Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 May 22 May >

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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Broom Street Theater theatrical productions[edit]

List of Broom Street Theater theatrical productions (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 list of every production a theatre has produced is excessive and verging on WP:FANCRUFT. Content is unsourced and it is extremely unlikely that every production will be notable Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I would venture that a vast majority of the productions would probably only have WP:DOGBITESMAN type coverage, if any. -- Dolotta (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notable productions can be included in the article on the theatre, but most of these productions are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of All That sketches[edit]

List of All That sketches (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)

Unsourced original research. There is already an extensive section of recurring sketches in the main article, this goes into too much detail WP:FANCRUFT Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft and original research, nothing notable to include here. Ajf773 (talk) 23:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. The article is WP:OR and there is no evidence this by itself is a notable topic. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chocheng[edit]

Chocheng (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 does not have enough sources and has a promotional tone. The brand has some sources online but the designer does not. Fails GNG Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 23:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable fashion designer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to official website "Chocheng" is the brand while the artist is known as Cho Cho Cheng. vogue has webpage for the brand but it seem rest of the info from reliable source are not enough for wiki editor to write a in-depth article (or WP:GNG). The existing citation on the wiki article "A Heritage of Style", from Post Magazine (a magazine that bundled with South China Morning Post) may don't have online edition so that i never able to dig out the url for people to read and access it qualify as an in-depth article for GNG or not. Matthew hk (talk) 16:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. Just a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL fashion designer. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. bibliomaniac15 04:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard de Klerk[edit]

Richard de Klerk (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)

Possibly non notable actor; fails WP:NACTOR. No third party sources so fails WP:GNG. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: He's an actor who has been in a number of films and been paid to do so (presumably) so I don't see a lack of notability. Just because few people _here_ (ie wp.en) have heard of him doesn't make him ignorable especially as until he dies or retires he will continue to make more films, so having an article to link to is right and proper. WP doesn't have storage limitations. --AlisonW (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AlisonW, well, he doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, with the lack of third party sources for the actor. We can always restore the article should he become notable later on. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Being a working actor is not a sufficient reason for inclusion (that's IMDb's job). He's getting there, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. The only press notice I see is that he gets a passing mention in an article about his father being accused of scamming a couple. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being paid to be in multiple films is not the criteria for notability. We need significant roles, the being paid to be in multiple films applies to extras. Having named roles does not make someone default notable. We need sourcing that is reliable and shows more than existence, neither of which IMDb is. It is high time we actually applies GNG rules to actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Weak Keep or Draftify Keep or Draftify: I don't think this article is a lost cause. The subject has had significant roles in films, including CBGB (film) and Repeaters, and a number of recurring TV roles, thereby meeting the WP:NACTOR threshold. As regards WP:GNG, a cursory search shows plenty of mentions in reputable sources, so I am now going to search for more in-depth coverage and may revise my vote depending on what I do or do not find. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've found a Variety review for a film in which the subject plays the lead. The link, however, is broken, so I am applying to WP:RX to see if it can be fixed. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete somewhat per Johnpacklambert; there seems to be a misunderstanding among the keep !voters as to the criteria, which is (deliberately) stringent; I also suggest that Dflaw4 changes their bolded! vote to reflect their change of opinion. serial # 09:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: For clarity's sake, I am voting "weak keep" based on a strong NACTOR argument and a weak GNG argument; I have not yet found SIGCOV. If the consensus is to delete, however, I suggest "draftifying" the article to allow others the chance to find sufficient sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dflaw4: this is the root of the issue, I suspect, and suggests that Premeditated Chaos's comments were well-founded. The SNG is not a replacement for GNG, it's conterminous with it. An article doesn't get to fail GNG if it's passed the SNG, or vice versa: the latter merely indicates how/where, in the case of a specialist subject, sustained coverage may be found. serial # 12:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, I am not sure which comments you are referring to, but there is actually disagreement on how GNG and SNG work together. I am not advocating for any particular approach, but because of the good case for NACTOR and the fact that the subject's roles can, at the very least, be verified in reliable sources, I don't think deletion is necessarily required. For your benefit, however, I explained that I would support a draftify instead of a delete—in other words, if the consensus is against me (as it seems to be), I would suggest that we consider draftifying the article as opposed to deleting it outright. I apologise if I was not clear on that. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These comments, in which you admitted to (either) misunderstanding or misusing the notablility guidelines. serial # 13:15, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial, I did neither. I said I was lenient. I think you are misconstruing what I said. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. serial # 13:39, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding that, Кирилл С1. I was unable to find the Wikipedia page for the film. Are we able to access the references in that page? They may provide coverage of the subject, especially since he was the lead actor. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much of an article, and not likely to become one. IMDB isn't reliable for good information.Polyglot Researcher (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2020 (UTC)​[reply]
please review this source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's still snow on the tips of the high mountains that loom over this little town. "It's Canada's hot spot," says actor Richard de Klerk, lightly dressed in T-shirt and jeans, his back hunched against the blustery wind that cuts through the Thompson-Nicola region. Variations of that line are repeated all day on the set of the indie drama Cole. On this unseasonably cold day, the community of 350 is a one-joke town. Director Carl Bessai, doubling as his own cameraman, is seated on a dolly rig mounted on rails, for a smooth tracking shot as de Klerk's Cole comes out of a ramshackle house to meet his big-city girlfriend Serafina (Kandyse McClure), pulling up in a Mercedes sedan. McClure, in a sleeveless cotton sundress, admits during a break that she's got the car's heat cranked. The Vancouver-based cast and crew are here for two weeks of filming, after a week spent filming scenes in Vancouver. Written by Adam Zang, a Seattle-based graduate of the Vancouver Film School, Cole is the archetypal story of a young man looking to escape his small-town roots. Bessai and his cast met regularly before filming started, working the script to get specific details into those archetypes, including making Lytton and its surroundings a specific setting for the movie. It's the kind of project the well-schooled Vancouver acting pool can do for little money in between the big-ticket jobs. "It's the lowest budget film I've ever worked on," says Chad Willett, who divides his time between Vancouver, New York and Los Angeles after getting his start more than a decade ago on the teen drama Madison. De Klerk, too, is busy in Vancouver and L.A.-filmed episodic TV, McClure has spent the past four seasons as part of the ensemble on Battlestar Galactica and Sonja Bennett, as Cole's sister and the wife to Willett's character, has logged a series of indie-darling roles in Vancouver and Toronto. Willett signed on as an abusive husband, seeing a challenge to bring some layers to the character. "He can be the easy-to-target bad guy," says director Bessai of Willett's character. "We worked with the actors to get the details right." Willett takes off his baseball hat and shows a detail he came up with -- the classic small-town mullet. "People in Vancouver were looking at me funny, but I fit in here." De Klerk, in his first feature-film starring role, did some pre-filming homework as well, taking a road trip through the surrounding countryside with co-star Michael Eisner, who plays Cole's best friend. They motored a further 60 kilometres up the road to Lillooet before turning back. "You just get a full sense of how isolated the place is," says de Klerk. During filming a fight scene with Willett, de Klerk took a tumble that required a couple of stitches to the inside of his lip. He took it as a good sign that the doctor who stitched him up was also named de Klerk. Later, when the stitches split again, he had to wait several hours for the doctor to come back from Cache Creek. Another method touch for the cast -- Lytton has no cellphone service. When shooting wraps in the evening, cast and crew meet for beers in the motel parking lot or in their makeshift office at the town's parish hall. Willett barbecued burgers for cast and crew one night at his lodgings, and spent weekends camping and fishing to stay in character. Singer-actor Rebecca Jenkins, who plays Cole's mother, invited her law-professor husband Joel Bakan up for a break. "We spent the weekend riding horses, just being cowboys," says Bakan. For Jenkins, the shoot brings back memories of filming the 1989 period hit Bye Bye Blues in rural Alberta. "You're happily stuck out somewhere in jaw-dropping beauty," Jenkins says. "It's so freeing. We all cycle around -- most people brought their bikes up." Bessai's small, nimble crew is barely noticeable in the town, which wasn't the case with the last movie to shoot here. Cole's only artificial touch, oddly enough, is that ramshackle house and gas station on the outskirts. Turns out it's a leftover set built for the 2001 Sean Penn-Jack Nicholson movie The Pledge. The weathered look is painted on. "All three of the motels will tell you that Jack Nicholson stayed there," says Bennett. Dflaw4 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also a reference in Toronto Star review of the film Repeaters: "Mike, played menacingly well by Richard de Klerk". The actor starred in several Canadian films, so he may be notable, and could probably be described as "Canadian indie film star". Besides, he has a starring role in an upcoming film. Кирилл С1 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is an article entirely on actor[1]. There is a list of Leo nominees [2] that includes actor's nomination for Cole (film). There are also other articles with paragraphs concerning actor's other roles, mentions or descriptions of several of his other film works. So, there is significant coverage of actor in various newspapers and on websites. Кирилл С1 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets GNG with sources such as this and this. Besides, who can resist one of Vancouver's most eligble bachelors. Lots of national media coverage for various projects, like Cole, Repeaters, etc. Nfitz (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nfitz, thank you for finding that Variety source; it makes the case for GNG considerably stronger. I hope the editors who have voted to delete will peruse the sources that have been uncovered later in the AfD. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per GNG – Thanks to Nfitz for finding new references. There is now no justification whatsoever for this article to be deleted. VocalIndia (talk) 05:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ko Kwang-za[edit]

Ko Kwang-za (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 originally draftified, but the creator disputed. I tried finding sources, but couldn't find any RS. I think the creator asserts that the news article in de Stem proves notability, but it is merely lists all 35 contestants of the world championship, without any further information about Ko Kwang-za. I also looked for sources using her Korean name, but couldn't find suitable sources (though my research skills are limited here, I has to use Google Translate), which is why I moved it to draftspace in case someone could find Korean sources. I am fine with draftification by consensus or deletion. MrClog (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In summary:
  1. Speed skating was a very popular (Olympic) sport. In some countries the top-3 sport in that era.
  2. A very limited amount of riders could participate at the World Championships.
  3. I found good sources of all other competitors of these World Championships (non-Asian)
  4. I have good access to Dutch newspapers, and could find her in several papers.
  5. All Korean news sources of that era are not online
  6. It’s even extremely difficult to find the sources of the first North Korean Olympic medal winner
  7. Sources in Korea would be in Korean, but we don’t know for sure her name in Korean
  8. See the discussion about this topic Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Proposal_speed_skating_(long_track), where I prove the speed skaters in that era are notable
Only a limited number of skaters could participate at the championships, and no other Olympic sport has less participants at the world championships. Speed skating is one of the main sports in the Nehterlands, and also in other countries in that era. I found her in several Dutch newspapers (I have only access to Dutch newspapers): See five examples 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Note, that this is almost all what is written about sport in some of the newspaper, showing the popularity of speed skating . I'm not aware of other sports where the full entrants lists and starting list is published in newspapers. I created many articles of speed skaters of the early 20th century (and also at the 18th and 19th century) and found good sources of the Dutch and non-Asian countries. Much of the Asian news sources of the 1960s (and before) are not online. So all the news sources can't be found. Also, it will be in Korean script, and we are even not sure what here name is in North Korean. To show that this is a main issue: North Korea couldn’t compete at the 1968 Winter Olympics. Han Pil-hwa was the first North Korean to win a medal at the Winter Olympics. There are no newspaper sources or other sources showing that she is notable. See also this video, where they struggled finding original Korean sources (YouTube video fMEGT0kEdD8). That's the reason I started to propose the Notability guideliness for speed skating, as has been done for many other sports. See the discussion about this topic Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Proposal_speed_skating_(long_track), where I prove the speed skaters in that era are notable. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While you have made your case for a set of criteria with regards to speed skaters, there is no consensus at this point in favour of those criteria, it is merely a proposal. All the 5 mentions are lists of participants, with no information about Ko Kwang-za besides her nationality. While I know that speed skating is popular in the Netherlands (I'm Dutch), I couldn't find SIGCOV about her in Dutch sources. You say "we don’t know for sure her name in Korean", then why is her name in Korean in the article? Also, the onus is on those who want to keep the article to provide verifiable evidence that there are multiple independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject. Also, with regards to "I'm not aware of other sports where the full entrants lists and starting list is published in newspapers", I know for a fact that Dutch newspapers often publish lists of all participants during e.g. Eredivisie and UEFA Champions League matches, as well as some semi-professional field hockey matches, to mention some examples. MrClog (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC); edited 16:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I watched the video you linked, but couldn't find any mention of a lack of sources. (Though they did mention they were unable to get permission to interview her from the DPRK.) --MrClog (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not into football, but I assume all Eredivisie players and Champions League players are notable. So supporting that if a name of an athlete is in multiple foreign newspapers, the athlete must be special; as newspapers are not listing other list with foreigners of low important international events. If the person is already in foreign newspapers, it’s likely that there will be coverage in North Korean sources. We are not even able to find North Korean coverage of speed skating of this era. And with your point of “provide verifiable evidence that there are multiple independent reliable sources that offer significant coverage of the subject” all female North Korean speed skaters have to be deleted, and probably most of the North Korean Olympians. And as I said and you saw, you will agree that that’s due to the fact we don’t have access to North Korean news sources. The name is in the article because that’s the Korean name in the source. I assume this is the Korean name, but can we be 100% sure? SportsOlympic (talk) 17:36, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If her Korean name is sourced, we can presume it's true. Also, while Eredivisie players are notable, semi-professional field hockey players - regularly listed in Dutch newspapers - are not notable. And the fact that certain articles are not notable under GNG (there must be multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage to proof notability) is not a reason to ignore GNG. If you feel GNG falsly holds that this article is not notable, you should seek to change the GNG, not ignore it while there is community-wide consensus for GNG. --MrClog (talk) 19:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it’s the Korean name, it proves speedskatingnews has seen a Korean source. I’m talking here about international events, not local amateur competitions. Or if I don’t understand you correct, please show what you mean. I’m not ignoring GNG, see the many discussions about NOLYMPICS, including several times Korean people. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that being listed as participant in a Dutch newspaper isn't a sign of notability (even semi-prof. field hockey players are regularly mentioned there). Maybe the person in question was registered with both her Korean and 'English' name at the World Championship, which would explain how they know her Korean name. --MrClog (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As it’s not clear what you mean with semi-prof field hockey, please give an example showing those internationals. The people were not registered with both names (highly unlikely), never seen it on the speed skating lists and it’s not in the official ISU database. SportsOlympic (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about national semi-prof. field hockey leagues. --MrClog (talk) 09:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (as nom) This is much more a disagreement over whether participation in certain events proves notability. This is now being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) § Notability guideliness speed skating (proposal by SportsOlympic). As long as there is no community consensus there in favour of these standards, SportsOlympic can't claim that thye have proven notability by virtue of showing she participated in a World Championships. Instead, they should proof the article meets GNG, which they've said is impossible. --MrClog (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus yet as it’s ongoing and placed recently. I started it to avoid discussions like this. The Speed skating World championships athletes concession is made at other Wikis. Due to the lack of Korean sources, almost all North Korean athlete don’t have available sources. Many times Olympians at AfD, most recent one: medal winner Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yun Chol (weightlifter). Same story about sourcing as above. So we should wait if there will be consensus on the notability guideliness you mean? SportsOlympic (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't add anything. Having an article in another country doesn't count for notability. And all other Olympic North Korean speed skaters (apart from the one who won a medal) don't have a page on the Korean wiki: An Sen-za, Bak Wol-ja, Choi Dong-ok, Chong Chang-suk, Han Chun-ok, Kim Bok-soon, Kim Chang-hae, Kim Chun-wol, Kim Jong-hui, Kim Myung-ja, Kim Ok-hui (speed skater), Pak Gum-hyon, Pak Gum-hyon, Ryoo Choon-za, Song Hwa-son, Tak In-suk, Kim Song-soon, Ko Hyon-suk. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an impossible AfD, as we really have no way of determining her notability without access to sources. It's a shame too considering this is a better article than a spot-check of any of the articles listed above. I would go as far to say that if she did not receive North Korean press coverage, though, her article should definitely be deleted as we have no significant coverage of her, the photo is the best part of the article regarding verification. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, some additional information on North Korean speed skates can be found in the Encyclopedia: “ Eng, Trond en Marnix Koolhaas. National All Time & Encyclopedia Men / Ladies as at 1.7.87, Issue N°6: Africa, Asia, Oceania, Vol.2. Veggli, Noorwegen: WSSSA-Skøytenytt, 1987.”
It’s the only information source (apart from the website of this article) of the North Korean speed skaters listed above. I asked the user if he still has this encyclopedia to find additional info. [:nl: Overleg gebruiker:Dirk P Broer|see here] SportsOlympic (talk) 08:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The user has made only one edit in 2020. I hope he will see your request, but I fear he will not. --MrClog (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: You said "if she did not receive North Korean press coverage, though, her article should definitely be deleted as we have no significant coverage of her". But would such coverage by the NK press even qualify as WP:RS under WP:GNG? --MrClog (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think if sources can't be found in the next then this will struggle to survive
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 23:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: That's the whole discussion as we don't have access to North Korean sources, as with the Olympians. It appears no consensus is reached. SportsOlympic (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Rendezvous for Socially Conscious Film[edit]

International Rendezvous for Socially Conscious 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)

No evidence of notability, WP:BEFORE in both English and French showed no evidence of reliable sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of uniformed groups in Singapore schools[edit]

List of uniformed groups in Singapore schools (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 non notable list of data with no context. This list is in addition to a list of schools in Singapore. Poorly sourced with likely accuracy problems. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non notable cross categorisation. Plus there are no sources to verify uniform requirement. Ajf773 (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Took me a minute to figure out what the article was about, but it seems to be a crosscat of which schools host which co-curriculars. Even if there was coverage, I don't think the subject as a whole would be notable, more any of the individual programs. Navigational purpose is limited, and most of the list is duplicated at Co-curricular_activity_(Singapore)#Uniformed groups anyway. I'd say the list topic would only be notable if we could create an article about the concept of a "uniformed group", and in that case we'd want an article, not a list with the content limitations of that format. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, concur with Alpha3031. The list is essentially impossible to fully source, and for some reason is limited to secondary schools when UGs exist in primary schools and tertiary institutions. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope Shanti School[edit]

Hope Shanti 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)

Not notable. The main source is permanent dead link with the only other source being a Facebook page. Very promotional with no sources. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Amkgp ✉ 20:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT. Lorstaking 02:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not even clear this is a secondary school, and we have come to realize that not every secondary school everywhere is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reelin' In the Years Productions[edit]

Reelin' In the Years Productions (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:NORG. No sigcov, references are all for the recordings, not the company. Article is simply promotional in nature. Rogermx (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Amkgp ✉ 20:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Hugh John Macdonald#Marriage. Obvious consensus not to retain as a standalone article. Redirecting as a WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Mary Gainsford[edit]

Isabella Mary Gainsford (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 personal notability whatsoever DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to change vote if someone finds out she did something of note. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Hugh_John_Macdonald#Marriage, perhaps renaming the section as "Marriage and family" and including her dates and perhaps that final reference (pity it's not readable online, but I'm sure it's a valid obituary article). There are a lot of incoming redirects, which will resolve into redirects to follow that main redirect (deleting before redirecting would lose them). Any article whose lead defines someone only as a daughter and grand-daughter raises questions of notability, and the categories reflect this: she existed, and was a prime minister's grand-daughter, full stop. She doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy. Nice article for a family or local history website but not appropriate for an international encyclopedia. PamD 10:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be in play here a surprising ignorance of a historical period that is comparatively recent: she was an heiress and a society figure; yes, that meant her position in society was dependent on her relationship to men (we're talking about what is often characterised as a "patriarchal society"); but that does not mean her position in society was not "notable". And to pre-empt wikilawyering misreadings: to say that she in fact, in the conditions of her time, inherited a position that gave her notability is not to say that notability (per se) is inherited. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself, but for me it's not "ignorance of a historical period" but closer to WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It's not her position in society in relation to men that is of concern. It's the absence of any other way to write her article. She was a woman. At most, a socialite, but the article doesn't even go that far. She acted once. She received an inheritance. She received birthday wishes. She was the guest of honor at a banquet. Some socialites have Wikipedia articles... they are suffragettes, writers, publishers/editors, activists, advocates, educators, trailblazers, scholars, artists, and scientists. If there is more to this subject, add it to the article and I'm happy to change my vote, but in its present state, this reads like an entry in a self-published family history book. One could draft this much or more on the nieces, nephews, cousins, in-laws, grand-children and great-grandchildren of most socially prominent people. Grandchildren of heads of state are not inherently notable. Take away the relationship to the prime minister and she is a woman of society who was born, lived, and died. That's a great thing... but not for an encyclopedia. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 18:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so people aren't automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because of who they happen to have been married to, but nohing stated here demonstrates that she has any standalone notability — even most of the sources are more about her husband than her per se. and the relatively few that are actually about her still aren't really making a strong case that she needs her own article. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who happens to surpass an arbitrary number" — it most certainly does still test the sources for the context of what they're covering the person for, and things like being the guest of honour at a fundraising banquet and receiving birthday wishes from a friend (even a notable friend) are not inherently noteworthy contexts. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Someone Who Was Actually Notable - There just isn't anything in here that suggests notability. She had notable relatives. She was not herself notable. The obituary listed is literally a list of her male relatives without any achievements of her own. MarylandGeoffrey (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing really to guarantee the notability of the subject per nom. Abishe (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. just because her grandfather was notable does not make her notable. Nika2020 (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentPer WP:NOTINHERITED "individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG."Samsmachado (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the redirect particularity when there is not a jot of notability. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JavaHurricane 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cartford Inn[edit]

The Cartford Inn (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)

trivial mention only in Michelin--not an award. No other notability . DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't do these often but does a review in The Guardian by Jay Rayner count for nothing? Parts of the building must surely be listed, though they don't boast about it. Johnbod (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – Joe (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suffolk Accident Rescue Service[edit]

Suffolk Accident Rescue Service (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 evidence that this is a notable ambulance/rescue service. Coverage simply indicates it exists. StarM 23:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. StarM 23:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a quick search found some sources. I added a couple as EXT. There's more out there. As to whether this meets WP:NCORP I don't know, but finding more with "Suffolk Accident Rescue Service" may be more fruitful than with "SARS". Ping User:Star Mississippi, curious if you missed these per WP:BEFORE, or discounted those out there as local press / PR / primary or something? Widefox; talk 22:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 02:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Jalón Corominas[edit]

Manuel Jalón Corominas (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-credible claims from a single source. This designer appears to have made some adaptations of existing technology, but not to the degree that would make him notable in Wikipedia’s view. Qwirkle (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There are multiple, reliable sources presented in the article. These sources include the state-owned, public broadcaster RTVE and the 125-years old newspaper Heraldo de Aragón. Besides passing WP:GNG, the subject also meets WP:ANYBIO, receiving honors in the city of Zaragoza, and in the town of Trasmoz.

Another source included in the external links discusses how Manuel Jalón was legally confirmed as the inventor of the mop. I suggest that a section about the controversy is included in the article. --Alan Islas (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that anyone “invented the mop” in the 20th century is the level of complete bullshit that we should not be presenting in an encyclopedia. The idea is laughable. His “invention”, if it be dignified as such, was an undersized version of a very, very, common commercial product; perhaps one not widely used in Spain, or his part of it, but it’s trivial to find cites for wringer bucket patents in the 19th century. There are a great many local folk-beliefs, and millions of middling-sized frogs who look big in their little pond. Doesn’t make them notable. Qwirkle (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The mop is definitely not a civilization-altering invention, and this particular claim may very well be a stretch of patent law, I don't know. On the other hand, the second contribution included in the article, improvements to the design of a disposable plastic syringe, arguably has more beneficial impact.
I do see your point though, and if I'm being honest (I am), I would not include him in an encyclopedia that was solely to my own taste. If it was my criteria I would probably also get rid of thousand other WP articles that I consider to be trivial, superficial or just plain silly. But since WP:NOTPAPER it allows the inclusion of the "small frog" articles that would not find a place in a more traditional encyclopedia (for example, today I copyedited an article about a singaporean yo-yo champion). Furthermore, for the people who live there those little ponds are important.
Apologies if I'm missing your point or if it sounds like I'm lecturing, it is not my intention at all. On the contrary, I'm just learning the ropes in WP and I appreciate this opportunity to learn from a more experienced editor. My strong keep vote was because the secondary sources cited seem solid but I did not delve deep into the claims themselves. I think adding references to older "prior art" into a criticism section would be useful, alongside with the controversy already alluded to in the external links section. I'm not sure if that constitutes original research, but personally I have nothing against it. The giggle test did embarrass me enough to move away from the "strong" keep (stricken) hehehe! Also, I think parts of the writing would benefit from a more neutral, less grandiose style, but respectfully I still believe this article meets WP criteria as they stand. Thank you! Alan Islas (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, I think the claims for hypodermics are, if anything, even worse. The hypodermic syringe article on wiki is a good place to start looking, other names show up well before his involvement, and they source out nicely. The problem with localized sourcing is that local common knowledge tends to inflate local achievements. (Anyone who doubts this need only look at the plethora...nay, pleonasm, of wiki articles on small-fry New Jersey politicians.) Qwirkle (talk) 02:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had another dive into the sources and now I agree with you, calling Manuel Jalón Corominas "the inventor of the mop" seems preposterous. You are right, what he did was improve existing models and adapt them to the Spanish market. I found this El Pais article that says something like that, although still calls him "the inventor of the mop" in the title. Furthermore, going to primary sources, his 1964 Spanish patent was given for "Mejores en los sistemas escurridores por compresion" (Improvements on compression dryer systems). Something similar seems to be true about the disposable plastic syringe, namely Jalon Corominas did some improvements and then sold a lot of them. The subject even referred to his designs (now I hesitate to call them inventions) as "silly little things" (my translation of the word "tonterias"), adding that they were very beneficial to people and profitable for him (paraphrasing).
So now I agree that the core claims are exaggerated perhaps due in part to local or nationalistic pride, but the notability and significant secondary sources are certainly out there (mostly in Spanish). So I think the keep still applies, even if the end result ends up being about a successful designer and entrepreneur that improved some useful older products (with widespread, contested intellectual property claims), and made enough money to buy a medieval castle. If anything, I believe having a balanced WP article that presents this subject in a more measured way (in contrast to many of the articles that show up in a google search) would be more useful than a full delete. Sorry for the long-winded replies and thanks again for this discussion. Alan Islas (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above in general, but I have very little confidence that this could remain an accurate article so long as wiki-circular junk infests the English-language parts of the internet, and boosterism some parts of the Spanish side. Fix it, it breaks as soon as your back is turned, like Frost’s fence. Qwirkle (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Did some work on the article to bring it closer to what was discussed above. Tried to correctly dimension the scope of the core claims about inventions, including more relevant sources and details. Also added sections and images from the town of Trasmoz related to the subject. Hopefully this is a step in the right direction. Alan Islas (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that’s a move in the right direction. A big part of the problem is that his design’s name became the default word for mops in parts of Spain. Hoover didn’t invent the vacuum, and Kleenex wasn’t the first tissue paper, but it is difficult to explain that to people who have a particular brand’s name imbedded in their vocabulary. Qwirkle (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Chuks[edit]

Steve Chuks (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 pass WP:ENT. The sources are all recycled press releases, a video clip, an interview and a couple of ‘top ten’ items. No indication at all of sustained coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Basically what Mccapra said. Subject of article is a comedian & actor but doesn’t satisfy WP:ENT. Celestina007 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I can't see that WP:ENT is met, nor WP:GNG. --bonadea contributions talk 11:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actor. I am loosing hope we will avoid getting to 1 million articles on living people this year, unless the death rate from Covid-19 goes up a lot, but I am not going to let us keep articles on clearly non-notable actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that comment is in very poor taste, Johnpacklambert. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is in poor taste is hundreds of articles on living people languishing for over a decade without even 1 reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I want is an end to unreliably sourced material that has no place in an encyclopedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnpacklambert, well, good luck with that. In the meantime, I suggest you don't make flippant remarks like the one above. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep or Draftify: I don't have any opinion on WP:ENT, but the subject is getting ongoing coverage, despite the quality of that coverage being disputed. There is obviously a consensus emerging to delete the article, but I think "draftifying" could be worthwhile in this case, as it will give interested editors the opportunity to update the page with new, recent sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I send articles to draft it's because there very likely are sources to demonstrate notability, but the article's creator has not put them in. In this case a number of editors have looked and none of us have come up with sustained coverage in reliable independent sources. So far nobody has put forward additional sources that would help show that the subject is notable. If there are such sources, adding them now would be a good move. If there are not, no purpose can be served by moving to draft. Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. I ran a Google search and did not find coverage that are independent of him.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 12:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nasiru Bello Sani[edit]

Nasiru Bello Sani (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)

Definite fail of WP:ENT. The sources provided are 1. an interview 2. Exactly the same ‘interview’ in a different outlet (PR klaxon) 3. Another interview 4. A listing and 5. His own website, notability not demonstrated. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify. The Delete comments make good points about the quality of sourcing and coverage. If the article can be improved on those criteria then it may be suitable for mainspace. Therefore I have not deleted it at this time. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Terrorist Front India[edit]

Anti-Terrorist Front India (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 invoke WP:TNT. I was going to try and salvage this very poorly translated page (or written by a non-native English speaker) but it's nothing more than childish back and forth edits about cutting off each other's heads. It may (barely) pass WP:GNG but it's just not salvageable in the current state while attracting vandals on all sides. Ifnord (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think TNT is necessary here, I think the article should just be deleted. It seems like there was a disruptive user. I have placed a second-level disruptive edits warning on the user's talk page and will see if the user continues to disrupt. Other than that, the article does not seem to cover a notable subject. I tried to clean the article up as best as I could, but after seeing how little is left after removing the debris, I'm not convinced the subject is notable. The page is mostly about the founder and not the organization. And beyond that, it seems like there is only routine news coverage (of an "anti-terrorist" organization that puts hits out on people--what? I guess we're here to build an encyclopedia and not to judge...). Does anybody have an argument for notability? Ikjbagl (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Appears to have gained enough coverage from reliable sources.[1][2][3][4] Bvatsal61 (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bvatsal61, none of it is WP:SIGCOV, getting mentioned in the news is not enough. We would need significant coverage from independent reliable sources, even if it were not a very contentious topic. Since it is, it needs a lot more care; I can't stress this enough—there is not one good source to support the article. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:48, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from sock of banned user struck. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, this organisation might well pass GNG, but any article on it would share nothing in common with this one. The article is a dumpster fire, filled with deliberately inflammatory and bigoted material. It might well be actively dangerous to keep it around. Article is also heavily promotional, even after cleanup, with it reading more like the organisations' website than an actual article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify, while I'd agree the article needs to be done over, deletion will probably result in the article being recreated in a similar iteration, a draft which is less accessible is less likely to suffer a similar fate. There are also a few usable sources in the article. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:08, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the sources given are a SIGCOV on the organisation; it's routine coverage relating to what the chief of the organisation claimed/said/organised/alleged. The coverage is not SIGCOV on the chief either. There are hints that this is a right-wing organisation whose activities are anti-muslim dogwhistling; in any case, very likely a contentious topic. As such, we need high quality independent and reliable sources; the sources included don't have enough to even write a good definition of what the organisation is and what it does, let alone a WP:NPOV one. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their activities have got significant coverage in reliable sources who are "independent" from the subject.[5][6] Here is a source[7] which talks about the purpose of the organization.Orientls (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the links I provided above. Orientls (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Orientls, there is nothing usable in the links you added. It's more of the same, i.e. what the organisation chief has claimed. It's very routine and very non-independent. First one, all about what the the chief says. Only thing independent is "ATFI has been opposing hosting a cricket match", second one just summarises what the chief said in a "press release". The third one reports what a state secretary of the organisation said in a press interview, it's completely unusable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finding loopholes in these reliable sources won't really help your case. Patrika, Hindustan Times are all reliable sources and the coverage is significant, it passes WP:NOTROUTINE. Bvatsal61 (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Bvatsal61, the coverage is literally about press releases or other claims made by one person, the chief, regarding a particular event he/the-organisation has planned. That's the very definition of WP:ROUTINE. WP:NOTROUTINE is an essay to help understand what's routine, it's not a counter-argument against ROUTINE. At any rate, those are coverages of the said planned event, there isn't anything usable about the organisation in there. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:42, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite the plethora of socks, the only person who wants to keep this is the WP:SPA creator. Sandstein 08:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. B.R. Sur Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre[edit]

Dr. B.R. Sur Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital and Research Centre (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 the article shows is that it exists as a clinic that gives out psuedo science laden homeopathic cures. Nothing makes it notable MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC) Nominator's comment struck; indefinitely banned sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article shows that it exists as government college and hospital in Delhi supported by the Government of Delhi and is affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. The pseudo science of homeopathy has a governing council of its own in India, the central council of homeopathy under its very own ministry called Ministry of AYUSH. The government of India's recognition as well as affiliation to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University makes it notable. Kunalsharma351 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 15:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative to deletion- If the topic seems not worthy of its own article in other words not notable, then I would like to propose for it to be merged with the article "List of colleges affiliated with Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University" rather than being deleted. keeping in mind that the institution the article talks about is indeed an affiliate of the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University Kunalsharma351 (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Commentary about the possible alternative to deletion would be helpful in establishing consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the subject is already listed in that list (see alternative to deletion above). I don’t see what content in this article would be worthy of merging. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Considering the fact that the subject talks about an educational institution of homeopathy run by the government, affiliated to a public university, which enrols students every year through a national medical entrance test NEET, makes it interesting enough to be on this platform. I can agree that it may not be worthy of its own article that's why i suggest it to be merged. After all a little information on a topic widely searched by students in India every year on the colleges is better than nothing. It may not seem that notable on an international level, but i believe that on a national level there are a lot of people searching regarding information about institutions providing homeopathy as a course every year. Kunalsharma351 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not is it an “interesting” topic is irrelevant, there must be reliable sources to back up its claims. Have a look at WP:N and WP:RS to see what standards articles must meet on Wikipedia. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have reopened this discussion, which was closed by a major contributor to the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'speedy keep it is notableEasytostable (talk) 10:08, 17 May 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Comment struck from indefinitely banned sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep The article is notable. Kunalsharma351 (talk) 17:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC) — Kunalsharma351 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Note: @User:Kunalsharma351 Has already voted keep above, this is a second vote. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Comment struck from indefinitely banned sockpuppet.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lil5ive[edit]

Lil5ive (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. He does not have a music career to speak of and has not made a name for himself in the Nigerian music industry. Majority of the article's sources are promotional links to the subject's music.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 18:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 18:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 18:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them hence does not satisfy WP:GNG. Furthermore per WP:SINGER they don’t qualify for a stand alone article. Celestina007 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep — The article is a good one and i don’t think it should be deleted. Lil5ive is actually known by a lot of music fans In the Nigerian music industry. His latest single Omo Ologo has been heavily rotated on radio, it has placed him in a smooth aura. You can check his numbers on steaming plaforms too. He has over 400,000 accumulated streams on digital stores, over 300K on audiomack. As a new artist who lives in Nigeria, that is a huge milestone. We should learn to support new breakout acts and Wikipedia is one of the means where more fans would get to see his complete info. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyasoyas (talk • contribs) 19:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for artists to promote themselves or to be promoted. They can put their complete information about their discography, but not if the article fails WP:NOTABLE. xRENEGADEx 20:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

*Keep — I'm a music expert who currently works with Nigeria's most prestigious music blogs, NotJustOk. I've been following Lil5ive for a while now and I think he deserves an article on Wikipedia. He has garnered huge followership for his craft over the years. You change check his Instagram and other social media handles for proof, the engagements are amazing. As you can see, he's got references and features from prestigious platforms. You can check his streaming numbers, he is verified on Audioamack and has a total of 664,393 currently on Audiomack alone. He has a whole career in front of him. This is one of the ways we can appreciate fast-rising artists in Nigeria, he deserves a complete biography on this platform. I'll kindly ask you to consider him worthy of the Wikipedia article. Thanks brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter OKH (talk • contribs) 19:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment — Struck our comments of sock master & puppet. Celestina007 (talk) 23:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Per Celestina007's comment, and also the article needs to be rewritten to follow WP:MOS. Maybe if this can be rewritten as a draft first, then it can be reaccepted into the mainspace. xRENEGADEx 20:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Both the article's text and the puppet votes above show all the signs that this article is an attempted promotion. Charitably, it is too soon for an article on this performer, as he has not yet received the significant and reliable coverage necessary for notability. So far all he has are the usual streaming and retail listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable per WP:SINGER. JavaHurricane 09:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lookout, Wyoming[edit]

Lookout, Wyoming (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 was deprodded with the rationale of "This page should not be deleted because it has the U6 Census Class Code which is used, as we can read on US Geological Survey's webpage, for Populated (Community) Place (except those associated with facilities). A populated place that is not a census designated or incorporated place having an official federally recognized name. The deletion suggested says that the place is a railroad siding. If it were a railroad then it would not have U6 Census Class Code, because that code does not includes facilites as a railroad siding is." This is contradicted by the fact that GNIS does mislabel railroad sidings as "populated places" (see WP:GNIS) and no other sources have been found to corroborate the label. Even if we do take the GNIS source at face value, this location is neither legally recognized nor does it meet GNG, therefore failing the WP:GEOLAND notability guideline. There's been a bit of discussion on the article's talk page regarding the existence of a road, a ranch and some sort of high point as well as a permit application that uses the name. None of this changes my assessment; it does appear that the "Lookout" name is used as a local landmark, but none of this is sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. 15:35, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Did you also nominate Cooper Lake, Wyoming? Ya screwed the pooch on that one, i think that should be withdrawn! I'll take a look at this one too.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article developed using known sources.Djflem (talk) 23:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Everything says that it was never a town, including the sources cited. As a point on the railroad it needs more than some passing references to get some notability. What has been listed (and I found a name drop in a Harlequin Romance as well) just isn't enough. Mangoe (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Had a post office. [8] This [9] claims someone was from there. Combining that short verification with the current stub, I think it's a perfectly fine geographic article, as WP:GEOLAND has a lower barrier to entry as we're a gazetteer. There's lots of improper GNIS articles out there but there's no need to delete stubs just because they're stubs. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of whether a post office as a location is itself notable was argued inconclusively; I'm sticking to the principle that it isn't, because historically they have been placed according to the needs of postal delivery. As far as people being "from" a place, that doesn't tell us what the place was; it merely establishes a locale. It certainly doesn't mean that the person was from the station building. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting far too far into the weeds here. This shows there was a post office here. Is a post office conclusive of a populated place? Not necessarily. Are there other things showing people lived in this area, such as census results? Yes. Is it known as a place to people in the area? Yes. Can we write a good stub on it? Yes. Are geography notability guidelines very low due to the nature of this being a gazetteer? Yes. There are many hoaxes or false entries in GNIS. This does not appear to be one of them, and fairly clearly. Why would we possibly delete this? SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lookout was annexed to the Bosler district in 1948 and wasn't shown in the 1950 Census. Going back to the 1940 Census (p. 1185), the population is listed as 34 (1920), 33 (1930) and 6 (1940). It's important to note that it's listed as a "district", not a town; the Census used election district boundaries as a convenient way to count people in unincorporated areas. The census doesn't support the claim that 30 or so people, or anyone for that matter, actually lived at the Lookout location.
Please note that WP:NGEO specifically excludes "various maps and tables" from consideration in establishing notability. –dlthewave ☎ 16:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We've already established existence more than adequately, which satisfies WP:V. I have found a few references which indicates there are more historical documents DESCRIBING Lookout. See Talk:Lookout, Wyoming#7 letters describing Lookout from 1870-1872. Lots of research has been conducted in the last two days by various wiki editors and notes having been left on this AfD, the article's Talk page, and the article itself having been enhanced— including the addition of three sources describing the area. Normal Op (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly passes GEOLAND as an actual, populated place. People lived here. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bosler, Wyoming WP:CHEAP. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lookout isn't IN Bosler; it's about 9 miles away from that other allegedly whistlestop-nowhere-place. If you've got to redirect an article about a place, you should put it in an article which is associated with it. Not something merely down the road geographically. Before offering the idea of a redirect/merge, you should actually read the target article and ask yourself "Would this content fit in this article somehow? Does that make sense to a reader, or someone seeking information about this topic?" And are we trying to save disk space at Wikipedia? Would anything be saved if this same content were duplicated elsewhere and a redirect created? Normal Op (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America1000 10:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schrunk Riverview Tower[edit]

Schrunk Riverview Tower (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)

Unremarkable apartment building generally of only narrow local interest. It's not unusual for newspapers to write about grand opening be it a new Walmart location, their local opposition or something like this. I don't find this apartment complex meets WP:GNG or WP:NBUILD Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Manhas[edit]

Vicky Manhas (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)

can't find a single reliable source that covers Manhas, fails NARTIST/writer/whatever else he's claiming to be. The sole source that isn't social media is thechenabtimes, which is garbage, for lack of a better word. It's yet another black hat SEO site disguised as a legitimate news outlet. Praxidicae (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep This article is available on iTunes, Spotify and many other platforms. And also the mumbai based label company (signed by him) had listed him on their official website. Numbers of songs released through label. Google also show about him separately. TheChunky (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article speedy deletion was also declined by one Wikipedia administrators(check on talk page of Vicky Manhas), as it is viral in 2015 and signed a label, which make it notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheChunky (talk • contribs) 15:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources that mention him? That he has videos on Youtube does not count, unless there are independent reliable sources that mention the videos. The Chenab Times[10] does not appear to be a reliable source; it is a news channel that mainly operates on Youtube. The rule is that "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article."-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete when we have more articles on people born in most years in the 1990s than in the 1970s we have a major, major problem of presentist bias. There are not enough sources to justify this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
iTunes has 4 songs by him dated 2016, 2017, and 2 x 2019. Unlike other artists I have seen on iTunes there is no popularity index.-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non notable rapper who doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 22:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:SUBNOT. Apart from WP:GNG, the subject does not qualify for any WP:SNG like WP:SINGER. It does not even pass WP:NMUSICOTHER criteria. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 23:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as Requested. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I declined the speedy deletion because there were claims of significance, which is enough to defeat an A7, but that does NOT establish notability. Cites to his publisher, or to spotify and apple which sell his music are not independent and so do not count. Apparently the Chenab Times is not a reliable source. Is there any independent coverage by reclaimable sources? None has been cited to date, and several such sources would be needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be satisfied if this was moved to draft, as the creator has now requested. So alternatively, Draftify. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wP:Draftify is not meant to move patently unencyclopedic cruft to incubate indefinitely. This is unencyclopedic and promotional and I would oppose an outcome of draftification if consensus clearly shows (as it does now) deletion. Praxidicae (talk) 15:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear administrators is the record label official website showing him is not enough?

Agree to the points that reliable sources are not present online. But he is a very known person, while doing some searches, many keywords rank his name.

Anyways my last thing is record label offocial website showing him. If it is enough for the time. Then Keep it. Otherwise I also vote for Delete.

And I am a new user and I published this article directly. Which was my mistake. The Aaqib Anjum Aafī guided me to write the article in draft or sandbox before publishing.

Tell me if I can convert it (Vicky Manhas) to draft! So that I can submit it later, after finding reliable sources. TheChunky (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mention on the noffici8al website of the publisher is not only not sufficient, it does not help at all. The publisher is not an independent source, it wants to sell copies and so is likely to be biased in favor of its recordings. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChunky: A subject needs to qualify WP:GNG and WP:SNG for having a Wikipedia article. If article fails WP:GNG but passes WP:SNG; we normally mark it has patrolled. The article in reference fails WP:SNG at every cost. A mere record label official website won't satisfy WP:SNG, we need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for that. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok brother, but can you please tell me if I or you can convert this article to draft instead of getting deleted to dustbin, so that my work till now not get wasted. TheChunky (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. AfD closer will have look at every argument made here. I've changed my vote to draftify. You can strike your earlier vote by placing <s> and </s> at the start and end and ask for draft. Best. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 08:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The rule is that "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." I have been unable to find any reliable, independent sources about Vicky Manhas (the musician). It is possible that some exist in Urdu or some other language that does not use Latin script. I have found four reliable sources that mention a different person called Vicky Manhas (the councillor for ward no.38).[11][12][13][14] There does not seem to be any point in userfication, because unless something changes in the real world, there will never be any reliable sources on Vicky Manhas (the musician).-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have music available for sale on iTunes, or even because their existence is verified by the existence of a self-published profile on the website of their own record label — notability for people is not a question of the things the article says, but of the degree to which the article can or cannot be referenced to real reliable source journalism about him in real media. Not music stores, not PR materials: real journalism, or no dice. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Kotelnicki[edit]

Josh Kotelnicki (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:NGRIDIRON. His career brings up no coverage except for routine hiring/firing notices. His team he played on won a national D2 championship, but he cannot inherit notability from that. Only head coaching is at the D2 level. GNG/NGRIDIRON fail. Hog Farm (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of substantive coverage of subject on Newspapers.com. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it seems that there are substantial sources for an article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agreed, coverage passes WP:GNG just from a basic online search and references included in the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – Joe (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Street Priests Inc.[edit]

Street Priests Inc. (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 article for a Non notable NGO. The sources provided in the article talk about the founder & not the organization in itself. A before search shows the NGO fails to satisfy WP:CORP. Even the founder is barely notable. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-05 ✍️ create
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PRK Productions[edit]

PRK Productions (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:NOTINHERITED, the founder of the organization being notable does not mean automatic notability for their organization. The organization in itself must satisfy WP:CORP which this organization doesn’t satisfy Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence that the company is independently notable. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS 💬 17:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. It appears that English-language coverage of the subject is sparse to say the least, but the consensus of this discussion seems to be that a listing in Großes Sängerlexikon is adequate indication of notability. Yunshui 雲水 07:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Bezetti[edit]

Victoria Bezetti (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-despite it's length, there are just two sources. JTZegers (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator is incorrect; two sources are enough to pass GNG, provided that they meet the other GNG criteria. The last paragraph does need a rewrite, but the rest of the article is fine as is. Deletion isn't cleanup, and due to the presence of useful content in the first two paragraphs, TNT isn't warranted here. CJK09 (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I cannot access the second source, so I cannot see if it has significant coverage. I did look at the first source however, and it does not provide significant coverage, only a paragraph that is more data listing than actual coverage. Therefore, I do not think she passes GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:32, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every single one of those sources is a passing mention, meaning there is still not a single source that would help establish notability. The first source you listed is actually the second source listed in the article, the one that provides a data listing lasting a paragraph, not significant coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not every it's single one. I did note those that were, and I can't read the two encyclopedia entries, and I have not seen any print output. Clearly more would be present. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the sources you did not mark, they were all passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you checked all the print I'm suggesting exists? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot base an article off "well it might exist". Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We also cannot delete articles because "I can't find anything on the Internet and I don't have the time to search print material from five decades ago. I don't read Romanian either, so that may be hindering the search. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In short, your argument is that there are sources on the Internet that make passing mention of the subject. My argument is that the sources I have found on the Internet that make passing mention of the subject hint that there are sources in print that we do not have access to that indicate the subject is notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Görlitz, Wombat's argument is not that there are sources on the Internet that make passing mention of the subject, it is that you cannot base notability on hypothetical sources. Instead of insisting that you can, it would be better if you made those sources non-hypothetical by finding some. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have to prove there are no sources and since the subject was at her prime in a period before the Internet, we must look for sources from that period. While the sources are hypothetically there, the sources we have point to them. It's like the Q source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we must look for sources from that period is a good idea, but if they aren't found, the article should be deleted. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She appears in the Großes Sängerlexikon, see [15]. This can be used as a source for improving the article, by someone who knows german. Razvan Socol (talk) 16:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources book coverage, google snippets are not always indicative of the total coverage in a publication, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I added a source for content about her husband. This does not actually add to notability just content sourcing but I have been unable to find anything, especially support for "her career took a very successful course", more than passing mention that the subject was just "an opera singer". I would like to state that "Civility" is not only policy it is also part of our "Five pillars". I do not feel that editors are required to boldly state every time "I performed a WP:BEFORE search!" and think it is casting aspersions to imply that it is not performed by anybody. There are stipulations laid out, "considered a minimum search requirement", and if that is performed without success, that would include sourcing advancing WP:notability and not just content, then notability can be questioned. It is not unreasonable to expect sources to be supplied which is backed by many policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:notability (people) (including WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:NMUSIC), Wikipedia:Citing sources, and many others for inclusion. WP:NEXIST states: Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. I don't see evidence of notability in the sources provided for an actual WP:BLP, Wording "her career took a very successful course" is backed by a dead link so is "peacock terms"|. Since notability is questioned providing "snippets" do not really provide evidence. If that is the direction we are being gently herded then it is not cool. I would rather see evidence of notability that would permanently "keep" an article than hopes of one day finding a crystal ball, or suggestions that evidence "might possibly exist" somewhere in the universe. -- Otr500 (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to insufficient notability/sourcing. We need to remember that WP:BEFORE is optional, but WP:V and WP:N are not. And it has always been the case that the burden of proof is on those seeking to include material, not those seeking to remove it. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • BEFORE is not optional. It's a requirement. We must "carry out these checks", which have not been done. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you wish to change policy to make WP:BEFORE mandatory, feel free to gather a consensus for that change in an appropriate venue. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • While BEFORE states to "please be sure to" do the listed items, if you don't, I, and other editors, will mercilessly ridicule your lack of motivation, particularly if RSes are found. We don't have the time to try to dance with the wikilawyers who want to avoid having to do the work or who will complain when caught-out when not doing it. No, I'm not going to try to get it to become policy, thank. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For both the Groẞes Sängerlexicon and Who's who in opera, the coverage seems to consist of a short overview, with some biographical facts and what she's known for - one entry in a list of many, many opera singers. Not secondary and not exactly in-depth. History of the Romanian national opera is a passing mention. The page cited for Life in opera is "Acknowledgements", so that seems to be a passing mention as well. So unless someone finds more sources, it does not pass GNG in my opinion. PJvanMill (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, leaning delete. I'm ambivalent. We have an acknowledged systemic bias against older or non-anglophone article subjects for which online English sources are necessarily less available. That's part of the reason we have SNGs, to reduce the need for "we need to find sources now" analysis that might not be possible in the timeframe of an AfD. On the other hand, I don't see that she meets WP:SINGER either. A cântat alături de mari nume from the Mediafax source above seems to be more of an "alongside big names" than a "she is a big name", and her appearances (not sufficiently significant) and membership in ensembles (only one) doesn't seem to make the cut either. Maybe WP:SINGER slightly favours bands or solo singers, but AfD obviously isn't the place to make changes to our guidelines. Policy-wise, close to the line it may be, but I think she falls on the delete side. I wouldn't be terribly troubled if this was closed as "no consensus" though, and if anyone wants to work on it, it should definitely be drafitfied/userified on request. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this had been relisted I think I'll reevaluate whether she can meet SINGER or GNG, with an eye on any more N that might EXIST. The later discussion moves me towards a "keep". Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Großes Sängerlexikon is clearly an RS, and the extent of the coverage of her in it is clearly WP:SIGCOV as it describes the subject in detail (that is, it gives you the essential details about her). Simply being a "brief overview" doesn't prevent coverage from being WP:SIGCOV - Encyclopedias are brief over-views! Who's who in Opera: is a similar RS. It is a long accepted principle here that whilst directories etc. are not typically sigcov, encyclopedias (and similar books) may well be. FOARP (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have understated the extent of coverage, but WP:GNG requires secondary sources while GS and WIWIO are tertiary, which was the main point I wanted to make. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not correct in stating that GNG requires SECONDARY sources, it requires reliable sources. In fact, one example, "The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM" is clearly a tertiary source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following comes straight from WP:GNG, third bullet point: "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FOARP. Coverage in reliable tertiary sources does in fact point towards notability, because it indicates that the world paid attention. For example, WP:ANYBIO states that an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication means that a person is likely to be notable. XOR'easter (talk) 16:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relying solely on tertiary sources means relying on their criteria for inclusion. For all we know, the goal of the Groẞes Sängerlexicon might be to have an entry on every singer that ever lived. Unless WP:GNG is changed, the requirement of secondary sources really is there. This is also in line with WP:TERTIARY: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't relying upon secondary sources means relying upon their criteria for inclusion, too? I'm not following the distinction here. Ultimately, wiki-notability is about whether the world has cared about a topic, in a way that has left documentation. Trying to draw a line between "secondary" and "tertiary" is more confusing than helpful here, I think. After all, the same book could be a primary source for some information (e.g., the biographical information for its author, or anything the author says in their preface about the writing process), secondary for other information, and tertiary for still other statements (WP:PSTS). XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the GNG clearly draws that distinction. To Doesn't relying upon secondary sources means relying upon their criteria for inclusion, too?: in this case, it concerns tertiary sources that cover a huge number of people, whereas a secondary source typically talks about one subject. I trust a secondary source to determine if its topic is relevant, but I don't trust a tertiary source to make that judgement for thousands of subjects. If that makes sense. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? A biography that gathers information from multiple secondary sources is also a tertiary source. I don't trust your logic. GNG is clear: Sources should be secondary. It does not state Reliable sources can only be secondary nor Sources must be secondary. Your claim is WP:OR. WP:STICK? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more than just a preference: the GNG does not say Secondary sources would be ideal, but tertiary sources are also fine. It says "Sources" should be secondary, which I read as "Sometimes, tertiary sources are enough to establish notability, but normally you need secondary sources". Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my previous reply, as it wasn't really thought through enough. A better answer is that yes, we do rely on secondary sources' inclusion criteria. But for something like a newspaper, those inclusion criteria would be something like '(1) Is it relevant to this article? (2) Can we fit it in? (3) Is the article interesting enough to publish?' That's fundamentally different from 'How important does a singer need to be to be included in this book?' which is the question these two particular sources had to answer. So yes, I do think there is a legitimate concern that the two non-passing-mention sources we have are over-inclusive. And again, the GNG does draw this line. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What evidence is there that these sources are over-inclusive? At least in the case of Bezetti, they clearly state why she is included and it is not for trivial accomplishments. It is for singing appearances in leading roles with multiple national-level opera companies, and on Romanian television. FOARP (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • GNG has not changed and there is no requirement for secondary sources in GNG. Feel free to quote it if you find it. It is preferred, not not required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon re-reading it, it is indeed true that it isn't a hard requirement, but the GNG does say that secondary sources are the best evidence of notability and indicates that secondary sources are what one should have in mind ("Sources" should be secondary); it would follow that multiple tertiary sources are not necessarily enough for notability. In this case, these two tertiary sources are not enough evidence of notability for me. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon restating, just because they should be does not mean they must be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To state the obvious - The entire reason for the emphasis on secondary sources in GNG is to discourage use of primary sources (as is emphasised in the sentence following the sentence in which it is said that secondary sources should be used). There is no similar deprecation on Tertiary sources, nor any good policy reasons (as tertiary sources necessarily come from secondary sources) for doing so. Indeed the guidelines state: “Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited“. This article is supported by exactly such reputable tertiary sources. FOARP (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that is obvious at all. If it's only to exclude primary sources, why doesn't it say "Sources" should be secondary or tertiary? That tertiary sources may be cited (by the way, primary sources can also be cited for certain things) does not mean they are suitable for establishing notability. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It literally say that you can cite Tertiary sources. It says it in the exact section I quoted. It nowhere advises caution with Tertiary sources in the same way that primary sources are warned against. Any such document should be read purposively - why are they saying "secondary sources should be used"? Clearly to warn against relying entirely on primary sources, since that is the what is stated in the following sentence. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am looking at WP:GNG. The general notability guideline. It includes a soft requirement of secondary sources. In WP:BASIC, the basic notability guideline for people, it is a hard requirement. I don't know what you're looking at. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BASIC "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6] If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[7] Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." WP:GNG uses similar language (i.e., it excludes sources not independent of the subject, which would typically include primary sources). Why the emphasis on secondary sources? To dissuade use of primary ones.
The entire purpose of the emphasis on secondary sources in wiki guidelines is the dissuasion of use of Primary sources. As much as this applies to tertiary sources, it is only where they are thought to have poor inclusion criteria - but this is not the case here, there is no evidence of that. FOARP (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Looking around, I've found quite a lot of agreement that tertiary sources are often over-inclusive for the purpose of being 'complete'. See for example this essay: Indiscriminate sources must be considered skeptically when determining both notability and due weight. Unfortunately, a large proportion of tertiary sources are indiscriminate. On the other hand, I can find basically no one saying that tertiary sources can generally be assumed not to be over-inclusive. So, the only conclusion that I can draw is that the fact that there are multiple tertiary sources is not, on its own, enough for notability. Thus I will be sticking to my delete vote for now. Either it needs to be demonstrated that these two sources are in fact not indiscriminate, or secondary sources need to be found. And if this person really is notable, finding secondary sources should be doable. PJvanMill (talk) 11:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be looking at the guidelines about directories (e.g., phone-books, or business directories) - but this is obviously not the kind of source being relied on as no-one can conceivably argue that this is simply a list of all singers, or even a list of singers selected at random, since the sources themselves state why Bezetti is included (as a result of prominent, clearly notable, national-level opera singing appearances). As the Sängerlexikon states, Bezetti sang for the Romanian national opera, the Belgrade and Sofia national operas, the Berlin state opera, the Helsinki opera house, and appeared as the principle singer in La Traviata on Romanian television - do you really think this is the profile of someone selected at random?!?
The guidelines clearly state that reliable almanacs, other encyclopedias, textbooks, guide-books etc. are OK to rely on. The Sängerlexikon and Who's Who in Opera are exactly such sources. FOARP (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a source being okay to rely on for verifiability does not mean it is okay to rely on it for notability. I think it is a reasonable expectation that a notable subject is covered by secondary sources and not just tertiary ones, so I view the apparent absence of secondary coverage as strong evidence against notability. To do you really think this is the profile of someone selected at random?!?: I leave that judgement up to reliable secondary sources. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST, because I find this argument unconvincing: "For all we know, the goal of the Groẞes Sängerlexicon might be to have an entry on every singer that ever lived." It is not possible to have an entry on every singer that ever lived, or even a large fraction of them. The book has editors who have made editorial decisions on who to include. This is third-party independent coverage that addresses the subject directly and in detail. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems there have been efforts to find significant coverage in secondary sources and they have been fruitless, so I don't think NEXIST goes up here. I think it's reasonable to expect a notable topic to be covered not just in tertiary but also in secondary sources, so the fact that secondary sources have not been found so far strongly counts aganst notability, in my view.
And yes, obviously these books have editors who have made editorial decisions, but my fear is that they may have used a lower bar for inclusion than reliable secondary sources would, in which case her presence in them is not enough proof of notability. And as I've said in my comment just above, it seems many tertiary sources do have a lower bar. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PJvanMill, I have considered your view; you've posted fifteen times in this discussion so far. I do not find your argument compelling, because you seem to be reading the mind of the publishers of that book, and criticizing an inclusion policy that you do not know that they had. It might be a good idea to check out WP:BLUDGEON and then take a step back, and allow other people to look at the article, the sources and the discussion, and make their own judgment. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fair at this point to note that WP:BLUDGEON is an essay, and as was recently clarified, one directed primarily to repetitive argumentation rather than simply posting a lot of time (which is sometimes necessary when you are in the minority). In PJvanMill's defence, though they have repeated a bit, they have also developed and changed their argument a bit as well. I do think you are right that their attack on what appear to be RS's, with editors etc., as not having restrictive inclusion policies, does not have any real grounds and appears based on mind-reading. They need to show genuine evidence that these books have no, or low, inclusion criteria to overturn what appears to me a safe presumption that a book covering national-level opera company singers who starred in leading roles, is in fact not simply choosing singers at random or setting the bar too low. FOARP (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim to be reading the minds of the editors of those books, and you are right that we do not know what exact inclusion criteria they used. That we do not know is the point. Everyone else here seems to basing rather a lot on the assumption that these books used a sufficiently high bar. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Useful to note the description linked to below: Großes Sängerlexikon, which essentially describes it as being an encyclopedia of prominent singers, containing 7,000 entries in two volumes, spanning the period from 1590-1990 (i.e., 400 years). 7,000 singers over 400 years is less than 20 for each year, and is clearly a highly discriminating selection given that this is the entire world of classical performance we are talking about, which at any time has hundreds of thousands of artists performing in it, and, especially in the example of Bezetti, is clearly someone of national-level importance as they sang in leading roles on national television and for national opera companies. Compare this to the Dictionary of National Biography, which has 50,113 biographical articles covering 54,922 lives in 60 volumes, and which is endorsed as a source by the guidelines. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I give up on trying to convince people. I remain unconvinced this satisfies the GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nagaland Anime Junkies[edit]

Nagaland Anime Junkies (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 WP:NCORP in its entirety. It seems like it has been created solely for promotional and marketing purposes. Yourmasterishere (talk) 08:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:GNG. lullabying (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to NAJ Cosfest, The first source is a dead link, and the second and third sources only provide passing mentions of this organisation, meaning it fails GNG. However, the event that they hold is likely notable, so this should be redirected there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 13:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm barely able to confirm this organization exists and none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG/NCORP HighKing++ 15:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artanada[edit]

Artanada (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, as with many similar stub articles created by this user, is a blatant notability fail. The 'town' is just a name on the map - it is impossible to find any sources on it, if it even existed. LegesRomanorum (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously. The nominator is on a misguided crusade about notability. The nominator says "it is impossible to find any sources on it". There are numerous secondary sources to the town's existence: including Pleiades and the sources cited in the article. A town still being written about over a thousand years later is clearly notable. In addition, Google Scholar has may articles about the excavations and other archaeology done there [16]. Clearly the nominator hasn't read WP:BEFORE and seems to ignore that being a gazetteer is the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. I'm not going to go through this effort for each of the nominations this user has made below as the effort is not worth keeping articles if the community doesn't want to but suffice to say that according to WP:BEFORE these are the efforts the nominator should have gone through before nominating. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for readers to be able to identify, distinguish, and locate ancient Greek and Roman towns and villages. There may not currently be a lot of information or sources in the article, but even as they stand they're helpful articles about geographic places that readers might run across in various sources (including epigraphic ones), and all of them have at least one reliable source (and some of them several). Many of them could be expanded with known, existing sources; all have the potential to be expanded in the future, but even as stubs they have value. There's also a discussion about a related series of proposed deletions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. P Aculeius (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of mentions on Google Books and plenty of in-depth coverage of archaeology on Google Scholar. Mccapra (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significantly covered here. Clearly not "impossible to find any sources." SportingFlyer T·C 06:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arianzus[edit]

Arianzus (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, as with many similar stub articles created by this user, is a blatant notability fail. The 'town' is just a name on the map - it is impossible to find any sources on it, if it even existed. LegesRomanorum (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copying from above.
  • Keep obviously. The nominator is on a misguided crusade about notability. The nominator says "it is impossible to find any sources on it". There are numerous secondary sources to the town's existence: including Pleiades and the sources cited in the article. A town still being written about over a thousand years later is clearly notable. In addition, Google Scholar has may articles about the excavations and other archaeology done there [17]. Clearly the nominator hasn't read WP:BEFORE and seems to ignore that being a gazetteer is the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. I'm not going to go through this effort for each of the nominations this user has made below as the effort is not worth keeping articles if the community doesn't want to but suffice to say that according to WP:BEFORE these are the efforts the nominator should have gone through before nominating. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for readers to be able to identify, distinguish, and locate ancient Greek and Roman towns and villages. There may not currently be a lot of information or sources in the article, but even as they stand they're helpful articles about geographic places that readers might run across in various sources (including epigraphic ones), and all of them have at least one reliable source (and some of them several). Many of them could be expanded with known, existing sources; all have the potential to be expanded in the future, but even as stubs they have value. There's also a discussion about a related series of proposed deletions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. P Aculeius (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Almost everything I could find was a mention of the name in connection with Saint Gregory, but Google Scholar has some papers on archaeology too. Mccapra (talk) 03:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be the same as Nazianzus, but that being said, the nom is incorrect - a fair few hits on Google Scholar. SportingFlyer T·C 06:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are dozens of published sources on Arianzus/Arianzos, including a detailed description in this book. — MarkH21talk 19:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Archeion[edit]

Archeion (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, as with many similar stub articles created by this user, is a blatant notability fail. The 'town' is just a name on the map - it is impossible to find any sources on it, if it even existed. LegesRomanorum (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copying from above.
  • Keep obviously. The nominator is on a misguided crusade about notability. The nominator says "it is impossible to find any sources on it". There are numerous secondary sources to the town's existence: including Pleiades and the sources cited in the article. A town still being written about over a thousand years later is clearly notable. In addition, Google Scholar has may articles about the excavations and other archaeology done there [18]. Clearly the nominator hasn't read WP:BEFORE and seems to ignore that being a gazetteer is the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. I'm not going to go through this effort for each of the nominations this user has made below as the effort is not worth keeping articles if the community doesn't want to but suffice to say that according to WP:BEFORE these are the efforts the nominator should have gone through before nominating. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for readers to be able to identify, distinguish, and locate ancient Greek and Roman towns and villages. There may not currently be a lot of information or sources in the article, but even as they stand they're helpful articles about geographic places that readers might run across in various sources (including epigraphic ones), and all of them have at least one reliable source (and some of them several). Many of them could be expanded with known, existing sources; all have the potential to be expanded in the future, but even as stubs they have value. There's also a discussion about a related series of proposed deletions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. P Aculeius (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 03:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I can't actually find anything on the village of "Archeion" in Thrace (outside of the two already referenced atlases), but searches are flooded by hits for something unrelated in Athens and the Greek word for "archive". There might be something out there, but I haven't found it yet. — MarkH21talk 19:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC); parenthetical 02:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ardistama[edit]

Ardistama (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, as with many similar stub articles created by this user, is a blatant notability fail. The 'town' is just a name on the map - it is impossible to find any sources on it, if it even existed. LegesRomanorum (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Carlossuarez46 and my comments above. P Aculeius (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carlossuarez46 and P Aculeius: I don't see any comments above?
  • Keep. Plenty of mentions on Google Books and plenty of coverage of archaeology on Google Scholar. Mccapra (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Covered in several academic sources, particularly under its alternative name of "Arissama": Perhaps Ardistama, now Arissama, the ancient Hittite city, discovered in 1904 by my travelling companion, Professor T. Callander, derives its name from Angdisis or Angdistis from this paper. — MarkH21talk 19:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chalcaea[edit]

Chalcaea (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, as with many similar stub articles created by this user, is a blatant notability fail. The 'town' is just a name on the map - it is impossible to find any sources on it, if it even existed. LegesRomanorum (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armaxa[edit]

Armaxa (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, as with many similar stub articles created by this user, is a blatant notability fail. The 'town' is just a name on the map - it is impossible to find any sources on it, if it even existed. LegesRomanorum (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copying from above.
  • Keep obviously. The nominator is on a misguided crusade about notability. The nominator says "it is impossible to find any sources on it". There are numerous secondary sources to the town's existence: including Pleiades and the sources cited in the article. A town still being written about over a thousand years later is clearly notable. In addition, Google Scholar has may articles about the excavations and other archaeology done there [19]. Clearly the nominator hasn't read WP:BEFORE and seems to ignore that being a gazetteer is the first of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. I'm not going to go through this effort for each of the nominations this user has made below as the effort is not worth keeping articles if the community doesn't want to but suffice to say that according to WP:BEFORE these are the efforts the nominator should have gone through before nominating. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful for readers to be able to identify, distinguish, and locate ancient Greek and Roman towns and villages. There may not currently be a lot of information or sources in the article, but even as they stand they're helpful articles about geographic places that readers might run across in various sources (including epigraphic ones), and all of them have at least one reliable source (and some of them several). Many of them could be expanded with known, existing sources; all have the potential to be expanded in the future, but even as stubs they have value. There's also a discussion about a related series of proposed deletions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. P Aculeius (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mentioned in several published academic sources on history, e.g. It runs parallel to the course of the Halys through Malandara, Armaxa, and Aipo in this academic paper and Armaxa, a town of Cilicia in Cappadocia, bet. Eulepa (24) and Marandara (28). in this book. — MarkH21talk 18:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arilla (Lydia)[edit]

Arilla (Lydia) (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, as with many similar stub articles created by this user, is a blatant notability fail. The 'town' is just a name on the map - it is impossible to find any sources on it, if it even existed. LegesRomanorum (talk) 13:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This, as with many similar stub articles proposed or nominated for deletion by this user, is a blatant notability pass per WP:GEOLAND. It is perfectly possible to find sources if you actually look for them rather than propose deletion in rapid succession by not doing so. I have added such a source to this article, but don't have the time to deal with this editor's other disruptive deletion proposals and nominations. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Bruno[edit]

Joanne Bruno (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)

Doesn't appear to be a notable actress, only appears to have played minor roles, a google search reveals nothing about this Bruno, newspaper archives reveal nothing and a book search also revealed no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – zero coverage. The only references in the article are to Wikipedia and IMDb, neither of which are reliable sources. A Google search turns up nothing useful. – bradv🍁 18:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The only non-trivial coverage I found is this, which, on its own, is not enough to meet WP:GNG, in my opinion. I don't think WP:NACTOR is made out either. If someone is able to find more sources, I'll consider updating my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JavaHurricane 09:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Philippines Beechcraft King Air crash[edit]

2019 Philippines Beechcraft King Air crash (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 notable medevac/small plane crash. WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:AIRCRASH. The accident killed all aboard and the aircraft was destroyed. The accident appeared in international news as well, so I don't see that the article would be nominated for deletion. ZizizizizizizjzjzjzjzI zjzzjz (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - satisfies WP:AIRCRASH given all were killed, notable coverage, fleet was temporariliy grounded. --ZimZalaBim talk 19:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article easily meets WP:AIRCRASH. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as page author. The article clearly met WP:AIRCRASH and WP:SIGCOV as the accident was fatal and received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and deserves a stand-alone article/separate article. However, the entire Lionair fleet was not grounded until another take-off accident of an IAI Westwind II in NAIA seven months later. KMagz04 (talk) 06:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- for those editors citing WP:AIRCRASH please note that that essay deals with general consensus of whether or not an incident should be included in the article for the airport in question, the article for the aircraft in question, or the article for the airliner in question, and specifically states that it should not be used as a guideline for stand-alone articles about the incident itself, and should not be cited at AFD, since it is not an official policy or guideline. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The accident received coverage from foreign media outlets. Two New Zealanders were among the fatalities. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:06, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The X Factor. Actually, consensus is to delete, but there are concerns about the attribution of copied material. The redirects can be retargeted to the appropriate subarticle if desired. Sandstein 12:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The X Factor finalists (British series 1)[edit]

List of The X Factor finalists (British series 1) (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:LISTPEOPLE and following on from the American, New Zealand and Polish lists of finalists. - Theses lists of finalists is already available on the show's article for that respective country. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on separate lists and there is no need for all the finalists' lists of performances which can be found already on the seasons' article. Ajf773 (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

List of The X Factor finalists (British series 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 10) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 11) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 12) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 13) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 14) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (British series 15) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 4) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 5) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (Australia season 8) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of X Factor Indonesia finalists (season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor Philippines (season 1) finalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but salvage: the lists do not meet WP:LISTPEOPLE, but the information is reliably sourced and encyclopaedic. Therefore, the information should be salvaged by placing it onto the corresponding series article under the "finalists" section. The redirects for each act (Sam Lavery, Bella Penfold, etc) should also be mended if the deletion goes ahead. – DarkGlow (talk) 10:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, at least salvage the references from the nominated articles to be used on the "list of finalists" articles. They need more verifiability. – DarkGlow (talk) 11:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and no salvage per all recent previous AfD for X Factor and Big Brother seasonal people lists. For this specific batch, as per the previous ones, if a person is notable, they have an article with their bio already written there, if they aren't notable, then their bio is a non-notable trivia piece of information which should be deleted. Looking at the example DarkGlow gave above for Sam Lavery, while On 19 May 2017, Lavery released her debut single, "Walk Away".[17] On 13 October 2017, she released her second single "Beat of You", followed by "For the Night" and "Bad Boys" in 2018. In 2019, she released her new single "What You Do". is sourced, it's about a non-notable person (no article) releasing non-notable songs (no articles) and is sourced to a non-notable site (CelebMix, no article). The list at The X Factor (British series 13)#Finalists has enough information about these people, and the entire article has enough information about who reached what part. --Gonnym (talk) 13:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Gonnym. Kerberous (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, so long story short, this is a really messy deletion. I did due diligence before processing the deletion and it looks like there are many articles that were split from this list content, many of which are not noted in the talk page or edit history (i.e., they are unattributed splits). Per Wikipedia's cc-by-sa license, any text that was split elsewhere must retain its edit history for attribution purposes. This makes these lists much better candidates for redirection to their respective series articles, preferable over outright deletion unless someone checks that the content was indeed not split out from to any child article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 02:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Gonnym's excellent summary. If there is found to be a genuine need to protect edit history – which I think there is not; a list of names of participants in a TV show is unlikely to hit the threshold of originality – then they can be redirected instead. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I nominated these articles after every other List of finalists .. lists in other reality series were also deleted. This bundle is the last of them. All articles that redirected to those other lists were deleted subsequently. Most aren't split offs, they're redirect targets with no history worth salvaging. Per WP:BLP we should not keep biographies of persons that don't meet the criteria, including having them in list articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is absolutely correct. (And good work, by the way.) - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like a clear consensus for deletion, but the attribution concerns raised by @Czar: mean that a different solution is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this variety of article is a chronic and ongoing BLP hazards, and routinely go into tremendous detail about non-notable people, sourced to awful tabloid sources. (Also, I think consensus is pretty clear already, and the deletion doesn't need repeated relisting) - David Gerard (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Czar hasn't responded to two different pings, I have no idea what pages he saw that were an issue. From those that I've looked at, I don't see any copying of information and as I've said above, any bio section in the article should almost certainly be deleted anyways. --Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to related series articles. Expanding from my post above, examples of unattributed splits:
Honey G was copied from British series 13
Jason Owen was copied from Australia series 4
Olly Murs from British series 6
Nathaniel Willemse from Australia series 4
Samantha Jade from Australia series 4
Dani Im from Australia series 5
This is tricky because the articles active circa 2010 have lots of successive edits and are a wild west of attribution, while it's clearer for later series articles. I could go deeper but quite literally every subarticle I check is an unattributed split. It's not that the deletion argument doesn't make sense (it does) but that when doing due diligence, WP's licensing makes these articles better candidates for redirection simply for administrative attribution requirements. czar 01:36, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can only assume that content from the articles up for deletion were shifted to other BLP articles where an article for the finalist does exist (as several became notable either on the show, or outside of it). Ajf773 (talk) 10:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for clarifying that. Then do whatever policy dictates I guess. My only concern with redirecting is that someone will come along and revert the redirect (and it's obviously going to happen) which will probably go unnoticed. --Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Couldn't the redirects be protected in some way? – DarkGlow (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, redirects can be protected like any other article, should an AFD ending "redirect" be reverted - David Gerard (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In any case I will support a redirect where the redirect is edit protected. Ajf773 (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Also, the nominator has been blocked as a sock. Sandstein 12:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VITAL (machine learning software)[edit]

VITAL (machine learning software) (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)

It was a PR stunt that got news coverage at the time. Delete per WP:ONEEVENT MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    Background

    Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund, issued a press release on 13 May 2014 announcing that it had appointed VITAL, a machine learning software, to its board of directors. Commentators largely considered VITAL's appointment to be a publicity stunt.

    The critical reaction was typified by that of Alan Finkel, the Chief Scientist of Australia, who said in a 2019 speech, "At the time, most of us probably dismissed Vital as a PR exercise. I admit, I used her story three years ago to get a laugh in one of my speeches." Later in Finkel's speech, he said, "Given that it's five years since Vital first appeared, I thought I'd check to see what's happened. For starters, the company is still in business. Vital is still on the Board. ... Now I'm not here to prophesy the extinction of the human director...but I do want you to take Vital and her progeny as a challenge."

    VITAL is notable for being the centerpiece of a publicity stunt by Deep Knowledge Ventures (which was nominated for deletion here). The notability case for Deep Knowledge Ventures was difficult to establish since almost all of the sources were about VITAL. The notability case for VITAL is much easier to establish, which is why I created this article.

    I am presenting sources below showing that VITAL has received sustained substantial coverage from multiple journals and books. It received substantial critical analysis in a Chinese journal (2018) and a French journal (2015):

    1. The Chinese source discuss how VITAL raises a deeper question about "the encounter between corporate law and artificial intelligence".
    2. The French source discusses who will held legally liable if VITAL makes a mistake in supporting investing in a terrorist group (should VITAL's owner, designer, or data source providers be held liable?).


    Sources published in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019

    1. Lin, Shaowei (2018). "人工智能对公司法的影响:挑战与应对" [The impact of artificial intelligence on company law: challenges and responses] (PDF). Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (in Chinese). East China University of Political Science and Law. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via CNKI.
    2. Kyrou, Ariel (2015). "Les robots sont des personnes comme les autres" [Robots are people like any other]. Multitudes (in French). 58 (1). doi:10.3917/mult.058.0094. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via Cairn.info.
    3. Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2015). Dean, Jodi; Hands, Joss; Jordan, Tim (eds.). Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. London: Pluto Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-7453-3404-2.
    4. Harari, Yuval Noah (2017). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. New York: Harper. pp. 322–323. ISBN 978-0-06-246431-6.
    5. Mölein, Florian (2018). "Robots in the boardroom: artificial intelligence and corporate law". In Barfield, Woodrow; Pagallo, Ugo (eds.). Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 649–650. ISBN 978-1-78643-904-8. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
    6. Kahn, Jeremy (2019-09-26). "Learning to love the bot: Managers need to understand A.I. logic before using it as a business tool". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
    7. Colberg, David (2019). "Coding Time". Critical Times. 2 (3). Duke University Press. doi:10.1215/26410478-7862517. ISSN 2641-0478. Archived from the original on 2020-04-29. Retrieved 2020-04-29.
    8. Burridge, Nicky (2017-05-10). "Artificial intelligence gets a seat in the boardroom: Hong Kong venture capitalist sees AI running Asian companies within 5 years". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

    Sources published in 2014

    1. Koebler, Jason (2014-05-13). "The First Robot Venture Capitalist Won't Do Interviews". Vice. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    2. Brown, Sophie (2014-09-30). "Could computers take over the boardroom?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    3. Wile, Rob (2014-05-13). "A Venture Capital Firm Just Named An Algorithm To Its Board Of Directors — Here's What It Actually Does". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    4. "Algorithm appointed board director". BBC. 2014-05-16. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    5. Taylor, Jordyn (2014-05-13). "V.C. Firm Names Robot To Board of Directors". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    6. Dormehl, Luke (2014-12-01). "Your job automated". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    7. Raven, David (2014-05-16). "Investment firm hires COMPUTER as new boss to sit on board of directors". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    8. Sharwood, Simon (2014-05-18). "Software 'appointed to board' of venture capital firm". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    9. "Robot hará parte de la mesa directiva de empresa japonesa". El Espectador (in Spanish). 2014-05-23. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
    Extended content

    Sources published in 2015, 2017, 2018, and 2019

    1. Lin, Shaowei (2018). "人工智能对公司法的影响:挑战与应对" [The impact of artificial intelligence on company law: challenges and responses] (PDF). Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (in Chinese). East China University of Political Science and Law. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via CNKI.

      The article notes:

      早在 2014 年，人工智能对公司法的挑战已隐隐若现。研究生物科技与再生医学的英国公司 Aging Analytics 于 2014 年 5 月宣布，启用一款名为 VITAL(Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences)的人工智能工具，并授权香港的风投公司 Deep Knowledge Ventures 将该人工智能用作 该公司的投资委员。在被记者问及为何采用这一人工智能时，Deep Knowledge Venture 的高级合伙人卡明斯基(Kaminskiy)称，人会受情感左右，有主观情绪，会犯错误，但 VITAL 这样的机器只会用逻 辑思维，不可能因为一时意气出错。人类投资者的直觉和机器的逻辑性相结合，会打造一支完美的 团队，将错误的风险降低到最小。〔1〕VITAL 入场后，已经帮助公司批准了两项投资:一个是在抗衰老 医药领域开发计算机辅助方法的 Silico Medicine，另一个是使用选择个人化抗癌治疗方法的 Pathway Pharmaceuticals。Aging Analytics 公司声称，VITAL 在投资委员会和其他委员是平等的。事实上， VITAL 在当时虽然冠以“投资委员”之名，但实际上并非对任何的投资都享有跟其他委员同等的表决 权。而且，根据香港公司法的规定，VITAL 也无法获得“董事”地位。因此，Aging Analytics 公司的其 他委员认为，将之视为投资委员会的“观察员(observer)”可能更为适当。

      VITAL 的出现，实质上引出一个更深层次的问题:公司法与人工智能的相遇将会擦出何种火花? VITAL 可能被视为公司的董事，也可能被视为公司董事决策的辅助(即观察员)，但不管是哪一种情 形，均会导致公司法语境的一连串追问:如果 VITAL 被视为董事，则传统公司法关于董事的相关规 则(比如董事义务规则)是否仍然适用?如果不能适用，应当如何重构?如若 VITAL 不被视为董事， 而仅仅是被视为董事决策的辅助手段，则这种辅助性工具是否也受到公司法的规约?如董事因听信 VITAL 所作出的决策导致公司利益受损，VITAL 本身是否应当承担责任?无生命无感情之 VITAL 又该承担何种责任，才能与其行为与身份相匹配?凡此种种，无疑均会对公司法造成挑战与冲击。

      From Google Translate:

      As early as 2014, the challenge of artificial intelligence to corporate law was looming. Aging Analytics, a British company that researches biotechnology and regenerative medicine, announced in May 2014 that it had launched an artificial intelligence tool called VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) and authorized Hong Kong venture capital company Deep Knowledge Ventures to use Artificial intelligence is used as the company's investment committee. When asked by reporters why this artificial intelligence was adopted, Kaminskiy, a senior partner at Deep Knowledge Ventures, said that people will be influenced by emotions, have subjective emotions and make mistakes, but machines like VITAL will only be logically thinking, so it is impossible to make mistakes because of a moment of impatience. The combination of human investor intuition and the logic of the machine will create a perfect team and minimize the risk of error. 〔1〕 After VITAL entered the market, it has helped the company to approve two investments: one is Silico Medicine, which develops computer-aided methods in the field of anti-aging medicine, and the other is Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which chooses personalized anti-cancer treatment methods. Aging Analytics claims that VITAL is equal to the investment committee and other members. In fact, although VITAL was called the "investment committee" at the time, it did not actually have the same voting rights as any other committee for any investment. Moreover, according to the provisions of the Hong Kong Company Law, VITAL cannot obtain the status of "director". Therefore, other members of Aging Analytics believe that it may be more appropriate to consider them as “observers” of the investment committee.

      The emergence of VITAL actually raises a deeper question: What kind of spark will the encounter between corporate law and artificial intelligence? VITAL may be regarded as a director of the company, or it may be regarded as an auxiliary to the decision-making of the company's director (that is, the observer ). But in either case, it will lead to a series of questions in the corporate law context: If VITAL is regarded as a director, will the relevant rules of the traditional company law on directors (such as the directors' obligations) still apply? If not applicable How should it be reconstructed? If VITAL is not regarded as a director, but only as an auxiliary means for directors ’decision-making, is this auxiliary tool also subject to the stipulations of the company law? If the interests of the company are damaged, should VITAL itself bear the responsibility? What kind of responsibility should VITAL bear without life and emotion to match its behavior and identity? All of these will undoubtedly cause challenges and impacts on the company law.

    2. Kyrou, Ariel (2015). "Les robots sont des personnes comme les autres" [Robots are people like any other]. Multitudes (in French). 58 (1). doi:10.3917/mult.058.0094. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via Cairn.info.

      The article notes:

      epuis le 13 mai 2014, il est le sixième membre du conseil d’administration de la société hongkongaise Deep knowledge ventures, ou DKV. Il n’a pas besoin de porter cravate et costume de grand ponte. Il s’appelle Vital, d’un acronyme que les autres têtes d’œuf du conseil ont sans doute oublié mais qui en dit beaucoup sur le sens de sa présence au sommet de cette entreprise de capital-risque des secteurs de la lutte contre le cancer, la médecine régénérative et les traitements personnalisés : « Outil de validation pour les investissements dans la recherche scientifique » . Vital n’a pas le physique de l’emploi : c’est un algorithme. Plus aucune décision d’investissement, néanmoins, n’est aujourd’hui prise par DKV sans qu’il n’ait voix au chapitre. Car le robot, pour peu qu’on le nomme ainsi comme l’ont fait la plupart des journalistes ayant chanté sa finesse d’analyse autant que sa puissance de calcul, est un incorruptible. Sa promotion, son crédit au sein du pool de décideurs de Deep knowledge ventures, il les doit à sa neutralité. À la rigueur toute mathématique de ses avis sur les sociétés candidates à la manne financière. Mais cette absence de subjectivité n’est-elle pas un leurre ? Même autonome dans l’exercice quotidien de sa mission, une machine programmée par des humains peut-elle être considérée comme neutre ? Et infaillible ? Car Vital pourrait se tromper et soutenir un investissement nuisible.

      Et si cet algorithme réussissait un jour à convaincre les cinq autres membres de son conseil d’administration d’investir dans une startup se présentant de façon crédible comme spécialisée dans la lutte contre le vieillissement, mais dirigée en sous-main par une bande de djihadistes cherchant des fonds pour l’immortel Allah ? Vital pourrait-il être tenu pour responsable de l’erreur de casting ? Faudrait-il incriminer la société DKV, juridiquement propriétaire de ce logiciel ô combien supérieur ? Ou ses prestataires et leurs sources d’information ? Ou bien se retourner contre le concepteur de Vital, cette mécanique qu’on croyait pourtant si intelligente?

      From Google Translate:

      Since May 13, 2014, he is the sixth member of the board of directors of the Hong Kong company Deep Knowledge Ventures, or DKV. He does not need to wear a tie and a suit. His name is Vital, from an acronym that the other egg heads of the council have no doubt forgotten but which says a lot about the meaning of his presence at the top of this venture capital business in the fight against cancer, regenerative medicine and personalized treatments: "Validation tool for investments in scientific research". Vital doesn’t have the physique of a job: it’s an algorithm. No investment decision, however, is made today by DKV without it having a say. Because the robot, as far as it is called like most journalists who have sung its finesse of analysis as much as its computing power, is incorruptible. His promotion, his credit within the pool of decision makers of Deep knowledge ventures, he owes to his neutrality. Strictly mathematically speaking, his opinions on companies that are candidates for the financial windfall. But isn't this lack of subjectivity an illusion? Even autonomous in the daily exercise of its mission, can a machine programmed by humans be considered neutral? And foolproof? Because Vital could be wrong and support a harmful investment.

      And if this algorithm one day succeeded in convincing the other five members of its board of directors to invest in a startup presenting itself in a credible way as a specialist in the fight against aging, but led behind the scenes by a gang of jihadists seeking funds for the immortal Allah? Could Vital be held responsible for the casting error? Should we incriminate DKV, the legal owner of this much better software? Or its providers and their sources of information? Or turn against the designer of Vital, this mechanism that we thought was so intelligent?

    3. Dyer-Witheford, Nick (2015). Dean, Jodi; Hands, Joss; Jordan, Tim (eds.). Cyber-proletariat: Global Labour in the Digital Vortex. London: Pluto Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-7453-3404-2.

      The book notes:

      Deep Knowledge Ventures

      On 13 May 2014, a press release from Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital fund specializing in biotechnology, age-related disease drugs and regenerative medicine projects, announced that it ‘formally acknowledges VITAL, a crucial Artificial Intelligence instrument for investment decision-making, as an equal member of its Board of Directors’.

      VITAL was the product of Aging Analytics UK, a provider of health-sector market intelligence to pension funds, insurers and governments. Developed by ‘a team of programmers, several of which have theoretical physics backgrounds’, the system ‘uses machine learning to analyze financing trends in a database of life science companies and predict successful investments’. VITAL 1.0 was a ‘basic algorithm’, but the goal was ‘through iterative releases and updates ... to create a piece of software that is capable of making autonomous investment decisions’ (Fontaine 2014). Apparently, however, Deep Knowledge Ventures thought VITAL was already pretty good: it told reporters the program would ‘vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not’ (BBC 2014).

      All this sounded very futuristic. As commentators quickly pointed out, however, it was really ‘publicity hype’ (BBC 2014). This was not because decision-making algorithms are impossible, but, on the contrary, because their use, often in forms far more complex than VITAL, is commonplace in today’s capitalism. Such programs are, for example, central to the operations of the financial sector, whose high-speed multi-billion trades are entirely dependent on algorithms – and whose bad decisions brought the world economy to its knees in the great Wall Street crash of 2008. The press release was a stunt because the future to which it seemed to point exists now.

      ...

      The same-day news of the algorithmic boss-entity and the mine disaster was coincidence. Yet it condenses paradoxes and contradictions central to this book. For a start, it starkly highlights the coexistence within contemporary capitalism of extraordinary high-technologies and workers who live and die in brutal conditions often imagined to belong in some antediluvian past. This coexistence is also a connection. Mines and artificial intelligences seem to belong to different worlds, but they are strongly linked. Although only a small part of production at Soma went to power plants, similar coal mines around the planet provide – at appalling, biosphere-endangering environmental cost – the basic energy source on which all digital technologies depend: electricity.

    4. Harari, Yuval Noah (2017). Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow. New York: Harper. pp. 322–323. ISBN 978-0-06-246431-6.

      The article notes:

      In May 2014 Deep Knowledge Ventures – a Hong Kong venture-capital firm specialising in regenerative medicine – broke new ground by appointing an algorithm called VITAL to its board. VITAL makes investment recommendations by analysing huge amounts of data on the financial situation, clinical trials and intellectual property of prospective companies. Like the other five board members, the algorithm gets to vote on whether the firm makes an investment in a specific company or not.

      Examining VITAL’s record so far, it seems that it has already picked up one managerial vice: nepotism. It has recommended investing in companies that grant algorithms more authority. With VITAL’s blessing, Deep Knowledge Ventures has recently invested in Silico Medicine, which develops computer-assisted methods for drug research, and in Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which employs a platform called OncoFinder to select and rate personalised cancer therapies.

    5. Mölein, Florian (2018). "Robots in the boardroom: artificial intelligence and corporate law". In Barfield, Woodrow; Pagallo, Ugo (eds.). Research Handbook on the Law of Artificial Intelligence. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 649–650. ISBN 978-1-78643-904-8. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

      The book notes:

      Back in 2014, the media reported that Deep Knowledge Ventures, a Hong Kong-based venture capital firm, had appointed an algorithm named Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to its board of directors. According to these reports, the algorithm was given the right to "vote on whether the firm makes an investment in a specific company or not", just like the other—human—members of the board. Vital was appointed because of its ability to "automate due diligence and use historical datasets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying top-line data". For instance, Vital helped to approve two investment decisions, namely those to fund Insilico Medicine, an enterprise which develops computer-assisted methods for drug discovery in aging research, and Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which selects and rates personalized cancer therapies on the basis of a platform technology. Despite this impressive track record, Vital admittedly was not yet artificially intelligent in the proper sense. In fact, the algorithm will soon have to retire, since a much more intelligent Vital 2.0 is due to be launched in the near future. Moreover, Vital was initially not granted an equal vote on all financial decisions made by the company. Legally speaking, it has not even acquired the status of corporate director under the corporate laws of Hong Kong. It is simply treated as "a member of [the] board with observer status" by its fellow (human) directors. Nevertheless, Vital has widely been acknowledged as the "world's first artificial intelligence company director".

    6. Kahn, Jeremy (2019-09-26). "Learning to love the bot: Managers need to understand A.I. logic before using it as a business tool". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

      The article notes:

      Hong Kong-based investment firm Deep Knowledge Ventures made headlines in 2014 by appointing a computer algorithm to its corporate board. The firm, which has about 100 million euros under management, wanted a way to enforce a data-driven approach to investing, rather than relying on human intuition and personal interactions with founders. Managing partner Dmitry Kaminskiy says the algorithm served mostly as a veto mechanism—if it spotted red flags, Deep Knowledge wouldn’t invest.

      In the five years since Deep Knowledge’s A.I. got its board seat, there hasn’t exactly been a stampede of companies following suit. In fact, Deep Knowledge itself shifted focus and no longer uses the algorithm. “Today, big strategy decisions are based on intuition”—that is to say, by humans—“because we have a data shortage,” says Brian Uzzi, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management. Firms simply don’t make enough of these major decisions to train an algorithm effectively.

    7. Colberg, David (2019). "Coding Time". Critical Times. 2 (3). Duke University Press. doi:10.1215/26410478-7862517. ISSN 2641-0478. Archived from the original on 2020-04-29. Retrieved 2020-04-29.

      The article notes:

      The use of algorithms such as VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) to make decisions is also increasingly widespread. VITAL, a product of Deep Knowledge Ventures, surveys very large tranches of data to project the most profitable investments likely as a consequence of the patterns revealed in the reviewed data. A Hong Kong venture capital fund saw fit in 2014 to appoint VITAL to its Board of Directors to take advantage of its investment recommendations.

    8. Burridge, Nicky (2017-05-10). "Artificial intelligence gets a seat in the boardroom: Hong Kong venture capitalist sees AI running Asian companies within 5 years". The Nikkei. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

      The article notes:

      DKV started as a traditional biotechnology fund, with a team of advisers and analysts using traditional methods for trend analysis and due diligence. But the biotech sector has a very high failure rate, with around 96% of drugs not successfully completing clinical trials.

      ...

      DKV then acquired a team of specialists in the analysis of big data -- large data sets that can be analyzed by computers to reveal patterns. The team created Vital, the first artificial intelligence system for biotech investment analysis, enabling the fund to identify more than 50 parameters that were critical for assessing risk factors.

      ...

      Vital showed that the probability of success was higher in the longevity subsector, which seeks to combat the effects of ageing, than in most other biotech subsectors.

      ...

      DKV is currently working on Vital 2.0, which will be launched in the second half of 2017. Kaminskiy said the new system will have a much higher IQ due to increases in the quality of data available and further diversification of data sources. Vital 2.0 will integrate data from scientific literature, grants, patent applications, clinical trials and even the biographies of individual team members of companies in which DKV is interested.

      The article includes quotes from Dmitry Kaminskiy, managing partner of Deep Knowledge Ventures.

    Sources published in 2014

    1. Koebler, Jason (2014-05-13). "The First Robot Venture Capitalist Won't Do Interviews". Vice. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

      The article notes:

      The existing structure of Deep Knowledge Ventures is already shrouded a bit in mystery—the company is led by Russian Dmitry Kamenskiy, who cofounded the Center for Biogerontology and Regenerative Medicine (VITAL analyzes only companies involved in regenerative medicine)—but the rest of the board consists of “five anonymous partners, all high net worth individuals from Hong Kong, Russia, and the UK,” according to Highland.

      She says that the board will only put money into companies that VITAL’s algorithm suggests are a good bet, which isn’t too different from any other company using some proprietary analysis software or equation to make decisions.

      ...

      So far, VITAL has helped the VC firm invest in two companies, including Baltimore’s InSilico Medicine. Alex Zhavoronkov, InSilico’s CEO, told me that he does not “talk” to VITAL, but that in his dealings with Deep Knowledge Ventures, the company has acted as though the algorithm is a real human.

    2. Brown, Sophie (2014-09-30). "Could computers take over the boardroom?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

      The article notes:

      A Hong Kong venture capital fund recently appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors, claiming to be the first company of its kind to give a machine an "equal vote" when it comes to investment decisions.

      The firm, Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV), which invests in companies researching treatments for age-related diseases and regenerative medicine, uses the algorithm to analyze financing trends to make investment recommendations in the life sciences sector.

      "We were attracted to a software tool that could in large part automate due diligence and use historical data-sets to uncover trends that are not immediately obvious to humans surveying topline data," said DKV senior partner Dmitry Kaminskiy when the company announced the board "appointment" in May.

    3. Wile, Rob (2014-05-13). "A Venture Capital Firm Just Named An Algorithm To Its Board Of Directors — Here's What It Actually Does". Business Insider. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    4. "Algorithm appointed board director". BBC. 2014-05-16. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

      The article notes:

      A venture capital firm has appointed a computer algorithm to its board of directors.

      The program - called Vital - will vote on whether to invest in a specific company or not.

      The firm it will be working for - Deep Knowledge Ventures - focuses on drugs for age-related diseases.

      It said that Vital would make its recommendations by sifting through large amounts of data.

      The algorithm looks at a range of data when making decisions - including financial information, clinical trials for particular drugs, intellectual property owned by the firm and previous funding.

      According to Deep Knowledge Ventures, Vital has already approved two investment decisions.

    5. Taylor, Jordyn (2014-05-13). "V.C. Firm Names Robot To Board of Directors". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.
    6. Dormehl, Luke (2014-12-01). "Your job automated". Wired. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

      The article notes:

      Earlier this year, Deep Knowledge Ventures a Hong Kong investment house, announced that it had appointed an algorithm to its board of directors. Given the same powers as the human board members, the piece of software weighs up financial and business decisions to assess investments in biotechnology and regenerative medicine that could be worth millions of dollars. The algorithm's strength, its creators claim, is its ability to automate the kind of due diligence and historical knowledge about trends that would be difficult for a mere person to spot.

    7. Raven, David (2014-05-16). "Investment firm hires COMPUTER as new boss to sit on board of directors". Daily Mirror. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

      The article notes:

      Vital (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) will be working for medical company Deep Knowledge Ventures, which specialises in drugs for age-related diseases.

      It will sit as an 'equal member of its board of directors'.

      Deep Knowledge’s senior partner, Dmitry Kaminskiy, said: "The prospect for utilising this approach in portfolio management is very attractive.

    8. Sharwood, Simon (2014-05-18). "Software 'appointed to board' of venture capital firm". The Register. Archived from the original on 2016-01-03. Retrieved 2016-01-03.

      The article notes:

      Hong Kong based venture capital fund Deep Knowledge Ventures (DKV) “has appointed VITAL, a machine learning program capable of making investment recommendations in the life science sector, to its board.”

      ...

      We're not going there because there's a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong “The board comprises all of the directors of the company” and “A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.”

      Unless VITAL is vastly more capable than described, it cannot be considered a 'natural person'. So its 'presence' on the board is cosmetic.

      There's also the small matter of Directors' liabilities, which companies routinely insure against to to protect their Board members. Obtaining insurance for VITAL's pronouncements would be nigh-on impossible. Let's also ask what happens if VITAL is hacked: would that constitute the Directorial no-no of false and misleading communications? If VITAL crashed, would that constitute failure to disclose? Those questions come before we ponder whether VITAL has the ability to cast a vote, never mind raise its hand to show which way it has voted.

      A stunt then, albeit an unsettling one: software is on the march and often challenges human expertise. At a guess, VITAL is what previous generations of business intelligence hype called an executive information system, a tool that offers high-level analysis of a business beyond purely operational matters. It's grand that DKV has put such a tool in its Directors' hands, but this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator.

    9. "Robot hará parte de la mesa directiva de empresa japonesa". El Espectador (in Spanish). 2014-05-23. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

      The article notes:

      "Vital" es el nombre del robot que hace parte de la junta directiva de la japonesa Deep Knowledge Ventures, una empresa de gestión de fondos de inversión localizada en Hong Kong y que se especializa en inversiones de proyectos de biotecnología a mediano y largo plazo. Se trata básicamente de un software con la capacidad para analizar tendencias en las bases de datos de compañías relacionadas con ciencia y con ello predecir inversiones exitosas.

      Su nombre proviene de "validating investment tool for advancing life sciences" que traducido al español significa "herramienta validadora de inversión para el avance de las ciencias de la vida" y fue diseñado por la compañía británica Aging Analytics, que se dedica a llevar a cabo investigaciones en el campo de la biotecnología y la medicina regenerativa. La organización anunció que Vital ya ha realizado dos predicciones exitosas.

      Aunque hasta ahora no ha tenido voto, el robot ya ayudó a aprobar las inversiones hechas en la compañía Silico Medicine que desarrolla métodos por computadora para descubrir fármacos en el campo del envejecimiento. La segunda inversión fue hecha en la firma Pathway Pharmaceuticals que usa una plataforma llamada OncoFinder para seleccionar y calificar terapias personalizadas contra el cáncer.

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • VITAL has received substantial coverage and analysis from multiple reliable sources:
      1. A 2018 Chinese-language article in Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (quote from Google Translate): "The emergence of VITAL actually raises a deeper question: What kind of spark will the encounter between corporate law and artificial intelligence? VITAL may be regarded as a director of the company, or it may be regarded as an auxiliary to the decision-making of the company's director (that is, the observer ). But in either case, it will lead to a series of questions in the corporate law context: If VITAL is regarded as a director, will the relevant rules of the traditional company law on directors (such as the directors' obligations) still apply? If not applicable How should it be reconstructed? If VITAL is not regarded as a director, but only as an auxiliary means for directors ’decision-making, is this auxiliary tool also subject to the stipulations of the company law? If the interests of the company are damaged, should VITAL itself bear the responsibility? What kind of responsibility should VITAL bear without life and emotion to match its behavior and identity? All of these will undoubtedly cause challenges and impacts on the company law."
      2. A 2015 French-language article in the Multitudes journal (quote from Google Translate): "And if this algorithm one day succeeded in convincing the other five members of its board of directors to invest in a startup presenting itself in a credible way as a specialist in the fight against aging, but led behind the scenes by a gang of jihadists seeking funds for the immortal Allah? Could Vital be held responsible for the casting error? Should we incriminate DKV, the legal owner of this much better software? Or its providers and their sources of information? Or turn against the designer of Vital, this mechanism that we thought was so intelligent?"
      3. A 2014 CNN article that is quoting Michael Osborne, an associate professor in machine learning at the University of Oxford: "To be a fully functioning board member, you'd have to spend a lot of your time trying to reason with and arrive at understandings with other board members, and certainly the kind of algorithm that this particular company (DKV) is proposing won't be able to do that. Essentially, all I think they're doing is using the predictions made by this algorithm as kind of a starting point for discussion on the board, which I think is a totally reasonable thing to do, but I think it's a bit of a gimmick to call that an actual board member."
      4. A 2014 BBC article that is quoting Noel Sharkey, Professor of the University of Sheffield: "On first sight, it looks like a futuristic idea but on reflection it is really a little bit of publicity hype. A lot of companies use large data search to access what is happening on the market, then the board or trusted workers can decide on the advice. With financial markets, algorithms are delegated with decisions. The idea of the algorithm voting is a gimmick. It is not different from the algorithm making a suggestion and the board voting on it."
      5. A 2014 The Register article: "We're not going there because there's a strong whiff of stunt and/or promotion about this, not least because Hong Kong law, as Thomson Reuters points out here, in Hong Kong 'The board comprises all of the directors of the company' and 'A director must normally be a natural person, except that a private company may have a body corporate as its director if the company is not a member of a listed group.' Unless VITAL is vastly more capable than described, it cannot be considered a “natural person”. So its “presence” on the board is cosmetic. There's also the small matter of Directors' liabilities, which companies routinely insure against to to protect their Board members. Obtaining insurance for VITAL's pronouncements would be nigh-on impossible. Let's also ask what happens if VITAL is hacked: would that constitute the Directorial no-no of false and misleading communications? ... It's grand that DKV has put such a tool in its Directors' hands, but this software is no more a Board member than Caligula's horse was a senator."
      6. A 2014 Vice article: "For the moment at least, this is a gimmick. There is literally nothing to suggest that VITAL has any sort of capabilities beyond any other proprietary analysis software. But Deep Knowledge Ventures might be on to something. To keep with the VC-theme, what happens when robots are able to analyze every prospective startup, consider the market, and make investment decisions autonomously? What happens when it can argue about the best way to nurture those startups? That sort of capability is on the way, and this particular stunt aside, they might eventually be better than humans at it."
      Cunard (talk) 10:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • no one discusses that the news exists: "VITAL was appointed to the board of a Venture Capital". The problem is you listed the article in the category software and no one of the articles you mention confirms the real existence of the software. As you noticed, the software was not patented and allegedly used only internally by a Venture Capital which doesn't even have an office or address. It is indeed impossible to verify the real existence of the software.
Why did you not categorize the article with a different topic: mass media or artificial intelligence? It was my suggestion in the previous AfD discusison. If we remove the 'publicity stunt' language and the churnalism, the case of VITAL (even if the sotware never existed) might be interesting for sociologists or philosophers. Definitely, not for computer scientists or investors. Would you be interested to reclassify the article and link it to the proper debate in ethics and sociology? Postconfused (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • VITAL is proprietary software. Proprietary software says that such software can be "private, internal software". VITAL is "private, internal software". For an independent reliable source to "confir[m] the real existence of the software", the source's author would need to have direct access to VITAL. But only Deep Knowledge Ventures has access to it. No reliable sources have said Deep Knowledge Ventures gave them access to the software. This is expected since "private, internal software" is considered a trade secret.

    All reliable sources have written news articles, journal articles, and books with the belief that the software exists even when they think the appointment of VITAL to a board is "publicity hype" or a "stunt". Therefore, Wikipedia should follow the reliable sources and say the software exists and is a publicity stunt. From Wikipedia:Verifiability, "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors."

    I categorized VITAL as a software and publicity stunt because those are the terms used by most reliable sources. A few sources have used "artificial intelligence" in reference to VITAL and I have found none that categorize it as "mass media". I think the "publicity stunt" details should be retained because they are well-supported by the reliable sources so are due weight.

    "Would you be interested to reclassify the article and link it to the proper debate in ethics and sociology?" – are there reliable sources that discuss "the proper debate in ethics and sociology" that are not currently used in the article? Please post those sources here. I would support expanding the article with those sources if any are found.

    Cunard (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE per nom. I rewrote the article, but there is NOT significant coverage to verify the existence of this software. Perhaps it can be marged into a different article. Most of the content and references are from a deleted article Deep Knowledge Venture. Postconfused (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe there are sufficient sources that meet the requirements for establishing notability. I'm not concerned over the title of this article. Topic meets WP:GNG. HighKing++ 17:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 18:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination; overly much of the sourcing is carried over from a deleted article, which, unfortunately, did not testify to the topic's notability and does not seem to do so now. serial # 11:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage in the sources is incidental/mere mentions. Does not establish notability. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stifle (talk · contribs), would you explain how these two journal articles are "incidental/mere mentions"?
      1. Lin, Shaowei (2018). "人工智能对公司法的影响:挑战与应对" [The impact of artificial intelligence on company law: challenges and responses] (PDF). Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (in Chinese). East China University of Political Science and Law. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via CNKI.
      2. Kyrou, Ariel (2015). "Les robots sont des personnes comme les autres" [Robots are people like any other]. Multitudes (in French). 58 (1). doi:10.3917/mult.058.0094. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via Cairn.info.
      Sources with quotes
      1. Lin, Shaowei (2018). "人工智能对公司法的影响:挑战与应对" [The impact of artificial intelligence on company law: challenges and responses] (PDF). Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (in Chinese). East China University of Political Science and Law. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via CNKI.

        The article notes:

        早在 2014 年，人工智能对公司法的挑战已隐隐若现。研究生物科技与再生医学的英国公司 Aging Analytics 于 2014 年 5 月宣布，启用一款名为 VITAL(Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences)的人工智能工具，并授权香港的风投公司 Deep Knowledge Ventures 将该人工智能用作 该公司的投资委员。在被记者问及为何采用这一人工智能时，Deep Knowledge Venture 的高级合伙人卡明斯基(Kaminskiy)称，人会受情感左右，有主观情绪，会犯错误，但 VITAL 这样的机器只会用逻 辑思维，不可能因为一时意气出错。人类投资者的直觉和机器的逻辑性相结合，会打造一支完美的 团队，将错误的风险降低到最小。〔1〕VITAL 入场后，已经帮助公司批准了两项投资:一个是在抗衰老 医药领域开发计算机辅助方法的 Silico Medicine，另一个是使用选择个人化抗癌治疗方法的 Pathway Pharmaceuticals。Aging Analytics 公司声称，VITAL 在投资委员会和其他委员是平等的。事实上， VITAL 在当时虽然冠以“投资委员”之名，但实际上并非对任何的投资都享有跟其他委员同等的表决 权。而且，根据香港公司法的规定，VITAL 也无法获得“董事”地位。因此，Aging Analytics 公司的其 他委员认为，将之视为投资委员会的“观察员(observer)”可能更为适当。

        VITAL 的出现，实质上引出一个更深层次的问题:公司法与人工智能的相遇将会擦出何种火花? VITAL 可能被视为公司的董事，也可能被视为公司董事决策的辅助(即观察员)，但不管是哪一种情 形，均会导致公司法语境的一连串追问:如果 VITAL 被视为董事，则传统公司法关于董事的相关规 则(比如董事义务规则)是否仍然适用?如果不能适用，应当如何重构?如若 VITAL 不被视为董事， 而仅仅是被视为董事决策的辅助手段，则这种辅助性工具是否也受到公司法的规约?如董事因听信 VITAL 所作出的决策导致公司利益受损，VITAL 本身是否应当承担责任?无生命无感情之 VITAL 又该承担何种责任，才能与其行为与身份相匹配?凡此种种，无疑均会对公司法造成挑战与冲击。

        From Google Translate:

        As early as 2014, the challenge of artificial intelligence to corporate law was looming. Aging Analytics, a British company that researches biotechnology and regenerative medicine, announced in May 2014 that it had launched an artificial intelligence tool called VITAL (Validating Investment Tool for Advancing Life Sciences) and authorized Hong Kong venture capital company Deep Knowledge Ventures to use Artificial intelligence is used as the company's investment committee. When asked by reporters why this artificial intelligence was adopted, Kaminskiy, a senior partner at Deep Knowledge Ventures, said that people will be influenced by emotions, have subjective emotions and make mistakes, but machines like VITAL will only be logically thinking, so it is impossible to make mistakes because of a moment of impatience. The combination of human investor intuition and the logic of the machine will create a perfect team and minimize the risk of error. 〔1〕 After VITAL entered the market, it has helped the company to approve two investments: one is Silico Medicine, which develops computer-aided methods in the field of anti-aging medicine, and the other is Pathway Pharmaceuticals, which chooses personalized anti-cancer treatment methods. Aging Analytics claims that VITAL is equal to the investment committee and other members. In fact, although VITAL was called the "investment committee" at the time, it did not actually have the same voting rights as any other committee for any investment. Moreover, according to the provisions of the Hong Kong Company Law, VITAL cannot obtain the status of "director". Therefore, other members of Aging Analytics believe that it may be more appropriate to consider them as “observers” of the investment committee.

        The emergence of VITAL actually raises a deeper question: What kind of spark will the encounter between corporate law and artificial intelligence? VITAL may be regarded as a director of the company, or it may be regarded as an auxiliary to the decision-making of the company's director (that is, the observer ). But in either case, it will lead to a series of questions in the corporate law context: If VITAL is regarded as a director, will the relevant rules of the traditional company law on directors (such as the directors' obligations) still apply? If not applicable How should it be reconstructed? If VITAL is not regarded as a director, but only as an auxiliary means for directors ’decision-making, is this auxiliary tool also subject to the stipulations of the company law? If the interests of the company are damaged, should VITAL itself bear the responsibility? What kind of responsibility should VITAL bear without life and emotion to match its behavior and identity? All of these will undoubtedly cause challenges and impacts on the company law.

      2. Kyrou, Ariel (2015). "Les robots sont des personnes comme les autres" [Robots are people like any other]. Multitudes (in French). 58 (1). doi:10.3917/mult.058.0094. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via Cairn.info.

        The article notes:

        epuis le 13 mai 2014, il est le sixième membre du conseil d’administration de la société hongkongaise Deep knowledge ventures, ou DKV. Il n’a pas besoin de porter cravate et costume de grand ponte. Il s’appelle Vital, d’un acronyme que les autres têtes d’œuf du conseil ont sans doute oublié mais qui en dit beaucoup sur le sens de sa présence au sommet de cette entreprise de capital-risque des secteurs de la lutte contre le cancer, la médecine régénérative et les traitements personnalisés : « Outil de validation pour les investissements dans la recherche scientifique » . Vital n’a pas le physique de l’emploi : c’est un algorithme. Plus aucune décision d’investissement, néanmoins, n’est aujourd’hui prise par DKV sans qu’il n’ait voix au chapitre. Car le robot, pour peu qu’on le nomme ainsi comme l’ont fait la plupart des journalistes ayant chanté sa finesse d’analyse autant que sa puissance de calcul, est un incorruptible. Sa promotion, son crédit au sein du pool de décideurs de Deep knowledge ventures, il les doit à sa neutralité. À la rigueur toute mathématique de ses avis sur les sociétés candidates à la manne financière. Mais cette absence de subjectivité n’est-elle pas un leurre ? Même autonome dans l’exercice quotidien de sa mission, une machine programmée par des humains peut-elle être considérée comme neutre ? Et infaillible ? Car Vital pourrait se tromper et soutenir un investissement nuisible.

        Et si cet algorithme réussissait un jour à convaincre les cinq autres membres de son conseil d’administration d’investir dans une startup se présentant de façon crédible comme spécialisée dans la lutte contre le vieillissement, mais dirigée en sous-main par une bande de djihadistes cherchant des fonds pour l’immortel Allah ? Vital pourrait-il être tenu pour responsable de l’erreur de casting ? Faudrait-il incriminer la société DKV, juridiquement propriétaire de ce logiciel ô combien supérieur ? Ou ses prestataires et leurs sources d’information ? Ou bien se retourner contre le concepteur de Vital, cette mécanique qu’on croyait pourtant si intelligente?

        From Google Translate:

        Since May 13, 2014, he is the sixth member of the board of directors of the Hong Kong company Deep Knowledge Ventures, or DKV. He does not need to wear a tie and a suit. His name is Vital, from an acronym that the other egg heads of the council have no doubt forgotten but which says a lot about the meaning of his presence at the top of this venture capital business in the fight against cancer, regenerative medicine and personalized treatments: "Validation tool for investments in scientific research". Vital doesn’t have the physique of a job: it’s an algorithm. No investment decision, however, is made today by DKV without it having a say. Because the robot, as far as it is called like most journalists who have sung its finesse of analysis as much as its computing power, is incorruptible. His promotion, his credit within the pool of decision makers of Deep knowledge ventures, he owes to his neutrality. Strictly mathematically speaking, his opinions on companies that are candidates for the financial windfall. But isn't this lack of subjectivity an illusion? Even autonomous in the daily exercise of its mission, can a machine programmed by humans be considered neutral? And foolproof? Because Vital could be wrong and support a harmful investment.

        And if this algorithm one day succeeded in convincing the other five members of its board of directors to invest in a startup presenting itself in a credible way as a specialist in the fight against aging, but led behind the scenes by a gang of jihadists seeking funds for the immortal Allah? Could Vital be held responsible for the casting error? Should we incriminate DKV, the legal owner of this much better software? Or its providers and their sources of information? Or turn against the designer of Vital, this mechanism that we thought was so intelligent?

      In addition to these journal articles, there are also numerous news articles whose main topic is VITAL.

      Cunard (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am happy with my view as expressed above and I don't intend to enter into detailed line by line discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:CORPDEPTH says:

    The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

    I have provided examples here of VITAL receiving "deep coverage" containing commentary and analysis about it. I am not able to determine from reviewing the "delete" comments why this depth of analysis is insufficient and what depth of coverage would convince them that VITAL passes WP:CORPDEPTH.

    Cunard (talk) 09:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per the nom. Fails WP:ONEEVENT and lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV. Tangential mentions just don't cut it when it comes to notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ONEVENT redirects to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. VITAL is a software, not a person. I explained here why VITAL does not violate Wikipedia:Notability (events) or WP:NOTNEWS.

    Regarding lacking sustained significant coverage, the VITAL announcement happened on 13 May 2014, and VITAL received detailed coverage in two journal articles published months or even years after that announcement: a 2015 article in Multitudes and a 2018 article in the Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (published by the East China University of Political Science and Law).

    Regarding tangential mentions, the 2015 Multitudes article devotes 545 words to analysis and commentary about VITAL. The 2018 Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law article devotes 443 words to analysis and commentary about VITAL (the word count was computed after translating the Chinese to English in Google Translate). Journal articles that devote 500 words to commentary about VITAL are not tangential mentions.

    Cunard (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Google can mislead editors. A journal with a ZERO impact factor, maybe it is not a reliable source, especially if it is written in Chinese and you must use a google translator to read it. Second, Multitudes is an interesting pubblication, I do personally read it, but it focuses on politics, art, and philosophy. The source draws on algorithm, social activism, policy, and cultural theory not computer sciences. I do appreciate your work, I also substanially helped improve yuor article, but I wasn't able to verify the content. So far there is no evidence that VITAL existed. It is a hoax. Did you find any references at all from a computer sciences journal or magazine? Last but not least, if the AFD article is deleted, please do not cut and paste the same content in a new article eg Machine Learning VITAL. We have been discussing the same sources and content for almost two months. Postconfused (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Currently this is somewhat leaning towards deletion, but it's not that clear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent media reports and press releases have created the impression that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is on the verge of assuming an important role in corporate management. While, upon closer inspection, it turns out that these stories should not always be taken at face value. [...] In the case of VITAL, it turned out that initial reports were technically incorrect, given that Hong Kong law does not allow non-human entities to serve on boards. The phenomenon was also exaggerated, as Deep Knowledge Ventures later acknowledged that VITAL’s role was a little different from that of human directors, noting that the firm treats the software “as a member of our board with observer status” on the basis of an agreement that the board “would not make positive investment decisions without corroboration by VITAL.” As one commentator noted, this arrangement was no different from practices at other financial companies that use large data searches to survey markets and generate suggestions for boards or managers.

Martin Petrin, Professor of Corporate Law & Governance and Vice Dean (Innovation), University College London.

Postconfused (talk) 18:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the sourcing is very poor; insufficient coverage to provide in-depth, persistent coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per NCORP. The sources presented do not, unfortunately, do this. ——Serial # 09:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iridescent's wisdom about your sig shines through. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not seeing any significant coverage in reliable independent sources, just passing mentions.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reverted the collapsing of nearly my entire comment which had shown that VITAL has received substantial analysis over a period of years.

    Cunard (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment “In “Homo Deus,” Harari writes that, in 2014, a Hong Kong venture-capital firm “broke new ground by appointing an algorithm named vital to its board.” A footnote provides a link to an online article, which makes clear that, in fact, there had been no such board appointment, and that the press release announcing it was a lure for “gullible” outlets. When I asked Harari if he’d accidentally led readers into believing a fiction, he appeared untroubled, arguing that the book’s larger point about A.I. encroachment still held.“ [20]

    From The New Yorker, the magazine is identified by the Columbia Journalism Review as the leading publication for rigorous fact checking [21]. Cunard: are you still sure of your sources? Postconfused (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thank you for finding more reliable sources that provide analysis of VITAL and its being a publicity stunt. This demonstrates that VITAL continues to receive analysis years after it was announced. VITAL is notable as a publicity stunt. The sources that non-critically reported about the announcement that VITAL was appointed a board member were "gullible outlets". But the sources that provided critical analysis and skepticism about the appointment (I provide a list of them here) are reliable sources since they were not acting "gullibly". I maintain that VITAL passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline through the sources I presented in the AfD, particularly these two strong journal articles:
      1. Lin, Shaowei (2018). "人工智能对公司法的影响:挑战与应对" [The impact of artificial intelligence on company law: challenges and responses] (PDF). Journal of East China University of Political Science and Law (in Chinese). East China University of Political Science and Law. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via CNKI.

        The article devotes 443 words to analysis and commentary about VITAL (the word count was computed after translating the Chinese to English in Google Translate).

      2. Kyrou, Ariel (2015). "Les robots sont des personnes comme les autres" [Robots are people like any other]. Multitudes (in French). 58 (1). doi:10.3917/mult.058.0094. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via Cairn.info.

        The article devotes 545 words to analysis and commentary about VITAL.

      Cunard (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the source provided pass WP:GNG, this appears to be more than PR as the software has received significant and ongoing coverage. Valoem talk contrib 23:09, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Cunard: I respect your passion and your strength in defending this article. However, repeating exactly the same argument over and over can become less helpful. I think it is very clear that you consider those two last sources reliable, you actually define them “Strong”. However, Multitudes does not appear a peer-review journal, it has a very low impact factor, and one of its two founders Toni Negri has been condemned for terrorism. The other source comes from a journal which is not indexed by the Chinese Science Citation Database or Web of Science. The first article is from 2018 and the second from 2015.

I brought to your attention two articles from 2019. One peer reviewed article [22] published in the Columbia Business Law Review and the other one [23] published in The New Yorker. Both sources are well known and their credibility is unquestionable. In addition, these two articles are more recent (2019) than any sources your provided so far.

In both articles VITAL Software is described as a HOAX. They agree that such a machine learning software never existed and it has never been appointed to the board of a company, also because it would have been illegal.

By hoax, I mean "News stories that contain facts that are either false or inaccurate and are presented as legitimate facts. This category is also known in the research community either as half-truth or factoid stories" [24]

I do think the best solution is to rewrite a more comprehensive article on the recent debate on AI and corporate management. As you are aware, I am drafting a new article Robo Director and included VITAL merging the present article. Unfortunately, I am not very fast like you in writing articles. Postconfused (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horizn Studios[edit]

Horizn Studios (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)

admitted paid editing, and, not surprisingly, fundaentally promotional.

the references consist of notices of initial funding, minor pr-influenced charities, and brand placements. DGG ( talk ) 09:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 19:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian E. Kinsella[edit]

Brian E. Kinsella (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)

Paid, promotional, and non-notable.

The references, even when they appear to be from somewhat reliable places, are PR stunts. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - if DGG feels something should be deleted, that is already enough for me, but additionally, the paid editing annoys me. Stifle (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Byron (composer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Michael Byron (composer) (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)

American composer. The article was deleted as non-notable in the previous AfD. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 May 11 decided to endorse that closure but also to resubmit the article to AfD to assess improvements made towards the end of the previous discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 07:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Of the 8 sources, only one appears to be independent, the book, though I can't see the full extent to which it discusses Byron, one single source is not enough. I suppose Dusted mag was independent but it looks like a small time old fan type blog with no real readership and thus not enough meaningful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 11:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually striking my comment about the independent book - it looks like a copy of the Wikipedia article. So...no actual coverage. Also the book is published as a draft, so I'm not sure how this could be considered a reliable source. Praxidicae (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is Allmusic.com a copy of Wikipedia? Hyacinth (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic's independent, and fine for reffing his discography, but the bio there is all of twenty words long. It's not significant coverage all by itself. —Cryptic 04:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ebook version may be marked draft, but the corresponding print edition is in hundreds of libraries. Also, the only revision I found with any resemblance to Byron's entry in it is the most recent, where it's clearly marked as a quotation from the book. What revision is it a copy of? —Cryptic 04:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I said "it looks like" not that it was. My points all still stand though, there is no in depth coverage and certainly no independent in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 07:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartu Department Store[edit]

Tartu Department Store (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)

GNG fail, one source and it's primary. dibbydib boop or snoop 08:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. dibbydib boop or snoop 08:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. dibbydib boop or snoop 08:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dibbydib: it is OK, if most of shopping malls in here List of shopping malls in Estonia are redirects (and not individual articles) to this list.--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many articles on Wikipedia devoted to shopping malls. I fail to see why Tartu kaubamaja should be deleted. One merely has to Google it for sources. A Google search pulls up 5,650,000 results to pick references from. ExRat (talk) 02:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 06:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The building has been an object of extensive public discussion due to its architectural peculiarities, and has often been used to raise or illustrate issues in city planning and modern architecture in general. The actual building, redesign, and expansion processes have also attained some notoriety. Additionally, there have been several sources discussion the business inside the building. Sadly, all that content is not visible in the current article, but then again I would have thought people making the deletion proposals might have been aware of the WP:NEXIST which states: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". --Ehitaja (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Deleted under G7. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InsuringIndia[edit]

InsuringIndia (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 indication of notability. Article has a couple of valid references but they are about product launches. Article reads like an advertisement and was created by a self-declared marketing professional. M4DU7 (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bootpalish (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)Please feel free to delete or remove the page. The company has closed down and the page is not relevant anymore. Thank you for including me in the conversation.[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Fisher[edit]

DJ Fisher (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, cannot find any independent reliable sources other than quotes in a couple articles about his clients. The only articles about him specifically, aren’t from reliable sources. Not only that but the article is written like an advertisement for him. Rockchalk717 05:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG without significant coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. Speaking for clients does not count as coverage for the individual themselves.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable sports agent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contus (company)[edit]

Contus (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)

Promotional article. The company doesn't meet the notability criteria. M4DU7 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article setting out the stall for a company, complete with its price-point in the opening sentence. Searches find several items in the Hindu Business Line and the Economic Times, but most are announcement-based content, falling under Trivial Coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. The best is probably the 2013 profile piece on the founder in ET Rise Startups, but neither that nor anything else I can see provides the coverage needed to demonsrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alps Airport[edit]

Alps Airport (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)

Original research. None of the airports listed have official designation as Alps Airport. If the article is supposed to be research on the passenger flows into the Alps area, there should be something more than a list of four airports (and for example Geneva has more traffic than these four together). Ymblanter (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page appears to be a disambiguation page, not a content page. The question is does this page provide useful navigation from a plausible search term? • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any evidence that any of these airports are known as "Alps Airport", even unofficially. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The balance of both votes and arguments favors keep. signed, Rosguill talk 20:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Safoora Zargar[edit]

Safoora Zargar (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 BLP DTM (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. DTM (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DTM (talk) 05:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has received indepth coverage in national and international media and thus even per WP:1E, worthy of having a stand alone article. Toddy1 has provided some sources above, if time permits, I would do copy editing and improve it more. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 06:10, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 1E, it says that, However, "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified". The coverage is definitely very much.- Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 06:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person in the article is notable. Agreed with the above two wikipedians views, I also voted to Keep this article. This person is highly covered by mainstream media whether National (Indian) or International. You can easily check all the references in the reference list of Safoora Zargar
- TheChunky (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of content isn't cited with reliable source, a very few sources are cited with indepent or reliable websites, I think the subject isn't notable enough (yet) to be here as per WP:GNG ; many part of this article have no any refrance seems editor's interest e.g the first para. of controversy section where the editor mentioned porn actress, her allegations and all that, also for her husband a very few result are showing and however it is clear, the subject covered a few media coverage on internet but not notable (yet), Thanks. Sturdyankit (chat) 12:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but. Sources like Al Jazeera, BBC etc ain't non notable. On the Wikipedia, nothing is complete and nothing belongs to any single editor. If creating editor does a mistake, other users rectify it and this is how Wikipedia works. The national and international reliable independent media coverage passes WP:SIGCOV and so, WP:GNG. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 12:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of this article, I am a newbie too. I did it with the limited knowledge. The Wikipedia community editor are here to support every new editor to work on Wikipedia by following all the rules and regulations. I might be make mistake. But this article is so much notable and Al Jazeera and BBC is enough to define it's notability. However, there are 100+ articles on the same person available online—covered by National as well as International media. I am a new user and have too low contribution till now. Hope minor mistakes should be fixed by other editors which will encourage me to improve my future contribution. Thank You. - TheChunky (talk) 13:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to expand your vote? How is the subject not notable of having WP when they have received significant coverage in reliable national and international media including BBC, Al-Jazeera, Gulf News etc. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 21:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable Activist. Doing protest against Government decisions is not enough to justify Notability. Being a student and protests what else she did? Fails WP:GNG. DMySon 11:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to address the issues of national and international coverage? Which clearly passes WP:GNG. How doing protests against government is not notable? How protests ain't notable? - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you say it fails SIGCOV and GNG when there's national and international coverage including BBC and Al Jazeera. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an alternative option could be renaming something like the Arrest of Kafeel Khan article. Also, I disagree with Numan765's view of the subject's attention-seeking approach. She was thrown behind the bars when the CAA issue as well as the protests took a backseat. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Deleteagree with @Numan765 and @DMySon Dear, @AaqibAnjum few months back, a lot of protesters rise against indian gov and they also covered by medias but sarfoora's issue become a bit voilent here in india because she was behind the bar with her pregnancy so covered by international media BBC and all that(as you said) but this doesnt make the subject notable, the protest surely is notable enough and already have a article I recommend an alternative of delete is to merge this subject with it_https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaheen_Bagh_protests. as you know, a whole community of students from Jamia Millia Islamia participated in this protest some were Zainul Abidin, Mehroneesha , Abidin Hussain etc_they all protestors and they too covered by reliable medias as The Times of India, ABP News, Aaj Tak, Business Standard, the telegraph etc but this doesnt make them notable (yet) okay, now come to your point, BBC and Al Jazeera, kindly visit once again they focus on these all things reletated to that protest as brutality, the hunger strike and her pregnancy etc providing a topic of her along with many other scholars of JMI were arrested as Meeran Haider, a research scholar and member of the Jamia Coordination Committee, Shifa-Ur-Rehman, president of the Jamia Millia Islamia Alumni Association, Gulfisha, an MBA student, and Ishrat Jahan, a former municipal councillor, for participating in anti-CAA protests and they too covered by medias including BBC and also Safoora was charged with a murder of 50+ person in SaheenBaag look, if the protest create such type of violence then all medias have to cover it and hence Geeta pandey a indian journlist wrote this article to BBC, but these all dont make any sense of an article for her. Thanks Sturdyankit (chat) 04:09, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already voted Keep. And the things some other editors are telling. The non notable things like she did protest, she was student of JMI. Yes if the thing was limited to these two then it would be non notable. But the actual things are
  • CAA protests ends too earlier
  • International media covered a pregnant lady arrested by Police at the time of Coronavirus Lockdown
  • There were arrest of many students, but Safoora Zargar is covered separately by International as well as National media because of many reasons (numbers of references added not 1 or 2, there are more than 50 International and National media.)
  • Huge separate coverage for a person can make it notable.
TheChunky (talk) 08:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChunky okay, but I deny your claims, 1. Yup, CAA protest ends on March. 24th and subject arrested on April.10th,as you already know for arresting any one there's a process and in this case 1k+ protesters are there against Indian gov so, with following their rule they arrested her on April.10,_ 2. During lockdown in india the subject got viral with some bullyings, fake or real pics and intimated videos and this issue brings subject in lime light and make her a social media sensation but getting viral doesn't make anyone notable, 3. Yup alot of protesters were arrested and some were killed but due to sensation all medias gave a topic of her but also mentioned other protesters and they had main focus was to explaing the protest with the help of these protesters, as you see at Citizenship Amendment Act protests/Reactions, major countries as United Nations, Pakistani, Malaysia, Kuwait, Europe etc comment on this protest, the subject is only a local protesters having no notablity as of others(1k) and as you said approx. 50 international medias covered this issue I totally deny it only 3 or 4 international medias cover this issue (they cover the protest along with some protesters not any news independently covers her),_4. Visit once the 5th point of WP:GNG and also WP:ARTN there clearly mentioned, significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article,it's totally clear the subject fails in notablity. Sturdyankit (chat) 11:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All kinds of news coverage by international media, in-depth references. The subject is definitely notable!!! Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just a situational correction, this DR was started by User:DiplomatTesterMan.--Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@2405:201:E801:1770:E5AF:8D88:EE67:A66F: clearly you have a User ID on Wikipedia, but chose to make this comment whilst logged out. What is your User ID?-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:BIO1E. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Rename to Arrest of Safoora Zargar to satisfy BLP1E. The event is notable, since it has received significant coverage over quite a long period of time, but the person at the centre of it is probably not. I am noting a lot of, shall we say politicised arguments brought up by Keep voters. Also User:Sturdyankit, you may only vote once, I have stricken your second Delete vote for you. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlett Cherry[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scarlett Cherry (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 and I cannot see that the subject fulfills WP:Notability (music). Relies on primary sources (websites of subject and her husband's media company) and many of the external links are no longer working. The fact that the subject is apparently associated with notable individuals does not make her notable and the depth of this association in unclear in any case. This is my first time proposing an article for deletion so any advice is especially welcome. JohnmgKing (talk) 04:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found a few tangential name checks in articles about Adam Lambert, which is neither significant coverage or--as pointed out--a qualifier per WP:NOTINHERIT. Otherwise, appears to be a vanity page created and maintained by and SPA editor and an IP address. ShelbyMarion (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lots of name-dropping of her famous friends, but nothing to suggest that Ms. Cherry is independently notable. No reviews or articles about her self-released records, no mention of her role in The Ten Commandments (the 2004 review of the show in the Los Angeles Times [25] states that there were more than 50 actors in the production, so she may have been nothing more than a supporting role in the chorus), mere passing mentions of her role in "The Zodiac Show" [26]... as noted above, it's mostly pictures and videos of her with Adam Lambert and Carmit Bachar in WP:INHERITED situations. Richard3120 (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete artist shows some forms of passing notability in search results, but sources in article don't satisfy WP: Notability. Two of the four sources are from musician's bio alone. Sweetteaplz (talk) 02:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
Every source, reviewed
  1. The first source is primary, which is unhelpful
  2. The second source is exactly the same as the first one, so it's technically unhelpful
  3. The third source doesn't exist, which is a little suspicious.
  4. The fourth source doesn't have any content related to the artist at all. All I see is a song by Lana Del Rey and the definition for Cherry.

My reasons for deletion. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 03:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nihodo Media[edit]

Nihodo Media (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 was recently PRODed, but it seems to have been removed by the creator and main editor of the article, who is probably paid. Although the article has sources, all of them seem to involve trivial mentions of the company and to be more about the stuff they put out. Six of the citations are to one article that barely even talks about the company and is mostly an interview. The second most used citation is trivial company profile. The point is, the company doesn't seem notable on its own. Maybe it's media releases are, I don't really know, but notability isn't inherited anyway. Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Keep per WP:HEY (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Lake, Wyoming[edit]

Cooper Lake, Wyoming (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 place appears to be mislabeled as an "unincorporated community"; sources describe either a small rail station or the lake itself. Could not find any mention of a settlement here. There is also insufficient coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article has been sufficiently enhanced since AfD nomination to negate the original argument. Normal Op (talk) 00:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete yes, there are more sources, and they still say that it was not a community; it's just another isolated station to which the Lincoln Highway was close enough to justify inclusion in a travel guide. Mangoe (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's definitely identified as a place by Wyoming newspapers, and we are a gazetteer. Verified known place, now a decent stub. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] SportingFlyer T·C 06:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources.Djflem (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles has been improved, meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GEOLAND. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYBE[edit]

DYBE (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)

Currently defunct station which is left unreferenced for more than 10 years. There's barely any source about it. It is not even listed in the 2011 listing and 2019 listing by the NTC. Fails WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No prejduice against a speedy renomination. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYPV[edit]

DYPV (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)

Currently defunct station which is left unreferenced for more than 10 years. There's barely any source about it. It is not even listed in the 2011 listing and 2019 listing by the NTC. Fails WP:BCAST. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2016-08 ↻ restored, 2016-07 ✗ PROD
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swivel New Media[edit]

Swivel New Media (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 brand management company with nothing in RS as far as I can tell. The page was obviously created as self promotion, I mean the creating editors name is Swivel1. Come on. Mbdfar (talk) 03:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, searching "Swivel New Media" comes up with around 175 results on google, none of which are significant coverage in reliable sources. Just 'Swivel' leads to a few more results, almost exclusively press releases and a couple articles: Austin Business Journal and cnbc. Still doesn't seem to be quite enough in-depth, reliable coverage to meet notability standards. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Seems promotional and without any independent sources. Fails WP:GNG.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform on which companies are entitled to place themselves just because they exist. The notability test requires independent coverage about the company in media to establish the company's significance, and cannot be met by referencing the article entirely to the company's own self-published website about itself (the only kind of sourcing present here at all). Notability, for Wikipedia's purposes, is not a thing you get to give yourself by writing about yourself — it's a thing journalists have to bestow on you by writing news stories about you in the third person. Bearcat (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Torrey[edit]

Brandon Torrey (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:NGRIDIRON. Can't find anything outside of routine transactional coverage. Played in NFL Europe and the United Football League, but neither are covered by NGRIDIRON since they were minor leagues. Was on the practice squad for the Giants' Super Bowl XLII team, but did not receive any coverage for this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources 4, 5, 6, 8 above are clearly just passing mentions and typically do not count towards GNG. Not sure if The Shadow League is considered a reliable source (#2 listed), but #1, #3, and #7 are good and I'm not sure how they didn't appear in the search I did before nominating. I have struck out my statement about lack of coverage from being on Super Bowl practice squad, as that has been disproven. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Yunshui 雲水 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia Kianni[edit]

Sophia Kianni (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)

environmentalist. Lots of citebombing in the article, but nothing above trivial name dropping. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I note that notability is what people write about the subject, not what the subject writes about. Unless the writing is somehow notable (award winning, studied academically, etc.) it's doesn't count. Ifnord (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, struck the icing. --GRuban (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

dscotty26 (talk) 12:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This Wikipedia biography exists in accordance with Wikipedia’s policies on notability and sources. The aforementioned sources are of high quality, independent of one another, and the piece is written with an informative tone. The subject of the article is notable as well. A quick internet search will yield a considerable array of independent, reliable sources, all of which exclusively discuss the subject in detail. She has been featured in the Washington Post three times now, and occupies high-profile positions across a range of prominent international organizations in this field, serving as National Strategist at Fridays for Future, and carrying out functions as International Spokesperson for Extinction Rebellion. These are both very notable organizations with a high degree of international presence on their own. Furthermore, as mentioned, this article is inline with other entries in the category. The subject is notable, and there is a wide array of independent, prominent and reliable sources online to justify this. Therefore, I see no reason for deletion. This is a well-written article.

Rmirmotahari (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dps04 (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appears notable, but a bit unconventional -- full profile in Forbes plus the rest of the citations, suggest notable individual -- might need a bit of triming in the process. Sadads (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article has been refbombed to a degree, and it definitely needs a lot of trimming (especially in the activism section) but there is clearly quite a bit of significant coverage in the references provided, causing her to pass GNG easily. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Lily is a sister publication of the Washington Post, thus articles about her in both those publications essentially count as one. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, disagree: "sister publication" is not a well defined term. Between 1993 and 2013, The Boston Globe was owned by The New York Times, would you argue they would similarly "essentially count as one"? I am afraid they are different papers, with a different staff, audiences, and standards. Still reputable Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but different. Second, however, to be honest, The Washington Post is one of the most respected newspapers in the world, so if you want to say that the long, in-depth Lily article focusing on her might actually be "essentially" in the Washington Post, well, that would be a strong argument that she meets WP:GNG right there. --GRuban (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, literally the Wikipedia article is The Lily (Washington Post). It is published by the WashPost [41]. The Boston Globe NYT comparison is not applicable here. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. Please free to consider it a 30 paragraph The Washington Post article about her in your consideration of her notability. So one large article by The Washington Post, a medium one from Acorns, plus shorter bits by CNN, Time Magazine, The Guardian, Reuters ... and again The Washington Post ... that don't go as in depth, but don't just drop her name as part of a list of dozens either, multiple mentions or whole paragraphs about her. I'm going to say that meets WP:GNG, no? --GRuban (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not arguing for deletion, frankly I don't have an opinion on this article. Yes, a WashPost/Lily feature would certainly contribute towards notability, all I'm pointing out is that the two publications should be for notability purposes be considered the same. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I came here on a weird path, but subject appears to meet the GNG and there are a lot of page views. Abductive (reasoning) 01:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. I believe she meets the notability criteria, having been featured in-depth here, here, and here. cookie monster (2020) 755 22:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trey Kennedy[edit]

Trey Kennedy (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 youtuber. Fails MUSICBIO MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources significant coverage in sources such as The Today Show, Christian Post, The Tennessian, Oklahomian and others, all already referenced in the article. Also he was scheduled for a 15 state tour of the US before it was cancelled due to the pandemic which would have been a claim to pass WP:NMUSIC imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Atlantic306 so you think that the oklahomian article titled Oklahoma teenagers realize hoop dreams with title win written in 2007 as a small news report about a teenager team winning a basketball match, which mentions the subject of this article by name only once, and that too just in the lineup......is a reliable source giving significant, indepth coverage, to the subject of this article whose claim to fame is as a TikTok star? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:14, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article in the Oklahoman is just a passing mention, but the other sources cited in the article are clearly enough to pass both GNG and BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--article has 32 references; he meets GNG.Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SPA/newly-registered editor votes are given little weight, and frankly give the impression of either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. With respect to the keep arguments, neither passing praise for a handful of community theater live performances, nor presidency of a labor union, suffices to generate notability. No prejudice against refunding to draft if real sources covering the subject in depth become available, but I'd want to see those sources first. BD2412 T 03:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Lawrence[edit]

Cary Lawrence (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)

Contested PROD. Non-notable actor. Article has no sources but IMDb, which is not reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror. The fact that we have aritcles that have that as the only source that have existed for 14 years is a major blemish on Wikipedia. At times we have rushed to create quantity over quality. That might be justified in places where quantity is a mandate, like articles on places that fall under our function as a gazeteer, but it should not be applied to biographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many of the filmography entries I checked don't even list her as a cast member, indicating that her roles were small. She starred in a "hit show" (which lasted 27 episodes over two seasons), but that's about it as far as significant credits go, so she fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The subject has also had main roles in a number of plays, so I think WP:NACTOR is met. There are lots of hits at newspapers.com, which I am going through at the moment. I will apply to have some clipped and then provide them here. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've selected a few articles to have clipped and am applying at WP:RX now. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some sources: here, here, here and here. The sources provide several short bursts of praise regarding performances in plays. I will be leaving my vote as it is for the moment, but I haven't had the chance to check them out properly myself, but would be interested to hear what others think. I can apply for more sources if others think that will be helpful. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject is still active in the industry.
  • Researched a little more, in addition to being an actress, she is a contributor to ACTRA magazine, and served as President of ACTRA in Montreal. ACTRA is a well-known artist union in the Canadian [3] . My vote is keep. I think WP:NACTOR is met.
  • Recent article states this information. Source: [4]
  • More sources citing as ACTRA President: [5] ,here, here
  • Also see:
Talent Agency Resume
Credited in ACTRA Short
Will provide more source as I come across them.
Elpaabb (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Meeting NACTOR requires reliable sources to write content about her and her performances to establish their significance, and is not just automatically passed by every actor who can list acting roles — having acting roles is literally the job, so if listing roles were all it took then every actor would always clear NACTOR and the idea that it was possible to distinguish notable actors from non-notable ones at all would be dead as a doornail. Being a contributor to a magazine is not a notability freebie in the absence of other people writing content that analyzes the significance of her writing. Being president of a union chapter is not a notability freebie in the absence of other people writing content about her work in that role. And on and so forth: notability can never be supported by primary sources like IMDb or YouTube or the credits scroll at the end of her own films or content published by directly affiliated organizations or anything on Facebook or Twitter — notability requires journalists to do journalism about her, and nobody's shown the first bit of evidence that any such thing exists at all. Notability is not about measuring the things the article says, it's about measuring the quality and depth and volume of sourcing that can or can't be shown to support the things it says. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has had main roles in a number of plays, I guess WP:NACTOR is met.Alexdlp10 (talk) 09:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete No coverage whatsoever. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Really barely any coverage. Not even an single interview. If there was any kind of decent references, they would be in the article already. scope_creepTalk 10:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:13, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Universal controls[edit]

Universal controls (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)

Essay unsourced since 2007 and possibly a coatrack for a particular product. There may be possible merge targets though I’m not sure what, and it could possibly be stripped down to a simple dictionary definition and sent to Wiktionary, but I’m not clear that It’s a notable topic. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find any sources that treat universal control as a topic unto itself, as opposed to generic uses of the term across many disciplines. Without reliable sources, this fails notability and there are no viable alternatives to deletion. I am happy to revisit if sources are found, but right now this looks like pure OR and a solid deletion candidate. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. This essay has been completely unsourced since its creation in 2007, and it is against Wikipedia policy to retain unsourced information. As mentioned by Mark viking, while the phrase shows up in plenty of places upon searches, there is not really anything that supports the concept described in this particular article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. After two full relistings and then some, no consensus for a particular action has emerged in this discussion. North America1000 10:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Action Dad[edit]

Action Dad (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. I cannot find any RS demonstrating any coverage. The only thing I found was that tvguide says it existed. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTV, which says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." The show aired on Cartoon Network Brazil, a national cable channel. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:NTV? Where are the reliable secondary sources that can prove that Cartoon Network Brazil aired that show? There's only a facebook photo, which is not a reliable source, and it does not even mention Cartoon Network Brazil. WP:NRSNVNA. Bolhones (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to WP:NTV: "In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone." Bolhones (talk) 03:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AfD (Wikipedia in Portuguese). Bolhones (talk) 03:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Airing on CN Brazil has not been evidenced, therefore NTV is not met. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Floyd[edit]

Jeff Floyd (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:NGRIDIRON. The coverage I can turn up is very routine (hiring/firing lists), and fails NGRIDIRON by a long shot. Coached three games at the D2 level, the rest of his coaching experience is at the NAIA or high school level. His playing career at a minor college doesn't pass him through GNG or NGRIDIRON, either. Hog Farm (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not at all notable as a coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep haven't found a ton of coverage on Newspapers.com, but I'. confident the sources are out there on Floyd. Generally, we've be able to show that pretty much any head football coach, at any NCAA or NAIA level, will pass GNG. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep we typically find that head coaches of college football programs pass WP:GNG and I see no reason to make an exception here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmcdonald (talk • contribs) 15:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While head coaches are not default notable, it is generally the case, and there is enough here for an article. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:17, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Cross[edit]

Bill Cross (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)

Single source is obituary. Does not pass WP:GNG Idolwyld (talk) 03:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, honorable but non-notable career. Mztourist (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fails SOLDIER but meets the GNG as having received "significant coverage [detailed Daily Telegraph obituary] in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as well as coverage in other sources such as the BBC and The Times. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obit in major national newspaper = notability. We have always held this to be true. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where does it say that an obituary in a major national newspaper establishes notability? Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Longstanding precedent for many years. You frankly do need to know these things before you nominate articles for deletion or comment on AfDs. But it's also common sense: if a person is deemed notable enough for an obit in a major national newspaper than how could they possibly not be notable enough for Wikipedia, which has articles on many people who would never have obits in such newspapers. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alternatively there's a single source, for an honourable, but otherwise unnotable career in the armed forces, not apparently specifically distinguished or storied career that's not above and beyond many of his generation, or say, many other Chelsea Pensioners, without articles.Idolwyld (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • So why do you think one of the main national newspapers decided to publish an obit for him? Because they don't publish obits for non-notable people and they publish obits for far, far fewer people than we write articles for. How very arrogant of Wikipedia to think we know better than them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • "longstanding precedent" that's never been put in a policy apparently, I don't accept that or your put-down. Mztourist (talk) 15:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are all sorts of reasons a newspaper might publish something. That‘S why we don’t rely on one source.Idolwyld (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Newspapers of record in the UK only publish obits of people they consider to be notable. That means we should consider them to be notable, as they are newspapers of record. @Mztourist: I'm surprised you don't consider longstanding precedent to be important, given that's what mostly governs what we do at AfD and always has done. Much of it has never been recorded in policy. But policy is not the be all and end all on Wikipedia. Consensus is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Longstanding precedent is usually codified in policy so everyone can access it and is aware of it. If its not in policy then its open to debate, that's why there are extensive notability guidelines, which do not include having an obit in a major newspaper. So I don't agree that necessarily establishes notability despite your assertion that its a "longstanding precedent" Mztourist (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He has a very impressive collection of medals. Can we detail them properly in the article with the ribbons. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Necrothesp, the Telegraph is a paper of record, and his war achievements are extraordinary. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are his war achievements extraordinary? that seems like hyperbole. 156k men landed on day one in Normandy, and a smaller but significant numberon the other operations mentioned - simply being there doesn't make him notable Idolwyld (talk) 13:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:is there any national distinction about him? The longest period of army service credited to a non-commissioned British soldier in the 20th century is 47 years for a man who retired in 1967 (IIRC from Soldier magazine article in 1970s).Cloptonson (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Necrothesp....Whispyhistory (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The End of Animal Farming[edit]

The End of Animal Farming (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 question that this book is notable enough for a standalone article, and suggest that it be merged into Jacy Reese Anthis, its author. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youda Games[edit]

Youda Games (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 article reads like a promotion for the company. Would have nominated for speedy deletion for that but it already got PROD years ago. GamerPro64 05:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant coverage available anywhere, therefore fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Also entirely unsourced and clearly promotional. IceWelder [✉] 17:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RW99[edit]

RW99 (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)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in the absence of reliable sources of course we cannot keep the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unusual to have what appears to be a keep participant as the nom but assuming I'm reading that correctly we don't yet have a consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Mbdfar (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. As a native speaker of German, I looked for sources as well. The thing exists, and has been discussed in government sources. The minutes of the municipal council of Zurich, where its use by police was subject to debate, give a somewhat complete overview of the device and its use. But it's a primary source, and everything else on the Internet seems superficial or unreliable (anti-police websites, weapons fan sites, etc.) Sandstein 11:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City Furniture[edit]

City Furniture (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:NCORP. It was deleted twice. Created for the third time by Candleabracadabra, a puppet of a long-term sock. The article also carries a strong promotional tone. Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment for closer - this may have been eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G5. I didn't realize at the time it was created. Graywalls (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 02:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but the promotional tone needs to be removed indeed. It has decorated some well known people homes, so that gives an indication of notability (it's inherited, so *indication*) Dwaro (talk) 11:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
reply it specifically says in the criteria notability CAN NOT be INHERITED. This reasoning is not consistent with policy. It should be noted that your recent batch of contributions have been exclusive and restricted to AfDs I have participated in over articles in area you do not participate in at all. Graywalls (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but citing "The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable." is the case in the Huffington post, after they decorated a home of Kardashian family members. (I'm just giving a single example here). Also, I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, nothing else. I think this article about a notable orga should not be deleted. I also like to note that the previous deletion of this article was 12 years ago. Although I can't see the old article, I think this one is probably a lot better. Dwaro (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Name the specific sources you find to entirely meet sourcing standards. A celebrity gossip article talked about notable people going shopping at a place, and that place happened to be City Furniture. That article was specifically about the actions of the notable person(s) and where they went shopping is just a side thought. This article was deleted not once, but twice. Your basis for the speculation that the current version is better is nothing more than just a gut feel. It's about as valid as a claim a glass of water poured today is "probably a lot better" than what it tasted like a week go without having had a chance to try it the week before. Graywalls (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing++ 19:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (a) Not notable - based on the current references (Google search is useless in this case). (b) Promotional. (c) Created by a blocked sockpuppet account. My very best wishes (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Despite what IZ041 wrote, they have not in fact "fixed the article with a few edits" or indeed otherwise edited it. Sandstein 11:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Georgia World[edit]

Miss Georgia World (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)

local beauty pageant, not notable enough for wikipedia. Fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:IZ041 if it can be fixed, then show us some significant, indepth coverage, in reliable sources. WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV needs to be met. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:MistyGraceWhite Pageantopolis is a reliable secondary source that can be used. If Pageantopolis is not a reliable source then why is it listed as a useful resource on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants page??????? Here are the sources from Pageantopolis that are used in the article.[6][7] IZ041 (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:IZ041 in-depth coverage is needed. Just a simple trivial mention does not make a topic pass GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Canuck Import Richard de Klerk".
  2. ^ "[News] Nominees at the 2010 Leo Awards".
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACTRA
  4. ^ here
  5. ^ here
  6. ^ "Miss World USA Pageant". Archived from the original on 2014-10-21. Retrieved 2014-12-19.
  7. ^ The American representatives to Miss World 1978-1994
  • Delete per the nom. Fails WP:GNG due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources. The three sources in the article, while factual, are basically the equivalent of a high school yearbook (list mentions of names and one mini-bio in first-person tense), not remotely in-depth coverage of the pageant. In the WP:BEFORE search I did, I learned there are at least four other pageants in Georgia by similar name, which makes sourcing difficult. I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV of this pageant anywhere. @IZ041 There is just nothing in-depth about this local pageant in any coverage, let alone sustained major coverage, which is what would be needed to keep it. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yunshui 雲水 07:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photonix Technologies[edit]

Photonix Technologies (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)

Company that doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP. Although it looks like it has a couple of important contracts, I can't find significant coverage of the company to prove notability. Mbdfar (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 17:55, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't obtain much coverage and information regarding the subject in Google search index. The content cites only two primary sources andack reliable secondary sources. The subject fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a single source appear when searched on google news with this keyword. - Ivan hersee (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 01:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Henick[edit]

Jonathan Henick (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)

PROD declined. Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 04:17, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Toronto machete attack[edit]

2020 Toronto machete attack (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:NOTNEWS applies. Tragic as this situation is, murders occur in large cities like Toronto, and while there are odd circumstances about this, it's not notable. PKT(alk) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PKT(alk) 00:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the Global News article, this is both: 1) the first time an attack motivated by the incel ideology has been prosecuted as a terrorist attack, and 2) the first time Canada classified a non-Islamic extremist attack as an act of terrorism. I'd say that makes it extremely noteworthy. I'd say the only thing going against the article is how woefully short it is. Efforts are going to be needed to expand this. Love of Corey (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It's a little too early to be making complete judgments as to whether this meets WP:EVENTCRIT, but it seems likely it does or will. For instance, "thought to be the first time that terrorism charges have been brought in a case connected to the so-called “incel” ideology." The Guardian, coverage in Time, The Times, others. Seems like this could have a WP:LASTING effect and it's too soon to delete it; also see WP:RAPID. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Well certainly WP:NOTNEWS apply but the subject has received wide coverage. If I compare this with 2020 Maligawatta stampede, the fatality rate aftermath Toronto machete attack is quite less. Still I am in a dilemma to fully support whether to keep this article. Abishe (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be a lot of coverage on this one. Meets WP:NOTNEWS for me. dibbydib boop or snoop 23:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, especially as terrorism charges have been brought. Autarch (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above. The murder happened 3 months ago and we're still talking about it. Mottezen (talk) 07:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_May_21&oldid=959563878"