. They do not use it to refer to a design concept for a crochet bikini—of which there are decades upon decades of other examples and originators.

- The NY Times article also indicates that Maria Solange Ferrarini distances herself from the idea that she created "The Kiini" and rather, it explains that she had her own designs for years, and signed them with her name.

- Ferrarini went on to file for a copyright on her design, under the application title of "Ferrarini Bikini" only in 2018, years after Kiini was doing international business.

- Kiini remains a trademark of Ipek Irgit/Kiini LLC.

- This wikipedia entry very clearly blurs lines between what "Kiini" refers to and what it in fact is—which is a company, and a brand, which specializes in high end resort wear, namely, crochet bikinis.

- Instead, this article in its current standing insinuates that "Kiini" itself is a design, and misattributes it to Ferrarini.

- Further down, the article goes on to reference "Kiini" as a company, describing lawsuits.

- This, overall, is extremely misleading - and in fact very damaging to both parties, which are in the middle of legal proceedings. Ferrarini does not claim any relationship or ties to the term "Kiini" and in all the legal paperwork available online, her designs are "Ferrarini Bikini" and Kiini remains a standalone brand and entity. "Kiini" is never used as a term to refer to a style of bikini.

- These blurred lines, coupled with the lack of overall transparency on the entire matter, are compounded by a lack of credible sources without an extreme bias and agenda.

- There is no clear case for renaming the page to "crochet bikini," because Ferrarini was not the first, and will not be the last, designer of a crochet bikini - there are dozens of takes on this style of fashion throughout time.

- Furthermore, the content on this page, if it were to be moved to "Crochet Bikini" would be far, far too specific and detailed for a page centered around that topic, and the concept of a crochet bikini could never be rightfully attributed to a single individual. Alexslater86 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rosman, Katherine (March 29, 2017). "The Itsy-Bitsy, Teenie-Weenie, Very Litigious Bikini". Retrieved December 20, 2019.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, emphatically: well-documented dispute, covered in depth by sources as reliable as one is likely ever to find regarding a story like this, and of significant professional/scholarly interest to intellectual property lawyers (the NYT article is likely more "reliable" by Wikistandards than law journal articles, frankly). There are certainly editorial improvements to be made to the article and retitling may be appropriate. Certainly as Wikipedia develops its garment-industry coverage (hint hint, anyone?!) this is the type of subject matter the encyclopedia should pat itself on the figurative back for addressing. It's Chrismukkah week and I don't have time to do it within the running time of this AfD but deletion would not be supported. Query whether this nomination is focused on actual deletion criteria or just WP:IDONTLIKEIT (for some undisclosed reason). - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting perspective on it. I created the page and am sympathetic to the reasons for its deletion. As per nom there's a lot that the page doesn't represent as accurately as it should. It would benefit from having an experienced editor do a rewrite - there's another "hint" for you. I think "crocheted bikini" is probably the right title.Bangabandhu (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greetings, Julietdeltalima. One can check all the other AfD's of the day (or any other day) to verify that this nomination is elaborately and extensively presented. Alexslater86 has gone far beyond the duty of a nominator to support their proposal, so no case can be made for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But to accuse the nominator of having some "undisclosed reason" (i.e. motive) is not just rude but a violation of WP:AGF. -The Gnome (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Almost all the sources are about the litigation concerning the trade mark for this bikini type. The subject itself does not appear to have much of a notable profile of its own. Perhaps, we should await the legal resolution. -The Gnome (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As The Gnome noted above, the parties involved, particularly the eponym of this article, Kiini, do not have much notability outside of this very specific stint. The sources take a very clear position and act as judge, jury and executioner without any legal consensus on the matter—which is likely quite a way out, and may never be public if the proceedings end in a confidential settlement. In the interim though, the sheer existence of this article attributes the creation of a brand, company and trademark to an individual who the owner of said company is alleged to have taken from. This sort of misinformation harms both of the parties involved—at a minimum, the NY Times piece(s) do not make the mistake of calling Kiini a creation of Maria Solange Ferrarini, and this is not in the slightest bit unclear. Kiini remains a business, trademark and brand—which happens to be involved in unresolved legal proceedings.
  • There are hundreds of cases like this in the fashion world (particularly in fast fashion - e.g. Fashion Nova vs. the haute couture brands they are alleged of copying[1]), but no one would make the leap of creating a Wikipedia article entitled Fashion Nova and refer to it as a design concept (as opposed to a business and brand), and say it was created by Gianni Versace.
  • To further clarify on The Gnome's latest comment, the litigation chronicled across the sources is not about trademark infringement, but rather alleged copyright infringement, pertaining to a style of bikini that has no specific name other than a general descriptor of "crochet bikinis." Ferrarini's copyright application was filed under Ferrarini Bikiini and has absolutely no claim to the term Kiini.
  • In light of the above, any admins reviewing this should understand that the article nominated for deletion creates more problems than it solves—it consists of more inaccuracies and unresolved claims than objective truths, particularly because the truths are yet to be proven and disclosed.
  • One final point worth reiterating to conclude: Kiini is a brand. Maria Solange Ferrarini is a designer of crochet bikinis from Brazil whose lawyers allege is the victim of copyright infringement for her designs (with no final conclusion yet). The article attributes Kiini directly to Ferrarini, as though she created it. This is objectively untrue with no room for misunderstanding—it simply is false. On all of these grounds, I feel the page should be removed. Alexslater86 (talk) 01:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Versace is Suing Fashion Nova for "Brazenly" Copying its Designs, Infringing its Trademarks". November 26, 2019. Retrieved January 3, 2020.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to new page I've created the page crochet bikini which can address all forms of the crochet bikini. The page is a bit disjointed right now as much of its content was taken from the existing kiini entry. I would make the redirect right now, but don't know what etiquette is for when there's an existing AFD discussion underway.Bangabandhu (talk) 16:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My staunch issue with going this route is the fact that this is such a specific case in a sea of hundreds of other players in the swimwear space (even in the crochet swimwear space). It has been an established style from well before Irgit and Ferrarini entered the space. To have the entire lead section of that page remain so specific does more damage (to both of them) than good, in light of the fact that they are embroiled in litigation. The introduction also incorporates unproven facts that are still, indisputably, allegations at the current time, no matter how cut and dry the NY Times piece seems, it's still very clear that nothing is proven. Perhaps if this page existed it would need to remain more general to remain neutral, at the very least, in the introduction. Alexslater86 (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crochet bikini covers all crochet bikinis, including kiini, the Brazilian one that preceded it, and other versions of crochet bikinis before and after these. If you think there's undue weight on one version, you should discuss it on that page. The important point is that it resolves confusion over kiini as a trademark versus kiini as a type of swimwear. Bangabandhu (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bangabandhu, I think it's going to need some serious editing to be neutral and accurately reflect what are indisputable facts vs. what are allegations, but it can work with some edits. We can reconvene the discussion over there. Is "moving" the page an option? Or must it be a redirect? The former seems more appropriate, if viable. Alexslater86 (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to moving the talk section on kiini, it will be retained under the kiini entry, which should have a redirect. If you're referring to moving the content of the kiini entry, I've already moved it and added additional text appropriate to crochet bikini. We can start talking about changes to that page in that talk section. Bangabandhu (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the proper method of "converting" the existing Kiini page to crochet bikini without redirecting it (i.e. 'moving' the page / renaming it). A redirect implies that the crochet bikini page is an accurate summary and result for someone looking up Kiini, which it is not intended to be—as discussed, crochet bikini is intended to cover the broader subject matter and design concept. It does mention Kiini (and other brands), which is fine. That said, I still feel the Kiini page we're currently dealing with should be deleted. My issue is one of neutrality. Otherwise, following this logic, pages for Ferrarini, PilyQ / Platinum, and all the other brands mentioned on crochet bikini should be created and then ultimately redirected to crochet bikini (...I hope you can see the point I'm making—is redirection doesn't make sense as it still perpetuates the blurring of lines between the brand name and the design concept). Alexslater86 (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are common when the topic doesn't merit its own entry or can be contained in a broader entry, which can be the case for any number of reasons and is appropriate here. So yes, you're right, Ferrarini, PilyQ, etc. could all redirect to crochet bikini. Bangabandhu (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Crochet bikini seems like a good solution. As noted, redirecting individual brands to an article about the type is fine and common - after all, if the reader doesn't know the term for the type (which I suspect is fairly likely with "crochet bikini") they will probably search for a specific brand. Which should then land them at the appropriate general topic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Crochet bikini. This dispute is clearly notable, but the notability of the name of this one particular product is less-well-established. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: in the event of further notability of any of the parties involved (e.g. Ferrarini, Kiini, PQ Swim) that warrants their own company article on Wikipedia, what happens when there's already a redirect from one of them to this crochet bikini page? Also (genuine question), why is deletion of this page, while allowing crochet bikini to exist without a redirect/merge not a viable solution? In the event of that scenario, the contents would still exist on crochet bikini chronicling the story, but there would not be undue weight on any party. The sheer creation of this page under the title Kiini was a misrepresentation from the beginning, which is what I want to cast light on, and redirecting users still gives that original misrepresentation some validity. Alexslater86 (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The point here is to make things useful for the reader. You shouldn't be required to know the abstract type term for something you want to look up, you should be able to enter a connected term you know (e.g., a specific brand of that type) and get your information. Making such searches easy is the function of redirects. Further, redirects don't have to conform to our notability criteria; e.g., we redirect non-notable actors to notable films all the time, precisely because people might look for "that film that had actor X in it" but actor X is not sufficeintly notable himself. I don't know where you get those concerns about undue representation from. Redirects do not convey anything of the kind. - As for what happens when the company becomes notable later: just replace the redirect link on the page with actual article text. E.g., here is an article that was just expanded from a redirect, by someone porting material from another language wiki. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:50, 9 January 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 Wight. As per my usual practice in a split delete/merge sitation; this allows merging from the history if somebody wants to do that and it has editorial consensus. Sandstein 10:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow-wight[edit]

Barrow-wight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional race. Gets some passing references in secondary literature, but not enough to prove notability. The article contains some sources, but these sources are exclusively in the etymology section. The barrow-wights have no real notability in-universe or out of universe. Also, the article has a lot of internal inconsistency. In one point, the article states that the barrow-wights are from the First Age of Middle-earth, but it also says in the infobox that these critters were created by the newly AfD'd Witch-king of Angmar, who did not exist in the First Age of Middle-earth. Possible OR? Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:47, 5 January 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 10:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva (2008 film)[edit]

Apoorva (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unknown. Undersourced film. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DragoMynaa (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Marshall (American football)[edit]

Steve Marshall (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally or been a head coach in an NFL game. Was an offensive line coach in the NFL for 7 years, but can only find transactional coverage like being hired by the Jets and or being hired by the Packers, not enough to pass WP:GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indepth coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. With a coaching history of 40 years, I thought I would be able to find something on him. But I wasn't able to find anything above transactional news pieces. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Like Gonzo, I expected to find significant coverage for a coach with such a long history, but I came up empty too. This may be partly due to the fact that "Steve Marshall" is a common name, and sorting through the chaff is not an easy task. If others are able to find significant coverage, I'm willing to reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete fails WP:GNG, per Gonzo and Cbl62. Much as I hate to vote delete on a guy who was an OC at two different Power 5 schools, the sources just aren't there right now. I'd be willing to change my mind if additional sources could be produced. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:24, 12 January 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. Seeing as the arguments for notability have not been contested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Relph[edit]

Tyler Relph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted on an expired prod with a notability concern; since it's been recreated, we may as well have a discussion on rather or not Relph is actually notable.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  I dream of horses (My talk page) (My edits) @ 00:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a high school distinction title is not a sign of notability, and his college career is not at a notable level either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment my question: was it enough to be Mr. Basketball in a state like New York? There is much RS to meet GNG. Lightburst (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG with the sources already in the article. Dammit_steve (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets GNG with enough sources in article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has enough significant coverage to meet GNG. Rlendog (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources already in the article. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_January_5&oldid=1142612664"