Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 September	30 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multisensory analysis[edit]

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

Sourced to probably a predatory journal [the signs are there]. Even if this were notable WP:TNT would apply. Whatever is good can be merged into Sensory analysis. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Headbomb, I'm confused what you're proposing here? Deletion per lack of notability/TNT, or merging. They are two different things. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC):[reply]
Delete none of the content seems to be related to the one source. I'm not sure how it's supposed to be different from Sensory analysis, so a redirect there is fine, I guess. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:03, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of software that supports Vulkan[edit]

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

Same as the previous two unanimous AfDs that resulted in deletions in 2018 and 2019 (this has minor text additions that make a G4 CSD debatable). WP:INDISCRIMINATE and better suited for a category. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 23:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per prior two AFD discussions. Sergecross73 msg me 00:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of information. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Creator here. The reason this keeps happening is that every time it's deleted, the list gets re-added to the already excessively long parent article (Vulkan (API)). If this is going to stick (and I'm not necessarily opposed to that; originally I just killed the list entirely, but then moved it to a separate article for the sake of avoiding drama), then its lack of existence needs to be made prominent in the parent (with e.g. {{category see also}}). I'd be very annoyed if this were deleted, the nominator (or any of the supports) didn't bother doing that, and this cycle repeated again next year. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And fwiw the very same could (and should) apply to the infinitely-growing hardware section in the same parent. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:32, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - IPs keep reinserting the game table shortly after the separate list gets deleted. [1] [2] I would support removing the hardware section as indiscriminate as well. If it aims to be as widespread in use as OpenGL, there's no need to document every instance of use on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Pinging @TarkusAB:, because this exact discussion was had on the second AfD (the same user opened both previous AfDs). Users raising XfDs should be actively trying to prevent them recurring. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, but I will not participate in the discussion this time around. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Users raising XfDs should be actively trying to prevent them recurring." Is this a thing? People are busy and have limited attention. I don't think there's a broad responsibility among XFD nominators to make sure things they suggested deletion for stay deleted. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a responsibility among editors to improve the encyclopedia, and not to waste the time of other editors. It isn't always possible to keep track of whether or not a page has been AfDed before, but if an editor is aware that this has happened, then it is markedly more useful to the project to attempt to head off future creations than to just circle back periodically and AfD them again. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCOMPULSORY TarkusAB^talk/contrib 16:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This likewise applies to drive-by AfDs, y'know. A stitch in time saves nine. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a drive by really. The project actively monitors new page creation on a weekly basis within its scope. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. A graphics library that contends to be as widespread as OpenGL does not need every instance documented on Wikipedia. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing has changed since the last AfDs. If the issue is IPs repeatedly adding info to the main API page, that can be solved through RPP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- RPP is for petty vandalism, not for cases where article splits are watched by people with their trigger-fingers on Twinkle but no desire to actually fix the underlying issue. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its also for preventing disruptive editing. For preventing things like editing against consensus, or violating NOT. Judging by the response here, I’m guessing any admin at WP:VG would gladly help you with this if you need it. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've been an admin myself for longer than you've been, but I'm very keen to hear how a semi-related wikiproject would prevent two (2) edits in two (2) years without the extreme overreaction of semiprotection better than one (1) note in the article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons as Lord SJones23 listed.Blue Pumpkin Pie ^Chat ^Contribs 17:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but consider that the non-game lists may have valid inclusion within the Vulkan article itself, particularly the game engines, so there's some possible merge (but very selective merge). --Masem (t) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as before, without restoring the list/table to the article. There's a lot in this AFD grumbling about the fact that various editors simply haven't been aware the issue manifested in a different manner. Ok, fine. I'll personally watchlist Vulkin (API). But nothing was stopping anyone from removing the table from the article on "This was deleted on INDISCRIMINATE grounds at AFD" rather than splitting it out either. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

East Sunbury Football Club[edit]

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

Would have prodded, but it's been deleted twice before, most likely through prods. Local sports group, no indication of notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 13:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - previously deleted as speedy (A3 and then A7). Giant Snowman 11:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the other teams in the Mens AND womans divisons 1 and 2 have pages. This one does need to be improved but not deleted. Idan (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps the articles for the teams, at least those in division 2, should also be deleted. They all seem to be not notable. --Bduke (talk) 11:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a club in Division 2 of the Mens in the Essendon and Districts Football League. In a new housing development estate, this club has been operating for seven years. It needs some time. If you delete this, are you going to delete all the other clubs in this Division 2 of this football league? Which club will you also delete? Huh? Which club from Burnside Heights, Coburg Districts, Hadfield, Jacana, Keilor Park, Moonee Valley, Northern Saints, Oak Park? Get real. Give them some time. -- Whiteguru (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please link the clubs that do have articles, so we can easily look at them? --Bduke (talk) 11:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Template:EDFL under Division 2. Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the other teams are flagged for needing references and those that are not should be. I am happy to give time for editors who know about football to improve all of these articles, but if they are not improved, all of them should then be deleted. --Bduke (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It really surprises me that some editors want to remove pages just to free up memory space. Purrum (talk) 11:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying that. The question we have to address is "Is this article notable" using the Wikipedia definition of notable. --Bduke (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is saying that but its the point of the exercise, yes its a young club in an developing suburb and it may take a few years before a child goes through the ranks to play for a AFL club. It may take a few years before the club becomes successful and get promoted. And then the page will have to be recreated again for the fourth time.Purrum (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indication of notability. Guess the other division 2 articles should be looked at also. Doctorhawkes (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The article has nothing to support WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ultimately, if there is no potential for this article to pass WP:GNG, it should be deleted. The existence of articles for other clubs in the same league is not a valid reason for keeping this article. Spiderone 18:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pooja Solanki[edit]

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

Actress that has only acted in one film. Not much sources about her. Right now, WP: Too soon. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NACTOR, too soon Spiderone 07:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - She is the lead actress in the film Edaina Jaragocchu so of course she doesn't fail WP: NACTOR and she has also more than 420K followers on Instagram. She is a professional actress and she should have an WP: Article Call Me Anshu 12:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One role does not mean an automatic pass for NACTOR; in fact, it clearly states "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." which is clearly not the case for this person. 420k followers is quite a lot on Instagram but there's no notability policy based on Insta followers Spiderone 14:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one role is never enough to create notability. If she has more roles in the future we can recreate the article when there is actual coverage and roles to justify it, they do not exist at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete She is the lead actress in a notable movie. She also has enough media coverages. She deserves this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:24D8:D824:7E70:C5C2:DE74:26C4 (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The rationale for don't delete above is the same as this one. Are you a sockpuppet? You only have 2 edits.TamilMirchi (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is clearly a case of TOSOON. As she lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about her. Also, it's pretty likely one or both of the keep votes are sockpuppets. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:03, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Gion[edit]

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

Unremarkable person, minimally sourced, WP:BEFORE turns up nothing substantial. —S Marshall T/C 20:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 20:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The body of this article appears to have been poorly translated from the corresponding section of fr:Christian Gion, the French Wikipedia's article about this film director. And even in its original language, that section is tagged by the French Wikipedia with a message that says, "Cette section n’est pas rédigée dans un style encyclopédique" ("This section is not written in an encyclopedic style"). So if this article is to be kept, it could definitely use a rewrite. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I have tried to fix the issue with the non-encyclopedic tone. Though struggled to get some good references about him. Only found some passing mention in this polanski petition. --☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia requires reliable sources, especially for articles on living people. IMDb is not reliable, so if that is the only source we must delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [yak] || 22:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this keep getting relisted? Is it because of the one weak keep where the user admits they can't find sources?—S Marshall T/C 12:54, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody has offered substantial analysis as to why they are or aren't notable. The comments are 1) about translation 2) about non-encyclopedic tone and 3) a delete !vote saying that if IMDB is the only source that it should be deleted. Likely nobody else has !voted because they find it unlikely that a director who seems to have directed several notable films is blatantly non-notable, and the number of editors who are qualified to search in french and determine the notability of a director from the 1970s is likely small. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my nomination statement not amount to a substantial analysis?

Any editor is qualified to search in French; it's hardly an obscure language, the search procedure is simple and a high degree of fluency is hardly required to read the showbiz sources that would cover a film director.—S Marshall T/C 08:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PC Music. The merge votes have not established that this is a thing but the history is still there to allow any properly sourced material to be copied across Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpop[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. I went through every citation in an earlier revision and found that, other than the obvious WP:V, WP:WEASEL and WP:TONE issues, most of the claims failed verification. Very few sources even mention a genre called "hyperpop", and those that did were student newspapers. This left few usable sources. I am not sure of the reliability of Ringtone Mag. ili (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Bubblegum bass" or "PC Music (genre)" or something similar. It's been covered as a genre, but "hyperpop" is a neologism invented for a Spotify playlist a year ago. Mcrsftdog (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Bubblegum bass" seems to have the same notability issues. ili (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move with infobox to a new section under PC Music since most of the "hyperpop" pioneers are under the label. HeyitsBen ^talk 11:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to PC Music since there is somewhat of a difference between hyperpop and PC Music. Artists like Osquinn explained that A.G. Cook did not invent hyperpop and hyperpop was made by diverse artists since late 2019. Hyperpop (talk) 20:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [spill the beans] || 22:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the genre is mostly associated with PC Music, I suggest a Redirect to that page. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Atrium Carceri. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kapnobatai (album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, and WP:NMUSIC Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Atrium Carceri: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Atrium Carceri. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seishinbyouin[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 22:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 21:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Atrium Carceri: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wingate Bar, California[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NGEO. Sources are two passing mentions (just an entry in a list) without any details and a dead link, ExL does not mention the subject. BEFORE showed only database style entries, no SIGCOV that addresses the topic directly and in depth // Timothy :: talk 14:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 14:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete Searching definitely establishes that there was a mining camp at this location, and that is all I can find out. I'm adverse to articles which have nothing more to say of a place than its location on the planet, but I realize this standard is one that others may not accept. Mangoe (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failure to establish notability of the mining camp, this day, this age. -- Whiteguru (talk) 10:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [comment] || 22:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. There was a place called Wingate Bar but not much else can be said about it. Glendoremus (talk) 16:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, - This place probably exists, but nothing makes it notable to other existing places. Alex-h (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only, Missouri[edit]

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

I'm still getting the hang of sorting out non-notable place stubs, but I don't think this was a "populated place" like GNIS claims. Google Maps shows absolutely nothing here, as does the 1934 topo. While a WP:SPS website claims there was a post office here from 1907-1919, a more reliable source states that the post office was only there 1915-1918. GNIS agrees with the post office and the 1915-1918 dates. 1982 topo also shows nothing. GNIS claims to source it from a 1969 topo of Springfield, Missouri. I can find no existance of a 1969 Springfield topo, but I found a 1959 Springfield topo that does include it. That map is, however, a scale of a large area, so it doesn't mark individual buildings. With clear evidence that this was just a short-lived low-level post office, and with the small area topos not even including it, I'm seeing no way this passes WP:GEOLAND. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete When the state historical society describes it as a post office, and it doesn't show up on the small scale topos, that is not a good sign. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, valid stub about a historic settlement. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and it need not have the same limitations as a paper map.72.49.7.25 (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It was never a settlement. Not even the local topographic maps include it. It was an isolated post office that existed for three or four years before it was replaced by rural free delivery. Just because GNIS calls something a populated place, doesn't mean it was a community. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it was anything more than a post office, probably serving a rural population. Glendoremus (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The community existed and is important for the local history of the area. And, in response to the previous comment "probably serving a rural population": exactly in an era when local "rural" folks needed a nearby place to get their mail and supplies. Some folks seem rather ignorant of historical realities. Vsmith (talk) 13:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The historical reality is that 4th class post offices were put in all kinds of places, and moved around pretty frequently, and renamed often. They do not imply a settlement other than at the trivial level that someone had to be postmaster. Mangoe (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hmm "..moved around pretty frequently": seems that would need a reference, unless you simply mean "moved from one building in a small community to a different building in the community" - which would be meaningless (or irrelevant) here. Vsmith (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see for yourself in the data: the lifespans of a lot of these post offices was measured in a few years, and when moved, the new location might be miles away. Your comment about moving from one building to another in the community presupposes a community in the first place, so how do you know? Mangoe (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 20:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [squeal] || 21:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the analysis by Hog Farm. Seems to have been a rural post office. Even if this settlement did exist the complete lack of sources discussing this place as a settlement rather than a post office means this article fails WP:V. 86.23.86.239 (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, post offices do not pass WP:GEOLAND, and there is no evidence that this one passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:GEOLAND per nom. and User talk:86.23.86.239. Paul H. (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ESDS Software Solution Pvt. Ltd[edit]

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

Promotional article about a software company that appears to fail WP:CORPDEPTH and recreated as ESDS Software Solution Pvt. Ltd to conceal the article deletion history. It was previously created by a user who got blocked for advertisement issues [3], and was once declined in AfC [4]. The sources provided are routine press releases, interviews with founders, and article lacks in-depth coverage. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version is totally different from previous one. I saw many reliable references which indicate to pass WP:GNG. DMySon 16:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to your WP:THREE best references. Generic statements about the existence of reliable references need to be supported or your !vote is likely to be ignored. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However the notability of the subject is justified from various things such as multiple awards and invention of Covid 19 testing tool kit. There are various independent significant references from reliable resources but i provide a few of them: This, This, This, this, this, this. this, and this

Hi DMySon, what is required are references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and we are very strict on which types of references suffice. You've posted 8 references. I'll provide you with an analysis so that you can understand better why these references fail our criteria. There are two things to bear in mind. The first is that a reference must provide detailed information on the company (as per WP:CORPDEPTH) and the second is there must be "Independent Content" so that any detailed information must be attributable to a source unconnected with the company (as per WP:ORGIND).

This from the Economic Times is a mere mention in passing with a quote from the CEO. It does not contain any detailed information (fails WP:CORPDEPTH) and has no "Independent Content" (fails WP:ORGIND).
This "solution brief" from Intel is not "Independent Content". It was written by the company (the same CEO as above but who is now an Intel employee since they joined forces with Intel), therefore fails WP:ORGIND.
This from the Deccan Herald is based on a company announcement. This is obviously not "Independent Content" since much of the exact same text and quotations are used in multiple other articles dated at much the same time such as Express Computer, India Med Today, Times of India and lots more. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This from Hundustan Times, this from the World HRD Congress website and this from Economic Times is a mere mention in a list. It has no information on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This from the CIO section of the Economic Times discusses the company receiving the Graham Bell Award for Innovation in Cloud Technology for one of their products. It has no attributed journalist. This from the bellaward website displays photos from the night. I note that the Economic Times article is the same as this reference from Business World which uses the same photo and the same quotes and a lot of the same text. This shows that the references are not unique and therefore are based on information either provided by the Bell Award organization or provided by the company themselves, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. There is also no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

The awards themselves are not notable, many companies win awards such as these each year in lots of different countries and awards like these do not count towards notability. You state that these reference are "Independent" "Significant" references from "Reliable" resources. You must understand that the content of the references must meet the criteria. Most are not "Independent" at all as they rely on information provided by the company in their announcements and PR and that information is then regurgitated as an article - that is not "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With 30 references in the article you'd expect there'd be at least one that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Unfortunately, not. We have PR references based on company announcements such as a famous actress opening a regional office, or articles based on company announcements such as an AI tool that examines XRays for a coronavirus infection, or announcements that they received a patent or teamed up with another partner. Then we have the usual churnalism articles based on interviews with the founder/CEO where he talks about various topics such as his "den" or reducing stress or the "vision" of the company. We have mentions-in-passing and inclusion in various vendor lists. Finally there are some references to some awards, none of which are notable or significant enough to establish notability. References fail WP:ORGIND/ and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails NCORP/GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per HK. (t · c) buidhe 23:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The B-Team (professional wrestling)[edit]

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

Article has already been deleted once due to lack of notability and nothing has changed since. I moved the page to draft but rather than working on it there and attempting to build a case for notability, the user instead recreated the page again. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep and improve. I had actually thought about writing an article on the same tag team, based on the Bleacher Report article which I have now added describing their tag-team championship as proof that the WWE doesn't take that belt. Their championship may be scripted, but it positions them with notability within the franchise. BD2412 T 23:08, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:PW/RS has very limited reliability of Bleacher Report, so not so sure that would help toward notability. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is of limited use, but only pre-2013 articles are prohibited. BD2412 T 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: There is also Draft:The B-Team. BD2412 T 20:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, for "Can be used for minor claims such as interviews or match results." Stating what their purpose is and the type of tag team they are is outside of that scope. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The scope is by its own terms nonexclusive – "minor claims such as"; the fact that a promotion serves as comic relief is a similarly minor claim. BD2412 T 18:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly in-universe discussion of fictive characters without any critical commentary or indication of real-world significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinga Burza[edit]

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

BLP Polish-Australian music video director. References all seem to be to promotional stuff. Rathfelder (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources to establish notability. In general, music directors of video clips is small fish. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found one Polish source [5] but it mentions her in passing, all other sources are weaker. I started a discussion on pl wiki, maybe some sources/arguments there will be of use: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/biografie/2020:09:18:Kinga Burza. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that this person is notable has been presented so far. (t · c) buidhe 07:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Had a couple of relists but the source analysis has not been reguted. We can revisit if better sources that pass gng can be found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Cross[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No effective sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this was flagged for potential deletion. Clearly meets several "notability" criteria listed in WP:MUSICBIO and WP:SIGCOV. All sources properly vetted and reliable. User:NEMusic (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2020 (EST)

Delete - The previous commenter is playing loose with the guidelines. This article is dependent on several sources that are not reliable because they are reprints of press releases or basic gig announcements. There are some reliable sources cited but the coverage of Mr. Cross within is not significant because he is only mentioned in passing in articles that are about other people or events, or in the case of AllMusic and a few others, he has a basic list entry but no details. He has gotten some reviews in local publications, but I can find nothing else beyond the typical promotional and streaming sites. He may be good at what he does but he simply does not have enough reliable and significant coverage to qualify for notability in Wikipedia. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - Please elaborate on which sources in this article you consider "reliable" and "not reliable." The top cited sources in this page includes an interview with a long-running folk podcast, a feature in an established weekly newspaper, and an interview in a prominent daily newspaper (all written by journalists). None of these references are "reprints of press releases" and to make such a statement is reckless without proof. The sources you're referring as "basic gig announcements" are actually show previews written by journalists, a common piece of press received by any legitimate touring artist. All other sources are commonly used and official music industry sources. User:NEMusic (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2020 (EST)

Hi @NEMusic: I'll go through the references one-by-one today and examine them. scope_creep^Talk 09:29, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at each reference in turn.

An interview. This is a dependent source. What is needed is independent, in-depth secondary sources that are reliable. Essentially, people talking to people who doesn't know the subject.
An announcement. Non-RS. This is not reliable source. Announcements cant be used to establish notability, per WP:NOT.
A shop. Non-RS.
Very short paragraph. Probably a "passing mention"
Track listing. Cant be used to establish notability
A "passing mention"
Video sample. Cant be used to establish notability
A "passing mention
Music chart listing. Cant be used to establish notability

So you have the first nine references. You have one small paragraph which is insufficient to establish notability. scope_creep^Talk 10:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since I was the initially challenged party above, thanks to Scope Creep for analysing the sources before I got to it. Allow me to add that "reliable" and "significant" are not vague matters of opinion, but instead are sharply-defined terms in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV, WP:IS, and various other policies that are blue-linked to those. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage. I follow Irish music and poetry here in NYC (I attended a Zoom talk by Pádraig Ó Tuama yesterday), and I've never heard of this guy. A single AllMusic cite is not deep coverage. There have are no other reliable sources in the article. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm an avid folkie and randomly came across this page and this discussion through research I'm doing on Odetta. I've seen hundreds of other artist pages with significantly less citable sources and way less legitimate. Seems weird that this one is being singled out. This guy seems "notable" to me. FolkAstorian (talk) 9:57, 14 September 2020 (PST)

Editor is a WP:SPA and has made zero other edits to Wikipedia. Perhaps its Vincent Cross himself? scope_creep^Talk 17:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you all tried doing just a simple Google search on this guy? Speaks for itself. Many years worth of references to pull from. Open to suggestions on how to edit page to properly abide by Wikipedia rules. User:NEMusic (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2020 (EST)

@NEMusic: Most people have some information on the internet somewhere, so doing a simple Google Search isn't good enough. It is quality of the information. I has to be significant, independent, reliable and in-depth. It must include certain facts that will proves one of the clauses in WP:MUSICBIO. If 2 or 3 sources verify one of those clauses, it would be keep. The WP:SIGCOV part is measure of much WP:RS coverage there is, and there is none. scope_creep^Talk 00:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinne is one of the most original Irish songwriters in years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athlonetownfc (talk • contribs) 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Bihu. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bushu Dima[edit]

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

Not clear that this is a notable festival. I found two references to it in The Assam Tribune ([6] and [7]) and a brief mention in a book on fermented foods [8], but these references verify very little besides the existence of the festival. It may be a variant of Bihu, in which case a delete-and-redirect there is possible. Articles in other Wikipedias do not help with sourcing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this reference can provide you the meaning of busu/bhusu as 'bihu'. What I got, basically its a variant of Bihu, celebrated at a certain district only (Dima Hasao). If merged, under Bihu artcile, this event must have a sub section. Its notable, but not sure if worth having a separate article.--☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 20:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above Spiderone 07:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per the good option listed above. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge,The article does not show notability for the festival. It is better to merge it as suggested above.Alex-h (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Sundby[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE and and WP:USCJN. Note- Wisconsin Court of Appeals isn't a state wide position. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:22, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 05:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a state-wide position. Royal broil 01:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 11
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rationale for deletion was insufficient and there was no meaningful discussion or investigation of the merits. The core rationale is that the judge's office did not confer automatic notability, however none of the necessary steps were taken to investigate whether evidence existed of actual notability -- the referenced WP:USCJN guidance states that holding such office (state appeals court) is strong evidence of notability, and guidance for article deletion states, "The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth." Additionally, there have been six other AfDs with near identical rationale that have been resolved recently in favor of Keep or No consensus. I will gladly further develop this article to demonstrate notability, as any judge who sits on this court has likely been significantly notable within state jurisprudence, media, and politics. --Asdasdasdff (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third relist to allow further input after the most recent !vote and DRV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he passes WP:GNG, making the failure of WP:JUDGE irrelevant. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, As stated, he passes WP:GNG. 10 years as a judge, will in most all cases create reliable independent sources. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has been open a while and no decent sourcing has emerged. A library has been consulted and noting has come up. I',m not seeing a policy based keep argument and the atd arguments lack consensus or fail to stand up against the thoroughness of the source searching. This then fails and any merged material should be removed at this time. I would be willing to draft to allow time for sources to emerge but only if editors agreed that the draft should go through drv before any restoration Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Felicilandia[edit]

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

Non-notable amusement park. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to look up Felicilandia Puerto Rico...keep. Antonio Locoman Martin (ah pues?) 19:45, 21 September, 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:19, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with no prejudice to draftification, as was initially tried). The article creator said: "You just need to look up ...", but the onus is really on you, not us, to demonstrate notability with a new article. That said, I did take a basic look, but couldn't really find anything. One listicle that gives it a single sentence, and a brief financial statement from '76 don't really cut it. Even the barest-of-bones list of rides is unsourced, which I'd expect to be straightforward for a notable amusement park. Then again, there may very well be more out there, but difficult to find due to the age and lack of English sources. So I'd be willing to revisit this if anyone is able to turn up more, but as is, this can't really be kept. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with User:Deacon Vorbis about our being forced to delete something out of dissatisfaction with the current article or its explicit sourcing. To close an AFD with Keep or Speedy Keep, it absolutely suffices to establish that sources do exist, or really very probably will exist and would be found by someone going to the local library or performing literature search in appropriate sources in their language. If you don't like the current state of an article, post about that at its Talk page and/or tag the article for more sources or whatever. Note that no sources at all are required, for articles to be created in Wikipedia, in fact, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of topics which have been created that way and developed more later. --Doncram (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or ~~Merge with San Patricio Plaza~~ Merge to list of attractions in Puerto Rico new article - udpated my vote Remember PR is a very small island and Felicilandia was Puerto Rico's Walt Disney World. Anyway, Felicilandia is in mayor PR and other newspapers Primera Hora 2 times, Miami News 1 time, NY Times 1 time, El Nuevo Dia 1 time and probably more, it's just that no internet back then. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another way to put it is that PR is a _huge_ island (about 3,500 sq mi in area, in fact the 3rd largest island in the U.S. (behind big island of Hawaii and Kodiak Island), and has population 3,193,694 est. per Wikipedia). I am pretty sure that there have been lots of Puerto Ricans who never came north to its capital, say, some of whom might have made the pilgrimage to this amusement park, though. And this was PR's main amusement park for some period (if that is what The Eloquent Peasant is asserting). It is located in Guaynabo, a Puerto Rican municipality which is located adjacent to the capital and biggest city, San Juan, so serving a large population. I !voted Keep below. --Doncram (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thank you. For 20 years, it was the amusement park of the island that people visited with their children and families. Guaynabo is a big city, you can say it's almost like a suburb of the capital, San Juan, which is right next to it. People from the mountain areas visiting the amusement park must have felt pretty happy then! The only other rides they had were the temporary ones that were set up for a few days for the patron saint festivals, but the smaller festival rides never included a montaña rusa and don't ask me why they call the roller coaster a Russian mountain! Thanks for your vote (of confidence). I think the article should stay. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Pinging, after the fact (I never do this right!). --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not much, but please at least give the refs here (with at least some indication of what they talk about if they're not easily available). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deacon Vorbis: On this source, there is an explanation and image. So, this is the story: In 2014, the San Patricio Mall where Felicilandia was wanted to have an exhibit and timeline of the history of the location (including when Felicilandia was there). However, the problem was there was no documented history, as stated on this page "First challenge, they had not properly documented their history. Although there were various photos, none were of the quality needed to be used. We digitalized the materials they had in order to create a visual library to work with. Second challenge, the history of the mall only existed verbally." So the photographer went about using the images she could find to put together an exhibit, she interviewed people who had worked at Felicilandia and patrons. On the bottom image of this source, it says "What do you remember most about San Patricio mall?" ¿Qué es lo que más recuerdas de San Patricio?" and Felicilandia is one of the choices and displayed as one of the things to remember about this mall and location. So yes, maybe it's not much, but documentation may be hard to come by in English resources and on internet since newspapers having the information are not easily availble because they are from long ago (before internet). But this exhibit is from 2014 and aims to document the history of Feliciliandia along with San Patricio Mall in Guaynabo. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Pretty much any amusement park, especially if it has a rollercoaster (don't know if this one did), is basically notable for coverage in Wikipedia, because there will exist news and other coverage about it. See essay wp:ITSAPUBLICATTRACTION (truly an excellent essay if I do say so myself!). Sounds like there is enough documentation for this to have a separate article, rather than being covered as an item in a list-article, and no list-article to serve as a merger target has been suggested. And assertion of importance for this one that "it was PR's Walt Disney World" by User:The Eloquent Peasant who I recognize from elsewhere as being knowledgeable about PR also carries weight for me. --Doncram (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, citing an essay that you wrote yourself and not disclosing that is pretty scummy. You've given no substantive reason to keep other than "it's an amusement park so it's probably notable". Notable means that there's enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to write an article about it. If the sources aren't there, then we can't write an article. When the notability of the topic of an article with no sources is challenged, AfD is what happens. Platitudes are no substitute for sources. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, no, you da scummy one, for lowering the quality of discussion here. I pretty much think that authorship of an essay is not important but have encountered editors trying to say "gotcha" about that in AFDs, so I make a point to disclose it. Too bad you can't understand the disclosure "truly excellent if I do say so myself". Perhaps English may not be your first language or you have other problems I don't know about, in which case i would retract my return of personal insult back in your direction. But otherwise the above is jerkish behavior IMO. --Doncram (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Sure it would be good if the article had photos, and I don't immediately find any available at Commons. Searching for "Felicilandia photos" brings me to this photo of a roller coaster apparently at Felicilandia, and other photos. There always exists huge coverage about roller coasters, from my experience. --Doncram (talk) 22:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Amusement park fails guidelines established by WP:NBUILD (Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability). No such sources support the notability of this park. KidAd talk 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. When the article was nominated for deletion (21 Sept 2020, 08:33AM) it had 2 references. Today, almost 3 days latyer (24 Sept 2020, 00:55AM) it has 7 - a 350% increase. However, I am not seeing that any of its current 7 references are about the subject of the article itself:

Talks about 10 sites (4 of them amusement/safari parks) that no longer exist in PR; the article dedicates 2 statements to Felicilandia, about the same it dedicates to the 3 other amusements/safari parks it mentions.
An article about a park in Florida called Seminoland Park, not about Felicilandia.
A bankruptcy notice. This is standard legal procedure, not an article about Felicilandia as an amusement park or about the Felicilandia business itself, just mandatory legal bankruptcy protocol.
This article is talking about stores built partly on a lot behind Felicilandia, not about Felicilandia itself. However, imo, it should get some credit because it uses Felicilandia as a landmark, thus making it obvious that at least some readers were familiar with where Felicilandia once stood.
A personal reflection by the author about safety in amusement parks in PR. The article mentions Felicilandia once, but only in passing.

References 6 and 7 - (Both are cites to the same reference.) An article about "Mofongolandia", not about Felicilandia.

BTW, the article, as it stands at the time of this writing (24 Sept 2020, 00:55AM) lists 6 rides that were present at Felicilandia, but gives no cite for that fact; I presumme the WP editor who contributed that info had personal (-uhum-) experience regarding the rides at Felicilandia.

BTW, BTW, a personal observation: In reference to cite #1 (https://www.primerahora.com/noticias/puerto-rico/notas/10-lugares-que-ya-no-existen-en-puerto-rico/), I had heard about Plaza Acuática, Monoloro, and Safari Park before, but this is the first I heard of Felicilandia.

Personally, I would had preferred if the article had at least 3 references that discussing/reviewing Felicilandia, and nothing else.

Mercy11 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - I have a very hard time imagining that an amusement park that was around for 2 decades would not have substantial coverage in local Puerto Rican media. Unfortunately, it seems that very few Puerto Rican newspapers and magazines have digitized archives online. Let's give this article another years or two and see if folks can dig up more sources. Kaldari (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to San Patricio Plaza - Some of the Keep !votes are fairly unconvincing, and despite its long life, it does not have much relevant coverage. Regarding the "we might find sources in the next year" argument, if we just redirect the article, we can just revert the redirect if we find the sources. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that there's currently no information at the suggested target about this. Whether or not being located next to would make it appropriate to add a blurb about a park next to the place...I dunno. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 12:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As stated below, The Eloquent Peasant has now added the text into the article. Foxnpichu (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I copied the text from Felicilandia to San Patricio Plaza and it may need to be trimmed down a bit. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I disagree that "redirect to San Patricio Plaza" is appropriate. I appreciate that User:The Eloquent Peasant added material to San Patricio Plaza article which would in effect be implementing a "merge to San Patricio Plaza" decision (and merge is different than redirect), and that they were trying to make that work. But San Patricio Plaza is a 3-story mall, not a successor amusement park for which a merger would have worked better. In the mall article, the inclusion of all of the material about Felicilandia is too much (and The Eloquent Peasant's comment/tone seems to agree with that), and it would be natural for all or almost all of that to be deleted by normal editing processes.

The current article is fine as a short article in Wikipedia, waiting for more development and especially photos, on a type of thing that is always significant (combo about amusement park and its roller coaster). There simply will exist troves of photos and materials which have not emerged yet, but do always exist for this kind of thing. "Keep" is right decision, but if some are so bent on eliminating articles in Wikipedia, then it should be merged to a list-article about amusement parks in Puerto Rico or in a larger area, not shoehorned into an article about a mall (completely unrelated except for location). "Merge" decision to such a list-article would be okay as a decision, and the list-article does not need to exist yet, the merger decision can leave requirement that such a list-article be created. Or someone could create it now. Note there does exist List of defunct amusement parks in the United States which currently lacks any coverage of Puerto Rico, but i think that one list-article about current and former/defunct amusement parks and roller coasters in Puerto Rico would be an appropriate scope. Note by the way that Puerto Rico simply does not fit into structure of Category:Amusement parks in the United States by state as PR is not a state. Take care of all of PR by one comprehensive list-article. I no longer recall where I saw it, but I understand from some source reviewed by me during this AFD that there have been a number of amusement parks in PR, like with five to ten being list-item-notable. The way forward is to build, not to to delete/eliminate part of the building. I prefer 1) "Keep" or 2) merge to PR list which must be created. --Doncram (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I trimmed out some of the Felicilandia from the San Patricia article because it was too much in there. @Doncram: Would it make sense to just add it to the List of closed rides and attractions even that list seems to mostly be of the 'big' name parks, or create like you said, make a List of former parks and attractions of Puerto Rico - I have a picture of another attraction called Noah's Ark, a zoo that used to exist, in Quebradillas,^[1] near the Arecibo Observatory. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.primerahora.com/noticias/puerto-rico/notas/desolado-el-zoologico-el-arca-de-noe-en-quebradillas/

Thanks, The Eloquent Peasant. I personally think a broad list of attractions in Puerto Rico, allowing for current attractions and past attractions, would be good/better than covering just the closed ones and creating no place for any current or future attractions. (Or would you mean to create 2 list-articles, but if there are not too many of each type why not merge them? I am used to lists of historic buildings and other types of things including both surviving/current ones and also demolished/former ones.) Divide into 2 big sections if you want, but leave a split to the future if ever necessary. I think the general topic "attractions in PR" or "amusement parks in PR" is a natural one, where readers would appreciate seeing the historical sequence of all of the major ones in PR which have existed since Europeans arrived. It would be interesting and worth mentioning if the first attraction created after 1493 might be known, perhaps some business or government or office or plantation opening a collection of curiosities or whatever. User:Mercy11 above, characterizing a recent version of this article, mentions "Talks about 10 sites (4 of them amusement/safari parks) that no longer exist in PR; the article dedicates 2 statements to Felicilandia, about the same it dedicates to the 3 other amusements/safari parks it mentions." So maybe there are 4 amusement parks alone and perhaps 6 other attractions that seem worth covering as list items, to start with, or 11 if Noah's Ark is not already included in the 10. This list would be a good thing, allowing for growth of coverage about the items, heading off creation of separate articles about them which would likely be PRODed or AFDd for not immediately having sufficient coverage for a standalone article.

That List of closed rides and attractions is indeed a different kind of thing, although its title would seem broad enough. So actually it should probably be renamed (perhaps a wp:RM process could be opened there?) or set up with an introduction to better describe it, but it is about historic rides etc. within a select few truly major parks like Disney World. It clearly does not include or want to include closed small amusement parks around the world; if Felicilandia were added to it I would personally agree with an editor there deleting the addition. --Doncram (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OKay. I think merging it to a List of attractions in Puerto Rico is good and the article could be developed and include (as you say) prior and current ... I'll add it to the PR template for wanted articles. I received an email back from the Library of Puerto Rico telling me there isn't a book on Felicilandia and she shared with me some links (most to what we already have) and one to a FB, and one to a blog, which we can't use for sources. Still here, I'll share one so you all can see the historic Felicilandia in pics, and pic # 2 is the Russian Mountain (literal translation for Montaña Rusa = rollercoaster). Except on the comments to picture #2, a post says that the pic #2 doesn't look like it's at Feliciliandia... looks like another place in Puerto Rico.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marilyn Roberts[edit]

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

Entirely referenced to what appears to be a dead blog and the book jacket blurbs of her own books, only claim to notability is being called one of the leading experts on one specific English family by someone with whom she is affiliated, which falls well short of applicable notability guidelines. I am finding nothing online that would appreciably add to this picture. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Khachikian[edit]

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

Article which only serves to promote its subject ("The past 15 years have been a blessed musical journey for Erwin"; "It is Erwin's musical versatility coupled with his intense passion that has made him a unsurpassed musician, manager and producer ... we definitely have much more to see and hear of Erwin Khachikian"). There is nothing to salvage here because it is almost totally unreferenced. WP:G11 applies: " in its current form it serves only to promote or publicise an entity, person, product, or idea, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic". (Formerly speedy tagged; removed by an IP, independently (re)tagged but that second tag was technically invalid; hence AfD.) Dorsetonian (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article worth keeping. Erwin Khachikian is a respected and well-known musician in western rock music and the Iranian-American music world. But the article needs more independent sources to have a Wikipedia-level of neutral tone. --Sina (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:36, 29 September 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, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-02 ✗ CSD A7, 2010-12 ✗ deleted, 2010-06 ✗ A7

Delete - my issue with this article is that there do not appear to be any reliable secondary sources that explore him in depth. His notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by the fact that Serj Tankian is notable. There might be some coverage in Armenian but someone with more expertise in Armenian would have to help us there. The article is promotional and full of original research. Spiderone 17:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Fukuda[edit]

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

The article is in an unreadable state and appears to be almost entirely promotional. Fails WP:BIO, too. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandre Sap[edit]

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

Deleted in 2016 through AfD. Recreated three months later by new user who coincidentally has the same username as the subject of the article (Alexandresap). User was banned on May 2020 for UDP. Subject of article fails WP:GNG. Same points stand as during the first deletion. Nearlyevil665 (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ☆☆☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆☆☆ 20:39, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no more notable as a businessman now than he was 4 years ago when we last deleted this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011 FC Banants season[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS Spiderone 18:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Bohemian F.C. season[edit]

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

As per previous consensus, these fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS as well

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 04:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 21:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2013–14 FC Gandzasar Kapan season[edit]

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

Following this AfD, I now wish to nominate these for deletion. This is also for failing WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 21:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Durham W.F.C. season[edit]

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

All fail WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS comprehensively.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 17:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 18:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fail GNG/NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 18:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The pattern is amusing, but not quite as great as watching FA WSL games on NBC in the States these days. Is fenix down going to close this one prematurely as well? What strange behavior for an editor(s) with admin privileges. Hmlarson (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide evidence that these 3 seasons pass GNG? This is different to that AfD as this is about a second tier team in a semi-pro league whereas the other AfD concerned a top tier team at the time. Spiderone 13:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 21:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:GNG failure due to a lack of significant coverage demonstrated and WP:NSEASONS failure due to not playing in a fully professional league. Jay eyem (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOLCODE to JavaScript[edit]

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

I believe this falls into WP:NOTHOWTO either way an unsourced WP:OR article. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 17:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was about to tag this for A10 as it duplicates an existing article LOLCODE. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears: I had considered that but because it's actually comparing this code to Java I don't think A10 would apply. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 18:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTHOWTO, also unsourced, also almost entirely redundant to LOLCODE. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamaal Burrowes[edit]

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

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

Notability is very iffy under criteria 1 of WP:MUSIC, some claimed association with other notable musicians which if proven MIGHT meet criteria 6 (fame by association). Criteria 7 is a weak possibility (representing a prominent style or local scene). Even summed up these are very weak. Klassik Frescobar was created as a near-duplicate of Kamaal Burrowes but was turned into a redirect instead of being WP:A10'd away. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The previous redirect should have been in the other direction, because his musical works have been released under his stage name, Klassik Frescobar, and that is the search term for media coverage. Creating near-duplicate articles for both his stage name and birth name was possibly a beginner's mistake. In any case, as Klassik Frescobar his music is present in the typical streaming and self-promotional sites, and a few reprinted press releases about new songs, but he has received no significant and reliable coverage. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 20:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. 1292simon (talk) 07:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted per CSD G11. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artefact Heritage Services[edit]

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

G11 borderline promotional article for a non notable organization that lacks coverage in any reliable source. A before search literally almost turns up empty. A few hits on their social media sites & other user generated sources. Overall this is blatant WP:ORG fail. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I also couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources currently cited in the article are all very insubstantial passing mentions, and the only independent, secondary one ([9]) doesn't seem to mention the company at all. – Joe (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cabayi (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yogendra karki[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 16:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, autobiography fails WP:CREATIVE with no significant coverage online (English or Nepali) in RS. Draft declined once, and speedy deleted once G11. Captain Calm (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found multiple Nepali websites mentioning his name but it's WP:TOOSOON.nirmal (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Laney[edit]

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

Seems to overly rely on blogs or primary sources. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject doesnot meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO There is a dearth of content cited from reliable sources that are unconnected with the subject and have a reputation for fact checking." There is little independent coverage cited, let alone in depth from reliable sources. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable subject. Northern Escapee (talk) 19:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, unreliable sources — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No support here for the nominator’s proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving Bulgaria[edit]

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

Much as I am trying this page is so riddled with falsehoods, mistakes, POV puffery, and OR that I am not sure it is remediable.

It needs nuking and starting from scratch. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup. If there is a problem then you solve it by normal editing, you don't delete it and hope someone will recreate it later on. Dream Focus 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep each battle listed has underlying pages, though cleanup is required of the results columns to incorporate results from underlying infoboxes and replace the current POV/puffery. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually many of the wars link to pages that do not seem to mention such a war. The first entry (for example) is a war that lasted from 680-792 but Byzantine–Bulgarian wars lists no such war, it has A war in 681 and another "Eight years later". The third entry lists a war as going on from 809-822, but this appears to refer to Siege of Serdica (809) which was not a war, it was one battle and too place in 809, there is no reference to this being part of a wider 13 year war. In other words, synthases.Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So those entries should be deleted. Mztourist (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, and it needs checking every entry, that is why I think it might be better to just start from scratch.Slatersteven (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that this article definitely needs improvement, but as it stands, it appears to be notable enough. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bulgaria was certainly involved in WW1 and WW2, as the page says. WP:TNT is just a disruptive essay which makes little sense while our actual policy is WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 15:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Essential article. Don't see any reason to delete it. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Serves a purpose per WP:CLN, WP:AOAL // Timothy :: talk 02:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Momin Khan[edit]

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

PRODed it earlier which was contested by its creator. Opening the AfD with same rationale "Notability is not inherited and non-notable performances do not count towards GNG". Some programs may be notable but being there with someone else "would make a case of inheritance". Comments please. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ─ The Aafī (^talk) 14:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charitably it is too soon for an article on this musician. He does have some friendly introductory coverage in the India music media in his own right, but those are not too far from press releases. Most of his coverage is indirect, describing his presence at a performance or awards ceremony, plus various brief gig announcements. Also note that many of the article's sources are actually about his relatives, some of whom are more established musicians who included him in their own performances. ☆ DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) ☆ 21:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both of the above Spiderone 09:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoro, Arizona[edit]

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

Almost done with the Arizona sidings: yes, this is another ex-SP passing siding and presumably loading station, eliminated by double-tracking and with nothing around it but desert and to the east a bunch of center-pivot irrigated fields. Searching reveals hits on the siding or the surrounding mining activity, but no "community". Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:41, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Manzoro was part of a previous blanket AfD which had a procedural keep. Having a separate AfD for Manzoro is fine with me. In the previous blanket AfD, I proposed weak delete, I'm changing to delete. Here is what I wrote in the blanket AfD: "... per WP:STATION. I'm not able to find a Post Office at Manzoro. For example, 1906 railroad reference has Manzoro in italics, indicating that there was no Post Office at that time. So, I don't think that Manzoro is a "Populated legally recognized place." Pontificalibus' citations and others indicate that Manzoro was a loading point for the mines, but I'm not sure if this is notable enough. If the mines or mining district are notable, then they should have their own pages." Cxbrx (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Meets neither the GNG nor GEOLAND, per nom and Cxbrx. Hog Farm _Bacon 20:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching in newspapers.com finds first mention in 1897 BEFORE the siding was built. A 1/4 mile spur was built then from the RR in Manzoro to serve the milling operation of a mine a bit further away. The name was already in use. It may have been a ranch or something, but I don't see any evidence it was a "populated place". MB 04:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither notability nor populated place for the locale is established. Examined USGS historic topographic maps back to 1922. In the Wilcox 1922 1:125,000 quadrango, Manzoro is shown, but only as a single structure by railroad tracks. Early Cochise 1:62,500 quadrangles show Manzoro, BM 4439, lacking any structures. Later Chochise 1:24,000 lack any reference to Manzoro and show only one possible structure. Likely as discussed above, it is ony an insignificant, defunct railroad siding.

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Wind Energy[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, Lacks WP:SIGCOV. Hence, calling for an AfD. - Hatchens (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 17:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 13:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The award from a New Jersey start-up venture event in 2010 is not intrinsically notable and searches are not finding better than listings and passing mentions, nothing which demonstrates notability. AllyD (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harumi: The Beauty of Spring[edit]

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

Non notable short documentary, no independent reviews found in a WP:BEFORE to help it pass WP:NFILM. Only things found were film database sites and announcements of it playing at festivals. Tagged since August 2014. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: two sources are provided, an IMDb external link, and a link to the NYUFF schedule. The former is a database entry, conferring no notability, and the latter is simply a press release from the festival at which it first screened, which is hardly independent. A cursory source search reveals little critical attention of any depth in independent, reliable sources, therefore it appears this fails GNG. None of the subject-specific notability yardsticks appear to be met either. SITH (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete searches in English and French did not return any WP:RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Among Us. This is officially the worst AFD discussion I have closed in years. There are some participants here who should hang their head in shame. And no, I'm not naming because if you lack self-awareness to know who you are yourself you won't get it anyway. What I get from this discussion apart from a headache is that company notability is not inherited from a product and that the detailed analysis of the sourcing is that there isn't enough about the company that isn't really about the game. I also discarded some late keep votes that failed to add any value as they clearly derived from a "rescue listing" and, if you are going to ask ARS to weigh in when they are well known for taking an inclusionist stance, the arguments they advance really need to be credible source review rather than just stated opinion. (Btw, given how poor this discussion was, don't discuss this with me if you disagree - just take it to DRV. I have had my quota of green coloured text for the week)@ Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InnerSloth[edit]

(Find video game sources: "InnerSloth" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD. Non-notable video game developer failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. In particular, none are significant coverage of the subject. All the sources in the article are about the company's games and not the company, i.e. WP:NOTINHERITED. The three sources in lead citing the company have only a few sentences about the developer and rely heavily on developer's own words. (See also Draft:Innersloth.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While Among Us is clearly notable, InnerSloth is not just for developing it. The article should be deleted and a redirect to Among Us created on top. IceWelder [✉] 14:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, IceWelder, that you feel at the very least the page should be left with a redirect at the end of all this. Perhaps you could reevaluate your position, in light of the significant research and expansion that I did to the article page after perusing hundreds of articles about the subject matter. Thank you very much for your time and your feedback, it's most appreciated. Right cite (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My position already states that a redirect should be created on top of the deleted article (which is what I always request to avoid IP spammers reinstating AfD-redirected articles). As for the current state of the article, I feel like a large could be chopped off as it is relevant to only Among Us or their other games (such as being inspired by Nuclear Throne). What is there can be comfortably merged into the Among Us article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceWelder (talk • contribs)

Keep, Not only is Among Us notable, Innersloth is also a conglomerate, a collaboration with PuffballsUnited, one of the most prolific Newgrounds developers in the late aughts, early 2010s. The Henry Stickmin Collection, which does not currently have a page for not meeting Notability standards, is still in Drafts, awaiting publication, and deleting Innersloth's article is a premature burial of this indie studio which so far has developed two important video games. Make no mistake, just because an article does not meet strict notability standards, ergo, not reported on by secondary sources, that does not mean that the subject of the article is not important. The Henry Stickmin games, as well as Among Us are proof enough that this article should remain. Currently, it is a stub article, which needs to change, but that should be fixed by adding MORE information, not by deleting the article altogether. RobotGoggles (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Subjective importance does not merit an article on Wikipedia, notability does. WP:ITSIMPORTANT is a common fallacy. Of the mentioned games, one was deleted, the other already has an article. WP:NOTINHERITED is similarly a common fallacy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep also makes Dig2China a popular game in China Dq209 (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The notability of the games InnerSloth makes is not directly correlated to the notability of InnerSloth. Additionally, Dig2China would probably be considered less notable than InnerSloth, and most certainly has virtually nothing to do about the topic of deleting this article. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article lacks sources to indicate notability. Chrisnait (talk | contribs) 17:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand your assessment at the time you made this comment, Chrisnait, but perhaps you could have another look, after significant research was done on the topic to bring the article up to this version several days after you had commented. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really. If you search InnerSloth on Google and go to "News", you find many articles about Among Us and many of them talk about InnerSloth. These are good secondary sources (for main sources see Draft:Innersloth). Indeed, we dont have many sources and references for the article, but the company is getting more and more success, which could attract more notability in the near future. Why delete this page, then after a month just remake it again because only then more sources start to appear? Waste of time, I think.

I suggest that, if we can, to just remove InnerSloth from the article space and reput it in a draft format (I don't know if it's possible, because I am a begginer at Wikipedia). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before getting into AfD's, it would be best to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Notability. The notability of article topics aren't determined by an arbitrary sense of notability. There are requirements, and if even one requirement is not met, the topic will probably be considered unnotable. The most relevant part that InnerSloth does not meet is WP:GNG, particularly that of which there is no independent, in-depth discussions. While there is plenty of content on the topic, it all is the same stuff, and is all linked to Among Us. I simply haven't found anything that would prove that it is notable as its own subject. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not proven, should redirect to Among Us and be fully protected against recreation._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 06:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It shouldn't be fully protected against recreation. Other things might show up for better notability (and we all know this is notable, we just can't theoretically prove it). It should be deleted, but wide open for consideration in the future. Le Panini (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Agreed, there is no point to fully protect it, as it could get more notable over time. Captain Galaxy 19:35, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think it may be a good idea for the article to be temporarily protected from recreation. Among Us is such a popular game at the moment, I could imagine people would consistently try and create an article about InnerSloth. However, I don't think this will occur often enough for the need for full protection. The article most likely needs semi-protection at the most. If it turns out that that isn't enough, extended confirmed protection may be enforced, but I simply don't see a need for full protection. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Among Us and maybe recreate it later. It will be notable in the future so we can recreate it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 14:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Among Us. There is potential this could be a possible article in the future so I see no value in deletion of the current article w/ its references at this time, but definitely redirection of that until it can be expanded further. --Masem (t) 19:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think it should be redirected to Among Us, either. One of the games on its own can be notable enough, but redirecting the company that made the game and others as well is kinda weird. It's like redirecting Nintendo to the Mario franchise (which I know will never happen, just saying). We should keep it open for now, and wait for more to show up. Le Panini (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment In most cases, this would be a good analogy. However, by far the most notable thing InnerSloth has done was create Among Us. Nothing they have done has came close. And so as the only notable thing they've done, redirecting InnerSloth to Among Us would make sense until they make other notable games. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Thank you, Masem, for recognizing, above, that there is potential that this could be a possible article and you see no value in deletion of the article with its references. When you made that comment, that was in reference to a prior version of the article from previous state nominated for deletion. I undertook a research project on the article in an attempt to improve it further, after you commented. Perhaps you could compare to current state, post research and expansion project, and see if you could reevaluate? Thank you, Right cite (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect While Among Us is undeniably notable, InnerSloth hasn't met the same qualifications. They have been mentioned quite a lot in articles, and have also made the somewhat popular Henry Stickmin games and "Dig2China." However, there doesn't seem to be significant coverage about the company itself, which means InnerSloth doesn't meet the requirements to be considered notable. InnerSloth has the potential to become notable in the future, but as of the moment, the article should be deleted, and a redirect link to Among Us should be made. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Please consider improving it by putting improve tags instead of deleting the whole article. As mentioned, it has potential notability. Thanks. KesunyianAyam (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia doesn't create articles because a topic might some day be notable per WP:CRYSTAL. You could use the same argument for literally any topic. Thus the sourcing threshold of GNG is set in the present. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect Leaving aside the question of redirection for the moment, first off, notability is not inherited. Even if they created the world's most famous video game of all time (they didn't), we need to see references *about the company*. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Based on that, none of the references in the article meet the criteria and having searched I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria. Topic fails GNG/WP:NCORP. As to whether there is potential in the future for an article as stated above - I would say this topic hasn't come close to meeting the criteria. If it was a case that there were a number of references which came close, a redirect would make more sense but for now, no need for a redirect. In the future, if and when it becomes notable, then an article can easily be created. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is there a reason that InnerSloth's notability would have to do with a redirect link? I read the guidelines on redirects, and there is nothing saying that completely unnotable topics shouldn't be redirected. So regardless of the level of notability of InnerSloth, I think it would be best to create a redirect link. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No reason. I'm not against a redirect in general for alternate names or subtopics, etc. Some editors say that WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP and are happy to redirect everything and anything. I generally prefer to stick with the list at WP:RPURPOSE but its one of those areas that is a free-for-all. I've added a Redirect option in any case above. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It needs a stub tag and some expansion, but the developer has produced two notable games, which should be enough to warrant an article. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 09:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not enough to warrant an article, passing GNG does. Stubbing is for topic with sources that haven't been added yet, not for topics where an AfD discussion fails to produce GNG sources. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Among Us. While they have produced two notable games (well, questionably one notable game), that does not make them notable by association and there are not multiple in-depth reliable sources discussing them. Just name drops in articles about their games. So, they fail both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. That said, I'd be fine with a redirect. Although, I can also see where a redirect might not be necessary compared to just deleting it. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, The Henry Stickmin Collection is actually protected against creation. The company is not notable for all the same reasons I declined Draft:Innersloth. A redirect to Among Us would be useful. Naleksuh (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Escapist Magazine article "Among Us Devs Have Created a Gaming Phenomenon, Albeit Two Years After It Launched" and The Verge article "Among Us is so popular that its developers just canceled the sequel" are directly about the company and developers. I think GNG has been met. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Escapist Magazine article discusses the game with the developers. It provides no information whatsoever about the company. There's two sentences that maybe you could argue are "Independent Content" since it is the author's own opinion which are "The most delightful thing about Innersloth is that they are fueled by excitement." and "In every word they shared, it was clear that InnerSloth was never the type of people to give up on their game." This is not in-depth coverage on the company, that reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The reference from The Verge also discusses the game but provides no information on the company whatsoever, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Toughpigs, as well as articles from PC Invasion and Comic Years that have lots of significant discussion about the main topic. Right cite (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles cited by ToughPigs are the same article and talk about the game. Not the company. The same goes for the articles you cited. One of them is literally called "The History of Among Us." So, they don't discuss the main topic of the article at all, because the article is about the company, not the game! --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is discussion of this article's topic in those articles, even if this article isn't in the headline of those articles themselves. No need for the bold, and the exclamation point, ow ow ow, the shouting it hurts my ears. Right cite (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right Cite, I think you should read WP:ATA before commeting on someone's tone! Billy Beagle (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding is unnecessary. Right cite (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Verge article Toughpigs meant to link is probably this. And I largely agree with Adamant1 -- these articles are not the significant coverage that GNG expects. There's barely a few sentences there about the company itself and those that have anything more at by the developers themselves, and thus not secondary. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I miscopied the URL for the Verge article; I've corrected it. The Escapist Magazine article is called "Among Us Devs Have Created a Gaming Phenomenon, Albeit Two Years After It Launched", and the Verge article is called "Among Us is so popular that its developers just canceled the sequel". Both articles have "Developers" in the title -- i.e., the company that developed the game. The articles cover choices that the company made during and after the game's initial launch. I think that the claim that the articles "talk about the game, not the company" is a misreading of NOTINHERITED. Game companies are known for developing games; that's what makes them notable. Discussion of the game that they developed is discussion of the company. The "not the company" argument implies that there could possibly be a detailed RS about a game company's choices and strategy without mentioning the games that they develop. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I disagree that "Discussion of the game that [a company] developed is discussion of the company". That, to me, is exactly what NOTINHERITED cautions against. I mean, I see and understand your argument, but I still hold that GNG requires significant discussion about the company directly rather than implicitly and with minimal use of developer's own words. What constitues "direct" and "indirect" will always be subjective, so I concede that these sources can be viewed as significant coverage, even though I personally disagree. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz, I've posted this below also but worth repeating here. WP:SIGCOV is not the applicable guideline for determining what is Significant Coverage for companies/organizations - that is WP:CORPDEPTH which is a part of WP:NCORP. "Significant Coverage" is described as Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. NCORP is also the applicable guideline for products which is why it is included in that sentence. This bit is important It doesn't mean that Significant Coverage of a product can be used to establish notability for the company and vice versa. There is a clear requirement that the reference provides an overview/description/commentary/survey/study/discussion/analysis/etc *about the company* (which is the topic here) or when the topic of an article is *about a product*, the significant coverage should be about the product. WP:NOTINHERITED simply says the same thing in a different way. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing NCORP is an extension of GNG, so GNG is always applicable (WP:SNG). But otherwise I agree with all of that. I mean, do any of my comments appear otherwise? I have refrained from commenting below because there's enough editors going back and forth already. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~striking duplicate !vote to Among Us. It seems like people only care about the game, not the company. And probably temporarely be protected against recreation, because maybe, in the fture, we will have more references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 06:04, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You have already !voted above, please don't format your comments to appear like multiple votes. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: UPDATE. after all, it really can't be carried by Among Us's notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED. But I believe it can be notable in the future but as per WP:CRYSTAL, we can't have an article about it yet. So if considering for a redirect to Among Us also, for me, it's not worth it because Among Us can't explain what InnerSloth is. Thanks. -- KesunyianAyam (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect. Among Us is a very notable game, and the developers deserve a page, but there isn't enough sorces. SWinxy (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- sources directly discussing the topic, with the name of the topic in the headline of the sources = InnerSloth has responded to Among Us hackers ruining matches and Innersloth moves to fight Among Us cheating. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And even in other languages = InnerSloth responde ante los hackers que están arruinando las partidas en Among Us and Game Among Us Dilanda Cheater, Ini Langkah InnerSloth and InnerSloth, Sosok di Balik Kesuksesan Game Among Us and Skyegrid Media - Among Us akan di Rilis Konsol PS4? Ini Kata InnerSloth. Thanks, Right cite (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet all those are articles are still about Among Us and don't actually discuss the company beyond name dropping it. Otherwise, cite a single in-depth paragraph discussing "the company" in any of those articles. At the end of the day you can find any number of articles on pretty much any product out there that "mentions" the entity that created it. That's not the point here though and it's not what makes a company notable. Otherwise, every damn pencil manufacturer, toilet maker, widget producer, author, singer, etc. etc. would have an article and the only the thing people have to do is cite a Tweet that mentions them. What is the point here is multiple in-depth coverage pertaining to the company in multiple reliable sources.

Or, look at this another way and ask yourselves if this company would even be named dropped anywhere at this point if it was not for them producing Among Us. If your answer is no, then your only argument is that they are notable for a single thing through inheritance. Which doesn't work for notability. If your answer is yes though, it's not backed up by the sources and then you just aren't being fair about the process. In other words, find a single source that on them that isn't "mainly", or hell even partly, about Among Us. One single article on them exclusively is a ridiculously low bar to get over. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. long form article about every single developer on the InnerSloth team. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I said an article that's about the developer not about Among U and the game is litliterally what the article is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're creating magical standards out of thin air. The article is about both. Read it. Take the time to read the article itself. Right cite (talk) 02:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No you are, because I was clear that the source had to not be "mainly", or hell even partly, about Among Us and in response you cited a source that was exactly that, because you can't provide one that isn't about the game. Sorry, but WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SIGCOV aren't "magical standards" that I created out of thin air. Either provide a source about the company like I asked for and the notability guidelines require, or stop bludgeoning the process with your unhelpful, repetitive comments. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that you were "bludgoned", I hope you're doing okay. My apologies. Let's both take a break from replying back and forth to each other on this page for a while. I hope you feel better soon. Right cite (talk) 02:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said your bludging "the process." It has nothing to do with me. So don't miss quote me. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, please note that there is no requirement that a source be "primarily" about the article's subject to contribute to its Notability. SIGCOV is a flexible standard, but a few paragraphs are generally fine to provide an instance supporting the Notability of the subject. Even a single paragraph is not what policy calls a passing mention. Newimpartial (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: WP:NCORP says "A company is notable if "it" has been "the subject" of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources." I would consider that as saying that the source be "primarily" about the article's subject for it contribute to notability. Otherwise, there would be no reason it would have to be "the subject" of the article. While passing mentions are fine in articles, they aren't great for notability in AfDs. Just like it's perfectly fine to cite Twitter in an article to support basic facts, but something being Twitted about is not evidence of said thing being notable. Adamant1 (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SIGCOV - it is quite clear there that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material (emphasis added). So your suggestion that the source be "primarily" about the article's subject for it contribute to notability is in direct contradiction to policy. Also, paragraph or multi-paragraph discussions are never "passing mentions" in the context of policy; the example given in SIGCOV is the sentence In high school, (Bill Clinton) was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice, which does not lend Notability to the band. What we have in this instance are multiple sources giving multi-paragraph treatment of the article's subject which are not discussing InnerSloth's main game property. As I say below, this is a clear NCORP pass. Newimpartial (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, WP:SIGCOV is not the applicable guideline for determining what is Significant Coverage for companies/organizations - that is WP:CORPDEPTH which is a part of WP:NCORP. "Significant Coverage" is described as Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. NCORP is also the applicable guideline for products which is why it is included in that sentence. It doesn't mean that Significant Coverage of a product can be used to establish notability for the company and vice versa. So you are correct, there is nothing to indicate that the topic company must be the primary topic. But it does require that the reference provides "deep and significant coverage". I've read the reference from PC Invasion and I cannot where in the article it provides an overview/description/commentary/survey/study/discussion/analysis/etc *about the company*. It says "InnerSloth, the developer of Among Us, ...". Everything else even tangentially about the company (e.g. Fans were reassured that the developer is rushing to get systems in place for moderation and reporting" is attributed to a company executive which fails the definition of "Independent Content" (WP:ORGIND). HighKing⁺⁺ 20:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, HighKing, SIGCOV offers a widely-discussed definition that is universal to the project, while CORPDEPTH was part of a rather limited SNG process, so I don't think it is widely agreed that CORPDEPTH was intended to supercede SIGCOV on the case of organizations; I rather suspect that participants intended it to be a specification rather than a replacement. But be that as it may, I did review CORPDEPTH before commenting here, and it seems to me that you are implicitly requiring a kind of high-level organizational analysis out of the sources, to be significant, that the guideline does not actually require. I will quote what I take to be the key passage of CORPDEPTH at length: For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. Further, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times. Note that the example of "more significant" coverage is 400 words in a niche news source, and the content described is to discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership. What we have in Escapist and IGN each exceed both the word count and the depth of treatment requirements set out in CORPDEPTH - what is required there is depth of detail regarding corporate decisions, actions and environment, and does not necessarily require financial, organizational or cultural analysis of the kind beloved by MBAs and the commentariat. At least, not according to the passage I quoted from CORPDEPTH, and the examples therein. And these are not the only sources on InnerSloth that meet that test. Newimpartial (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me with using SIGCOV is that I don't even think it passes that. For instance looking at "Among Us Devs Have Created a Gaming Phenomenon, Albeit Two Years After It Launched." The article has like 17 paragraphs. Of which 12 "mention" InnerSloth. Which is great. Except if you break it down 1. says they spent long nights developing the game. 2. says they didn't give up and refined the game 3. They added more content 4. Every time they thought the game was done they added more to it. 5. They decided to add more stuff to the game when it got popular. 6. They share a passion for the game with their fans. 7. They are "fueled by excitement" Etc etc. The rest is more of the same. I mean great, but how does any of that qualify as "Significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail"? Because it's all extremely trivial, surface level information that could apply to any video game company out there. Every single video game company works late on the game, adds content to it, and more stuff to the game as it gets more popular, shares a passion for the game with their fans, etc etc. None of that is unique to InnerSloth, "detailed", encyclopedic, or works for SIGCOV IMO. It's a company going about it's business run of the mill stuff. Which is not what the SIGCOV guideline exists for the allowence of in articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You know, a typical account of Caesar's invasion of Gaul could be given the same numbered-paragraph, trivializing treatment. I'm not sure whether you are questioning whether the article under discussion is specific enough to InnerSloth, or whether it is giving enough information to be useful for the WP article, or what. To me, the best answer to both of those questions is the excitement expressed at that point about the sequel - a sequel which, per other RS, is now cancelled. Since this article (and some others) actually discuss these plans and decisions in relation to the developer, rather than e.g. as news announced on Twitter, they are useful in the creation of a WP article based on independent, reliable sources. The level of significance and detail offered on this and other points in the Escapost article is exactly what we need. The point of the GNG and NCORP is to ensure that we actually have such sources for our articles, not to demand that our articles meet some personal, subjective test concerning the significance or importance of the topic - which is at best orthogonal to WP:N. Newimpartial (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, I agree it could. Which is probably why Caesar's conquest of Gaul is a redirect to Gallic Wars. So, I think you proved my point. That said, WP:OTHERSTUFF is as weak an argument as IDONTLIKEIT would be. With the other part of what you said, you keep switching from guideline based arguments to support why your right, but then falling back on personal preference and emotional arguments to refute other people citing the guidelines. Which isn't really helpful. If anything, your the one making the personal, subjective tests by saying things like "points in the Escapost article is exactly what we need." I don't see anywhere here saying we need the points made in the Escapost article about them staying up late to create the game. and it's only personal opinion that we are or need that kind of information. Whereas, your the one that said the articles meet SIGCOV and when I asked how sentences like "they spent long nights developing the game" meets SIGCOV like you claim they do, your answer is "we need the information." Which is circular reasoning, just plain wrong, and more importantly has nothing to do SIGCOV. Which is what I asked you about. Not your personal opinion on what information Wikipedia readers "need" to have in articles. Which is a weird form of WP:CRYSTAL and not really relevant to AfDs. We aren't copyrighters or soothsayers, who only write articles with information we personally think people "might" like or need. It's definitely not the point in AfDs. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - I wasn't talking previously about what readers "need" but rather what editors "need". We need statements like Most of InnerSloth’s decisions about the game’s future took place well before the unprecedented spike in player numbers that occurred in July and Knowing that the sequel has been floated since the early days of Among Us and given the excitement that fuels the InnerSloth team, there is a lot of creativity ready to be channeled into the new title (from the Escapist source), to document the history of the company. Whatever the limitations of my previous comment, the reasoning wasn't circular.

Also, I think you will find upon review that each time I have refuted someone's misinterpretation of guidelines I did so by citing guidelines and policies myself, not by falling back on personal preference and emotional arguments. Per the WP:TPG, editors are supposed to provide documentation (preferably diffs) when they discuss the behaviour of other editors, rather than casting WP:ASPERSIONS on them. Newimpartial (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Right cite (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Many thanks to RobotGoggles and Pikamander2 for the idea, above, to do more research on the article topic itself. Thanks also to Toughpigs for help with some of the research. I've improved the article from its prior stub format. Compare stub at time of nomination for deletion, with version of the article post research and improvement, now no longer a stub at all anymore, but rather a pretty good article and worthy of keeping on Wikipedia so as to better serve our readers who may be looking for this information and research on this topic. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 04:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All you did was write a non-neutral ref bombing advert for the company that still doesn't talk about them in any in-depth, non-trivial way. Good job. As far as the guidelines are concered the article was much better before you edited it. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd request that this user and I take a break from the back and forth with each other. User seems to have ignored this request, above. Right cite (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was totally fine taking a break from it. Your the one that reverted my edited to the page and then said I should explain the though. It's kind of BS to go off about taking a break from something while you continue instigating things. This wouldn't even be a thing right now if you had of pissed of my edits and not asked me something. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I tried to engage in discussion on the talk page. The user failed to have a good faith discussion politely, failing to volunteer any specific reasoning for their actions. Right cite (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1 has not been behaving in a manner befitting Wikipedia, and refuses to discuss his differences and complaints about the article in question, on the talk page, where appropriate, choosing instead to wage an edit war, and insult Right cite's character. This needs to be addressed. RobotGoggles (talk) 07:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, Right cite reverted me before I had a chance to explain it on the talk page and then went off that I didn't explain it. When he/she was the one that removed the template without giving me the chance to in the first place. So, it's not on me that I wasn't given a chance to say why I added the banner. Then he/she said "either explain it or I'll remove it." Which wasn't a good faithed or polite way to see what my reason for adding it was. Plus, reverting someone once isn't "editing waring" anyway. Also, I'd love for you to point to what was "insulting Right cite character" in the message I left them on their talk page. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Redirect The new articles that have been provided in the AfD by Right cite talk significantly about InnerSloth, and clearly shows an increased interest in InnerSloth. However, the main topic is Among Us. At most, the articles direct focus on InnerSloth's actions and developments pertaining to the game. No media or news source finds InnerSloth notable enough to write about them as its own topic. InnerSloth's notability clearly hasn't been established per WP:NOTINHERITED. And so InnerSloth simply doesn't have the notability to keep the Wikipedia article on the subject. Also, to respond to the people that think InnerSloth should not redirect to Among Us: Among Us is by far the most notable thing that InnerSloth has done. The next notable thing, Henry Stickmin, does not even have a Wikipedia page. Reading the guidelines on redirecting, there does not seem to be any rules that are against redirecting. Among Us being a topic that is relevant to the topic of InnerSloth, and Among Us being by far the most notable thing, and the only notable topic closely related to InnerSloth, it would be best suited that InnerSloth redirects to Among Us. If InnerSloth becomes successful in creating another notable product, but still isn't notable enough to have its own page, then deleting the redirect could be considered due to unjustified emphasis of Among Us.

I also suggest semi-protection against recreation of the InnerSloth page. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sorry to see that you feel all of my research was for nothing. I would ask users to take a look at this version of the page, after my research, and see if Wikipedia readers are best served by having this article remain on Wikipedia. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:AMOUNT. You made the article look nice, but this does not imply notability. Notability is the threshold for an article as outlined by WP:GNG: the individual sources have to have significant coverage about the subject. Every source in the article is about their games, mostly Among Us, and not the company. None of them have any substantial content about the company that isn't in developer's own words. WP:ITSUSEFUL to readers is not a criteria. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the statement, None of them have any substantial content about the company that isn't in developer's own words is not entirely accurate. It is not true of the Escapist and IGN pieces that I've reviewed in detail, and doesn't seem to be true of several other sources, either. The statement Every source in the article is about their games, mostly Among Us, and not the company makes it sounds as if a source that is "about" a game can't be SIGCOV of the company, which is not the case either in policy or in the actual sources under discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could only be considered notable for Henry Stickmin collection and Among Us. Rght now the company is not that well known - not that notable to get a Wikipedia article. Let's see what future has to offer. But deletion seems to be a good choice for now. 78.36.163.169 (talk) 10:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Among Us - The work Right Cite put in is admirable, but it doesn't solve the problem: sources overwhelmingly talk about InnerSloth in context of Among Us and not as an individual notable company. Take this whole passage for example:

In an interview with Kotaku, Bromander explained the strengths and weaknesses behind the developers at InnerSloth.[9] Bromander lamented that they were not skilled at promoting their products, telling Kotaku, "We’re really bad at marketing."[9] Kotaku analyzed the efficiency of the development team at InnerSloth, concluding the company succeeded at persevering to improve their product even after an initial stage of failure to achieve popularity in the beginning.[9] InnerSloth developers focused on the player experience, over and above microtransactions.[20] The InnerSloth developers appreciated the Internet memes based on their work, and were driven to create an enjoyable user experience for the players.[12] Willard explained the business model behind InnerSloth, "We’re a slow-growing company. We snowball our way to the top instead of spike and tail like most Steam releases do."[9] Liu stated she started to follow video game streamers to get more ideas for artistic development at InnerSloth.[9] InnerSloth faced challenges from rapid success during 2020.[18] After an increase in popularity in 2020, Willard stated the company planned to increase server performance for August 2021.[25] After experiencing problems with hackers attacking their servers in 2020, InnerSloth responded by adapting their systems and servers.[8][21] They made modifications to allow for moderation in-game and reporting of problems to the development team.[8][21]

Virtually all this information is discussed within the context of Among Us in the sources, but that detail is missing from the article.

For example: the first claim made here is: Bromander lamented that they were not skilled at promoting their products, telling Kotaku, "We’re really bad at marketing."[9].

Now here is the original context, quoted from the source: Among Us’ Twitch explosion was not born of a too-online Twitter account, marketing machinations that leveraged Twitch’s numbers-driven structure to gain not-entirely-earned visibility, or anything like that. “We’re really bad at marketing,” Among Us artist and game designer Marcus Bromander told Kotaku during a phone interview last week.

Here is another example. The article claims InnerSloth developers focused on the player experience, over and above microtransactions.[20]

Here is the context from the source: Among Us represent a different school of thought when it comes to the future of gaming. Developers can choose to give back to their customers by adding features that encourage players to keep playing and spread the word to their friends, or they can fill games with microtransactions and rerelease what is essentially the same game every year. While the latter has certainly been successful (at least financially), Innersloth's approach sets a refreshing and consumer-friendly standard that others should follow.

Because of this editing approach, the article has become misleading, suggesting that InnerSloth's business practices with Among Us are characteristic of the company and employees. This is not what sources are claiming. In conclusion, most of the information in this article should be in the Among Us article instead with the correct context, and this article should be redirected. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the approach Tarcus has taken to reading these passages is not compliant with policy. While NOTINHERITED is definitely a key principle, that does not mean that the article's subject has to be discussed entirely apart from its products to contribute to its Notability. A discussion of decisions made by developers, that resulted in qualities of the product, are relevant to both the developer and the product, just as a discussion of the Ford Motor Company's production choices is relevant to both the producer and the product. Coverage of AboutUs that does not discuss the developers and their strategic (and tactical) decisions does not contribute to the Notability of InnerSloth but coverage that does discuss these and other aspects of the developers, does. Newimpartial (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing inheritance. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself correctly. Let me try to explain another way: Imagine you wrote a Wikipedia article about an old French film, and it became one of the most popular articles on Wikipedia. So popular, in fact, that some websites decide to interview you Newimpartial, the primary author. They ask you how you did it, and you say: "I spent lots of time translating old French newspaper articles into English." It would therefore be misleading to say generally about you: "Newimpartial is an editor that spends lots of time translating old French newspaper articles into English." It's misleading because it's being presented as a general characteristic about you, when you were only answering how you wrote that one French film article. It's not known if you would employ that practice for other articles. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 16:53, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I did misunderstand your comment, because I interpreted it as a comment relevant to an AfD discussion. If you are arguing as a matter of prose style that the sources are poorly reflected in the draft text, that may well be true, but that wouldn't be relevant to a discussion about Notability on WP. So to take an example similar to the one you gave, if an independent, reliable source discussed my translations, how I go about them, and so forth, that would absolutely contribute to my Notability as a translator, and not only to the Notability of whatever I had translated (though if I published a collections of translations and it received multiple, RS reviews as a work in itself, that might also be notable).

My point about INHERITance wasn't that you are using or misusing the principle, I was just noting that it is relevant. So to continue with my own example, if my collected translations were Notable but there were no additional independently and reliably sourced information about me apart from reviews of my work, that would not make me Notable, per NOTINHERITED. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple independent, reliable sources talk about the company, that is the developers - their actions and strategies - and not simply review or discuss the game they produced. These include Escapist magazine and IGN (see the paragraph beginning, "InnerSloth doesn't really have a professional office").

This is a clear NCORP pass, really. The relationship between video game developers and their products is different from that of literary or musical producers, and this may make it easy for editors to assume that this discussion is only "about the game, not the company" but when I actually read the sources, I see plenty of discussion about the company itself - who the principals are, and what they did - rather than only "about the game". That is what constitutes Notability, not some discussion of the company and its principals in complete abstraction from its products, which is the non-policy-compliant bar certain !voters seem to have demanded, while other votes about to "it doesn't feel notable", without reference to policy. And I haven't even talked about the sources relating to the cancellation of About Us 2, which logically are all contribute to the Notability of the company, not the first game.

TL;DR - GNG and NCORP pass, by policy, regardless of all the IDONTLIKEIT and BLUDGEON I see here in the AfD. And all the discussion about salting the topic strikes me as a kind of premature gravedancing IMO. Newimpartial 13:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP states "a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage." There is no clause anywhere that video game companies get a pass from that because they are "different." Nor is anyone having the expectation that the sources be about "the subject" them making an IDONTLIKEIT argument. Is an article that you cited called "How Among Us Came Back From the Brink of Obscurity" about "the subject" of this article InnerSloth? Clearly not. Especially when it is mainly comprised of things like "The tension in Among Us is perfectly balanced", "the proliferation of Among Us' popularity can be chalked up to the simplicity of the design.", "Among Us has a bright future ahead of it", "Among Us is built on old tech", etc etc. It's not an "IDONTLIKEIT" arguement to say those sentences are about the game. Which isn't what this article is about. It's just the facts. Same goes for the other source. "Given its current status as the most viewed game on Twitch, you have probably heard of or played "Among Us"", "Now, obviously InnerSloth never really gave up on "Among Us"; the team has spent its post-release period refining "the game" with very quiet success, so you can understand why they announced that Among Us was complete back in January", "Shortly after the game launched, Willard mentioned that a Korean YouTuber "picked up the game"", etc etc. Is "the subject" in any of the that the developer or is "the subject" of all those sentences the game? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't BLUDGEON. As I stated in response to your similarly misleading comment above, it is clearly stated in WP:SIGCOV that Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material (emphasis added). So your question, Is an article that you cited called "How Among Us Came Back From the Brink of Obscurity" about "the subject" of this article InnerSloth? is not relevant to policy - what is relevant is whether the article gives significant treatment to the company in its content (it does). Paragraph or multi-paragraph discussions are never "passing mentions" in the context of policy; the example given in SIGCOV is the sentence In high school, (Bill Clinton) was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice, which does not lend Notability to the band. What we have in this instance are multiple sources giving multi-paragraph treatment of the article's subject which are not discussing InnerSloth's main game property. This is a clear NCORP pass, and your claim that I am treating video game companies as "different" is a STRAWMAN, thanks. What I am saying is that editors may not recognize the distinction between creator and work as readily in this context, but to me the distinction is obvious and should be applied consistently. Newimpartial (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it misleading to directly cite a guideline? Especially since it's the one your citing to say this is notable. There aren't multiple sources of multi-paragraph discussions of the company anyway. So, your point about it is moot about it. As far as the "STRAWMAN" thing goes, your the one that said "The relationship between video game developers and their products is different from that of literary or musical producers." It's not a strawman to repeat what you said and you said they were different. "Different" was the exact word you used. Nice try though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement above is misleading because you are misreading NCORP - "the subject of significant coverage" cannot mean "the main topic of articles giving significant coverage" because that would conflict with SIGCOV where the concept of "significant coverage" is defined. Instead, it means quite literally the subject of significant coverage, as in, the reliable sources actually give significant coverage to the subject. And there are certainly many sources giving full paragraphs of coverage to the company, aside from the game, including the two I linked above.

And if you are confused by my saying that the "relationship" is different for video game developers, which confuses editors, so it is hard for them to maintain consistent treatment about Notability, then I will try harder to be clear in the future. But your construal that video game companies get a pass from that because they are "different" is most definitely a STRAWMAN and almost directly the opposite of what I have been consistently saying here. I am saying that if you aren't confused by the discussion being about video game developers, the coverage here clearly supports the Notability of the company per NCORP. Newimpartial (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All mentions of Among Us can be thought of as mere details of Among Us. The developers of Among Us persisted and created a viral game. Updates were made to Among Us. Developers created Among Us. Developers love the Among Us memes. InnerSloth isn't written about purely because of the fact that they are Inner Sloth. The sole reason that InnerSloth has significant content written about them is because of Among Us. To rephrase, the only reason that InnerSloth has significant content about them is because they happened to create the viral game, Among Us. By your logic, regardless of the group that created Among Us, they were bound to automatically be notable. If a single person created Among Us, and significant content were made on the person, they would have an article per your logic. Clearly, the unnotability of InnerSloth is made clear with WP:NOTINHERITED. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By that logic, the article Albert Einstein must not include any sources that mention the Theory of relativity, only Einstein's life itself. Right cite (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(E/c) But GeicoGECKO, you have set out a mistaken interpretation of NOTINHERITED. The policy-relevant question is whether there are independent, reliable sources with information about an article's topic sufficient to pass the WP:GNG and, in this instance, WP:NCORP. The key, defining element of NOTINHERITED, in the present context, is the following: parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited "up", from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable. However, NOTINHERITED neither states nor implies that sources discussing a product cannot count to the Notability of its creator if they also provide verifiable information about their creator, as many of the sources do in this case. Attempts to assess the "significance" of the parent (in this case the software developer) to decide Notability runafoul of the injunction on WP:N that importance is not the measure of Notability. The policy-relevant significance of coverage concerns *whether* the sources exist and whether *they* are sufficient, not *why* the sources exist or whether the *subject* is significant. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please all, don't bold for emphasis. Makes it very hard to read this page. Use italics if you must. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 18:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject in question must have independent notability. My point is that InnerSloth's notability relies almost solely on Among Us. Just because the topic is significantly mentioned doesn't make it notable. All independent information so far provided has information on InnerSloth with respect to some sort of connection to Among Us. It does not have independent notability. The notability of InnerSloth relies almost solely on the notability of Among Us, and the majority of the significant coverage of InnerSloth directly relates to Among Us. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reviewed NCORP again, and I don't see any basis there for your notion of independent notability of a company, as in, independent from its products. I have already reviewed NOTINHERITED and find no policy basis for it there. GEICOgecko, are you finding a policy basis for this concept somewhere else? If so, could you point me in the right direction? Newimpartial (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newimpartial, see WP:INHERITORG which says The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Or take a look at WP:CORPDEPTH, a part of WP:NCORP, which defines "Significant Coverage" as follows: Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. NCORP is also the applicable guideline for products which is why it is included in that sentence. This bit is important It doesn't mean that Significant Coverage of a product can be used to establish notability for the company and vice versa. There is a clear requirement that the reference provides an overview/description/commentary/survey/study/discussion/analysis/etc *about the company* (which is the topic here) or when the topic of an article is *about a product*, the significant coverage should be about the product. WP:NOTINHERITED simply says the same thing in a different way. There is no notability through association. An article about a product doesn't confer notability on the company that makes the product and vice versa. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, I wish editors would not BLUDGEON the discussion so that I have to give the same reply to the same editor on the same topic in several places. My reply to your comments on CORPDEPTH is in this edit. As far as WP:INHERITORG is concerned, it rightly specifies that sources have to give significant coverage about the company, not the product to count towards the Notability of the company. I, with all right thinking editors, agree with this. This does not mean that, if the topic of the article is the product, what is said in that article about the company doesn't count the company's Notability (or vice versa), so long as CORPDEPTH is satisfied. This conflicts with your reading above when you say, An article about a product doesn't confer notability on the company. I just don't see any basis for that in policy: rather, the same source can contribute to the Notability of a product, and an organization, and a person, if what it contains is significant treatment of all three within the source. An article about a product doesn't necessarily contribute to the Notability of a company, but it can if it contains sufficient coverage of the company in question. Newimpartial (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BTW, as the article currently stands Among Us is mentioned more times in it then the company is. Yet somehow the article, and the sources it's based on, are about the company and not the game. Right....At this point it's just a glorified WP:FORK of Among Us. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, this article has been nominated for deletion on grounds of Notability. As such, the text of any particular draft of the article is strictly irrelevant - what matters is the state of potential sources for the article, in terms of policy. So let's try to keep the discussion on topic, please. Newimpartial (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AFD says "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." That's it. Nothing confines the discussion to just being about notability. Also, it should be obvious that the discussion is based on the current state of the article. That's exactly what new "voters" who are coming along are judging it on. Not how it was when it was originally created or whatever. So, it's 100% on topic to discuss the current state of the article and to discuss whatever is included in "whether an article should be delete." Which again, isn't just confined to notable. Id say even more so if the article has been drastically alterted from the version it was in when the AfD was opened like here. Its not like people can't walk and chew bubble gum at the same time anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, chill. WP:BLUDGEON. Also, WP:SHOUTING. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 15:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please recognize WP:ARTN: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Now, Adamant1, perhaps you mean to be making a policy-compliant argument here at AfD that isn't about WP:N (including NCORP and SIGCOV arguments) but if so, I must have missed it somewhere above. Newimpartial (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If other topics are relevant to the deletion of the article, then it should be talked about, but at the moment, it seems that the main and biggest concern is that of notability, which has nothing to do about the state of the article itself. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 17:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Adamant1's behavior in this conversation is an example of WP:BLUDGEONing, which is not productive. They have posted 13 times in the conversation so far, which is unnecessary. The participant who has the last word in every exchange is not rewarded with the outcome of their choice. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm committing WP:BLUDGEONing then I expect the same standard to apply to Newimpartial who has commented 19 times (while accusing other people of WP:BLUDGEON) and also Right cite who has commented 23 times (23!) while taking the same position as Newimpartial that other people's comments are WP:BLUDGEON and there's are perfectly legit. At least in my case I was responded to other people's responses to what I said and my comments have to do with the AfD and the article. Whereas, Rite cite has mostly only written self agrandizing comments about how great their editing to the article was and written a bunch of personal, off topic, poor me messages that had nothing to do with policy or the AfD. Whereas, in the case of Newimpartial, all they have done is repeat the same crap over and over and critized other people's comments. None of which has been constructive or helpful. Sure, single me out though as commenting to much. Not the person that's wroten 23 messages. So feel free to say the same thing to Rite cite and Newimpartial. Otherwise, you can piss off. In the meantime I'm going to keep responding to people who have pinged me or responded to my messages etc. I don't give a crap how many messages it takes to do so either. Hell, HELLKNOWZ has commented 10 times. So has TheGEICOgecko. HighKing has commented 9 times. Feel free to chide them about WP:BLUDGEON also. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ten of my 19 edits to this page (prior to this one) were minor copy edits. The moral of that story is that edit counts are not a good measure of the weight or reach of one's BLUDGEON. I would also point out that some of my replies were in response to your, and HighKing's, decisions to repeat your replies to me in different subthreads, in which you were not previously involved. I haven't worked out an entirely satisfactory way of dealing with that, but I have trouble ignoring it. I am reasonably confident, though, that HighKing and yourself have each contributed more characters to this discussion than I have, in spite of your lower edit counts.

Also, your comment that all (I) have done is repeat the same crap over and over and critized other people's comments doesn't really give me credit for correcting people's misreadings of NCORP, NOTINHERITED, CORPINHERIT, SIGCOV and CORPDEPTH. That was actual work to do (and inevitably consumed a few diff and you should at least be WP:CIVIL about it. Newimpartial (talk) 00:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except I was going by how many times you had signed your comments. Which, after double checking was actually 14, but still one more then me. While no one is accusing you of WP:BLUDGEON and your accusing me of doing it. When you've had the same amount of comments. So, my point still stands. Either apply the rule to everyone who is "over commenting" (whatever bar that is) or shove off and don't chide other people about rules your ignoring. As far as WP:CIVIL goes, I'm not a fan of hypocrisy, especially ToughPigs version of it, and I don't consider pointing the finger at or singling out a single user for something that other people are doing and way worse "civil." 100% I'm into civility, but I'm not going to just be mister polite and be the only one to get shit for things other people are doing and way worse. Thanks though. You want civility, cool. Then be civil. If you want to not BLUDGEON, cool. Then don't BLIDGEON yourself and don't single people out for it. If not though, don't expect other people to be civil if your not willing to and don't expect to be the only loud voice in the room. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

15 times. -- Toughpigs (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What in the name of God, just decide if the article is notable or not! You argued on stupid things such as someone's tone or apperance! So less on the article itself, and if you did, you were wrong! The article is NOT notable. Sources about the articke are mostly Trivia or unreliable. They dont point exactly to the company, but to the game, and this article is about the company, not the game! It will be notable in the future, but until then, it has to be redirected and protected against recreation (I learnt that from WP:ATA. So please stop! You are wasting your precious time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billy Beagle (talk • contribs) 07:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, all they have done is repeat the same crap over and over and critized other people's comments is simply not a civil comment, particularly when untrue as in this case. And my original BLIDGEON complaint came when you posted these edits making the same misreading of NCORP (that coverage of the "subject" only counts if it is the main "subject" of the article) - in two places so that I felt required to respond to both. Since then, HighKing did the exact same thing about CORPDEPTH (in three places, two following my comments), which was equally frustrating but I hope to have handled it better.

Oh, and Billy Beagle - Notability isn't a property of articles. Thanks. Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are insanely wrong, Newimpartial. Isnt just notability a property of articles, but it is also the most important. Notabiliy is the most important property of an article. Only, and ONLY notabiliy will keep an article alive. Read WP:N, WP:1ST, and WP:TRIV. Billy Beagle (talk) 8:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Billy, you are contradicting WP:ARTN, which states: Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article ... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. Also, I think insanely wrong is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Please don't do that. Newimpartial (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve: There is no merit to delete this article, it needs to be improved, yes, but it is inherently notable. Deletion makes no sense, when it could easily be improved and rewritten. Sean Stephens (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the current version is the improved and rewritten version. At this point doing any more "improving" of it would be like trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. The only option to make it "better" IMO would be turn it into a stub, but then it would be right back in the same place it was when the AfD was started. Unfortunately, the sources and miss-leading way they are being used (which is really the only way it seems like they can be used) doesn't allow for anything beyond that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The company has significant (per CORPDEPTH) coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources and therefore meets NCORP. The rest, as they say, is noise. Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what I was talking about with you repeating yourself. Everyone here knows you think it passes NCORP and CORPDEPTH. You repeating it 10 times isn't helpful and is 100% WP:BLUDGEON. If your going to comment in AfDs, at least make it something different then what you've already said and helpful to the discussion. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the developer is discussed in a number of articles. Some of these are in passing, but many are non-trivial. And frankly the article is pretty solid. I agree it is borderline from a WP:N viewpoint, but I think it's over the line by enough I'm not even weak. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What the other pro-deletion users said. I couldn't find any articles focused on the company itself. Also, the way it's written is indeed pretty advert-y, and I have concerns that some users opposing deletion are just trying to promote the company. Cpotisch (talk) 17:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company produced a game that became popular worldwide. As they only produced a notable game, it is normal that when finding articles about Innersloth, there is also mention of Among Us. However, the sources also talk about the developers, not just limited to the game. Gamesutra speaks about the Among us 2 cancellation, but it also talks a little about the company when it touches on its future plans. The same with CBR, and others sources. But the article needs improves. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following are some points that may have been talked about a good bit, but I would like to chime in with my view on the things that I have yet to address. To sum up what I'm about to say, we need to focus on WP:SIRS, content in articles about Among Us doesn't make InnerSloth notable just because they are mentioned a whole bunch (they just happen to be the developers), and there is a source that's been buried in the discussion that should be more seriously considered that may make a progression to considering InnerSloth as notable.

WP:CORPDEPTH states, "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO." Additionally, one guideline that doesn't seem to have been brought up as often is that WP:SIRS states that multiple sources must independently meet the criteria of being an independent, reliable, secondary source that significantly covers the company.

Collectively, the sources would clearly pass the requirements, as one can see from the Wikipedia article. However, it doesn't seem that any single source meets the criteria on its own. I admit I didn't search for sources that meet the criteria the most throughly, but I looked at 10-15 sources from Wikipedia that seemed the most likely to contain significant coverage on InnerSloth, based on the title and the context of which the source was included. The only ones that had significant coverage (content about how InnerSloth made Among Us does not count as information on InnerSloth, it's information solely on Among Us, and per WP:NOTINHERITED, this doesn't count as significant information on InnerSloth), aside from their LinkedIn page, are sources 31 and 32. Source 32 is just an interview (mostly a primary source) between developers and a YouTuber. Source 31 is similarly an interview, and it also may not be a reliable source (though I'm not sure).

It is important to keep in mind that Among Us is a huge phenomenon: it is extremely viral, and it was created by very small developers. Because of this, there is bound to be a good lot of content on the developers. However, each source only makes small remarks on the developers. Most of the content is just a name drop when Among Us and the developments to the game are being discussed. In order for the article on InnerSloth to stay, there needs to be multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources that significantly cover InnerSloth in some depth.

However, after a quick scan of sources mentioned in this AfD, I found a single source that may count as a qualifying source. Newimpartial linked 2 sources in one reply. One of the sources was merely content of how Among Us was developed (just because InnerSloth happened to be the creators of Among Us doesn't mean they are notable, and the fact that their names were mentioned doesn't mean anything). However, this source seems much more likely to be considered. It is an independent, reliable, secondary source. And it seems to signficantly cover InnerSloth in ways that diverge enough from Among Us to be considered content on the company itself in some form. I think we should discuss whether this source significantly covers InnerSloth. Of course, we need multiple sources that meet the requirements, but I think it would help to take one step at a time. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of points here that bear further comment, I think. First of all, the statement content in articles about Among Us doesn't make InnerSloth notable by itself would be misleading, because I think we all know by now that the policy-relevant question per CORPDEPTH isn't what the main topic of the article is, but whether the article contains sufficient material about the company to meet CORPDEPTH and SIRS. But then the Geico Gecko says that such content doesn't make InnerSloth notable just because they are mentioned a whole bunch (emphasis added), so if this is read literally, as a restrictive clause, then it is entirely valid. If these sources are confined to trivial mentions that do not meet the significance test, then they do not contribute - but this is not measured by the topic of title of the source, a mistaken argument made at some length at this AfD.

However. GeicoGecko does make a new argument against policy, namely that content about how InnerSloth made Among Us does not count as information on InnerSloth. I don't see any basis in SIRS or CORPDEPTH for this claim - RS information about the development decisions InnerSloth made is just as relevant to the company's notability as the product decisions Ford Motor Company has made to its. (A quite different argument could be made based on this, namely that Notability does not guarantee an article and that while the company is notable, the information about it would be better presented in an article integrated with its major product than in a standalone. However, the existence of other products and the trajectory of decisions about the About Us lead me to the tentative conclusion that a separate article is best - anyway, that isn't about the Notability of the company, which was the issue raised in this AfD.)

Also, the citation the Geico Gecko gives from CORPDEPTH leaves out what I think is the most interesting part: For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. Further, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times (Emphasis added). The example of a more significant source - not a threshold, but an example, presumably a clear pass - is set at 400 words in a niche publication. Each of the sources I linked earlier include more than 400 words that are about the company, its decisions and its corporate environments (excluding quotations), and this is not listing facts - the kind of information CORPDEPTH}} tells us to discount, but akin to discussing the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership.

The additional source that the Geico Gecko has examined in depth (thank you!), plus the other two I linked above, should make the NCORP pass entirely clear. Newimpartial (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"A mistaken argument made at some length at this AfD." Or more likely your just misconstruing things and interpreating the guidelines wrong. Anyway, the last bit of your message is wrong. It doesn't "clearly pass NCORP" just because of the two sources that you linked to aside from the in-depth one. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that coverage of the "subject" only counts if it is the main "subject" of the article is simply a mistake, and is contradicted by CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV. Take the High King's word for it if you don't believe me. And all three of the sources I mentioned meet the CORPDEPTH standard, not just the new one. Newimpartial (talk) 11:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could totally put the whole "main subject of the article" thing aside though and the articles still wouldn't meet either standard. As neither relates to brief mentions. CORPDEPTH has the word "DEPTH" in it for a reason. The guideline even says "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Which you keep ignoring while repeating the whole thing about how the article doesn't have to be only on the company when that was only one part of what was being argued. Just like you ignored me when I asked you how sentences like "They are "fueled by excitement" qualifies as Significant detailed coverage, or for that matter how it isn't "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject." Let alone what's "depth" about it. I'd like an answer. Since 99% of what your claiming passes CORPDEPTH and SIGCOV is exactly that kind of superficial, surface level thing. Or are you going to claim the actual content of the articles don't matter? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, the two articles I am talking about give information about the company's decisions and environment, of the same kind as the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership - the examples given in CORPDEPTH. Four hundred words or more about the decisions made by the developers, their motivations, and the context within which they made those decisions cannot be trivial or incidental coverage by any policy-compliant standard, and both of the articles I mentioned - in addition to the third one - meet that standard. I have already given examples of how this information can be used, such as documenting InnerSloth's plans and hopes around the About Us sequel followed by the decision to cancel the sequel and concentrate on the original property. Newimpartial (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's laughably false and patently wrong by every measure. Anyway, as has been stated about 100 times now and should obvious the article is about the company. Not the game. So, 100% "the decisions made by the developers, their motivations, and the context within which they made those decisions" in relation to the game is trivial in an article about the company. Even if this was the Among Us article though, your assertion would still be extremely laughable. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adamant1, what do you think of the article I suggested to pass WP:SIRS? Of course, a single article won't make InnerSloth notable, but it would certainly be a significant step to confirming InnerSloth's notability if it counts as significant coverage. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All Among Us content is about Among Us. It has nothing to do about the company of InnerSloth except for in ways that WP:NOTINHERITED addresses. For example, if an article talks about Among Us 2 being cancelled without mentioning InnerSloth once, how is that any different from if the article described the cancellation of Among Us 2 in a way that expressed active decisions from InnerSloth? To say "InnerSloth decided to cancel Among Us 2 because Among Us 1 was popular" should not be any differently taken into account then "Among Us 2 was cancelled due to the popularity of Among Us 1." Treating them different is to argue for InnerSloth's notability based on inherited notability of AmongUs, or to argue for notability based off of the company simply being mentioned. This methodology of analyzing articles is the minimum critique of notability needed to avoid violating NOTINHERITED. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement All Among Us content is about Among Us sounds theological to me. If what you mean by it is that content about the company's decisions and the experiences of its personnel with respect to the game (or something like that) count only to the Notability of the game and not the company, I would like to see a policy basis for that please. It certainly isn't in WP:NOTINHERITED or WP:INHERITORG.

And I have never remotely suggested that InnerSloth is Notable because its games are Notable, which is what NOTINHERITED is about. But none of the INHERITED policies suggest that coverage of a company in relation to its products is excluded from demonstrating the Notability of the company, so long as the sources satisfy CORPDEPTH with respect to the company. In fact, a company's decisions in relation to its products are routinely included in the DUE coverage of the company; I have been using Ford Motor Company#Products and services#Trucks as my example above, but Apple Inc.#Products#Apple watch might be even more clear about this. Also, the Geico gecko's assertion that the content of the sources I mentioned would not be "different" - I assume, in the sense of removing information - by removal of the mentions of InnerSloth and its employees seems totally implausible to me for the articles in question. I agree with the principle of the test - that name dropping does not contribute to Notability - but find the Geico gecko's interpretation of how it would apply in this case, err, puzzling. Newimpartial (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that developments on a game isn't about the company. InnerSloth is merely mentioned in the articles about Among Us. InnerSloth actively made these developments and improvements to the game. InnerSloth actively created the game. However, information about the game is simply not information about the company. There needs to be content about the company itself. You make a good point that perhaps the experience of the personnel with respect to the game may be considered content on the topic of InnerSloth, of which only the depth may need to be discussed. Your argument using Ford trucks and Apple watches don't seem to make sense, it seems backwards such that Ford and Apple are more notable than their products, and seems irrelevant (I may simply misunderstand this argument). As of my argument of removing mentions of InnerSloth, I simply make my point that the only reason InnerSloth is being mentioned is because they are the creators of the game. Any single mention could be removed. I do not argue that it would be desirable or plausible for an article to remove all mentions of InnerSloth, but rather that the mentions of the general idea of the company isn't necessary. When the mention of the company is necessary (or very implausible to remove a particular mention) to say what needs to be said (e.g. The company's reaction to the Among Us memes), that's when it is content on the company itself. This isn't something in any particular guideline, but to deem something as content on the company, this seems the best way to do so. I don't see how this methodology could be significantly flawed.

With such a methodololy, content that is more closely related to Among Us can be considered, relative to the Delete and Redirect people have tended to argue. This includes the reaction to the fanbase and the dedicated backstory behind Among Us. Perhaps then, it may be much more likely that another source aside from the IGN source provided by you may qualify as significant coverage. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems that WP:SIRS, in respect to consideration of WP:NOTINHERITED, are the most likely guidelines to require the deletion of this article, and that if these requirements are met, it is likely that this article will remain. If that is true, then I have much higher hopes that we will be able to keep this article after some more discussion.

Does anyone that thinks we should Delete or Redirect the article have any thoughts on this? I believe that this reasoning may be a bit too lenient, but as of the moment can't think of any reason why it would be such. TheGEICOgecko (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Right cite (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple independent, reliable non-trivial sources. And I will parrot the fact that Among Us is clearly notable. Lightburst (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unlike my previous argument, I would like to note that, yes, this company is mostly notable for Among Us, but that case doesn't make it NOT notable. Mojang, for most of its history, was only a developer of Minecraft, and yet they're considered notable. To delete this article would be a double standard. RobotGoggles (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate vote: RobotGoggles (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Redirect to Among Us for now. It has been well demonstrated that Among Us is notable, and that its developers have received coverage through that game. What has not -- insofar as I have seen so far -- been demonstrated is that the notability extends beyond Among Us. That doesn't mean they aren't notable, but that we don't need two articles based on the same coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The well referenced article shows ample valid information about the company that would not fit in an article for just one of their games. Reliable sources mention information about the company itself and the three people created these games. Dream Focus 00:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course now all the inclusionist ARS drones who lack any kind of scrupples about this are going to come along to vote keep like a bunch of lemmings and derail the whole thing. Hopefully the closer considers who's voting and discounts votes that don't make a good policy based arguement (the same goes for delete voters btw. There just isn't a "deletion squad" group though). Also, Right cite posting about the AfD everywhere, mostly in places that are likely to pull in keep voters, after it seemed like the article would probably be deleted or redirected is totally a form of a WP:CANVAS and shouldn't be allowed. The guidelines are pretty clear that "recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group" shouldn't be done. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly assume good faith. When the article was nominated it looked like this. [10] Hardly anything to it. Now it has developed into something far greater. Anyone who voted to delete/redirect it before it was massively expanded, should take another look at it now. Dream Focus 01:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invoking WP:AGF when someone cites a guideline not being followed is a pretty mediocre way to deal with it. I know the WP:CANVASing is to your benefit, but you should still be against it. I would have been totally fine if this was posted to ARS at the beginning of the AfD when it wasn't close to closing and the opinions weren't essentially split or swaying toward merge/delete, but doing it at this point isn't appropriate IMO. Especially since both Rite cite and ARS clearly have a keep agenda and ARS isn't a neutral Wikiproject. The important thing is that the process is fair (whichever way the AfD goes). Which has nothing to do with WP:AGF. It isn't fair to the process to post about the AfD on a pro keep forum a day before the AfD is closing, after vigrious discussion, just because things aren't going the way the person wants them to. Also, a good portion of the delete/merge voters have been involved in the article during the "improvement" process (including me) and still stick by their original votes, because it being "expanded" hasn't actually dealt with the original issues with it and has led to the article having other problems, like being an advert and a fork of Among Us. Plus there's been delete/merge votes since the changes anyway. So, the answer here isn't that everyone should just take another look at the article and change their votes to keep "because expansion." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Comment: It looks very likely that this will be closed a "no consensus", just because it's going to be impossible for the closer to make any sense out of who's saying what. Who wants to deal with all this mess? If people want a closer to pay attention to who's voting and weigh their arguments, then you shouldn't post huge paragraph after paragraph, and stop responding to everyone who says something that you disagree with. It bloats the discussion, until it's impossible for anyone to come up with a rational consensus. Stating your argument concisely and then getting out of the way is key for making sure that your point gets across. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of like how doing a running commentary on how many times someone has commented like you have done would make things hard to parse through. Although, you and the ARS crowd benefit it being hard to read more then anyone else. So, if this does end in no consensus or keep feel free to pat yourself on the backs for a job well done. That said, most of the comments were pretty concise and I'm sure the ones that weren't aren't going to effect the outcome that much anyway. Personally, I'd be totally fine with a no-consensus close. At least then it could be contested or re-nominated easier. As it's clear there has been WP:CANVASing etc etc going on. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading the article, checking all of the references, and reading this very long discussion. It was very clear that the company is not notable and the article subject doesn't pass WP:GNG. Charmk (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's clearly some coverage but no consensus regarding whether it meets GNG. Not sure we are goingt oget there in this discussion. Fenix down (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yousef Al-Obaidly[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:SIGCOV. Potentially notable. scope_creep^Talk 17:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 19:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 28 citations on the article means a certain amount of notability, and to say there is no evidence of notability is just strange delete argument in my opinion with that amount of coverage in the article. I dare say it does feel rather a lot of WP:ROUTINE, a few citations have decent coverage. But the rest, well, but it does build an overall picture of the guy and that's why I've gone with weak keep. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no references. The first three references should provide some kind of web page, review, pdf or document to say he is alive and notable, but there is nothing. Instead the first reference is a profile page of his business, which means its self-published, per WP:NOT For a BLP the reference must be high-quality and satisfy WP:V and WP:BIO at very least. scope_creep^Talk 14:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Saw the deletion notice, I vote keep as the sources need improving but a few do go into depth on his actions e.g. citation 2 (https://www.sportspromedia.com/from-the-magazine/juventus-agnelli-donahoe-nike-al-obaidly-bein-ten-influencers-2020-sports), 23 (http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2019/10/08/worst-nightmare-beins-al-obaidly-tells-sleep-walking-rights-owners-tv-bubble-burst/) and 28 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52375947). Article needs improvement not deletion. Floss With Me (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editor is a WP:SPA. None of these are in-depth, independent, reliable and secondary. These refs above are passing mention only and don't assert WP:SIGCOV. There is lots of coverage but the quality reference are not there. I'll go through the references. scope_creep^Talk 16:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Review of first 10 references:

[11] Profile on his own site. Fails WP:NOT
[12] Ten Influencers 2020. No biographical info in it. Fails WP:BIO. X of Y article. Non-RS.
[Premier League steps up war on piracy to protect TV deals] Paywalled but assuming WP:AFG likely to be a passing mention. BeIN chief executive Yousef Al-Obaidly asked More passing mentions.
[13]. More passing mentions.
[14] Yousef Al-Obaidly has been appointed as the president of French pay-TV channel beIN Sports France. Appointment notice. 3 small paragraphs and Yousef Al-Obaidly mentioned twice. Fails WP:SIRS and WP:BIO.
[15] Yousef Mohammed Al Obaidly. Small profile page. Fails WP:SIRS
[16] Interview page. Talks all about the company. No bio information. No published editorial control.
[17] beIN promotes Yousef Al-Obaidly to CEO Standard announcement. Small interview. Non-RS.
[18] Not backing down: BeIN CEO Yousef Al-Obaidly on the uncomfortable truth of sports broadcast piracy This is very long interview, but has little bio info to satisfy a WP:BLP article, it is all business.
[19] Standard announcement. Non-RS.

The majority of the references are passing mentions, or all about the company. There is 1 big interview, but it is all business. Fails WP:BIO. Lots of WP:MILL BeIN business coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV. The rest of the refs are the same. All branding, no depth. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete: scope_creep's source analysis shows this does not meet WP:SIGCOV. It is critical to strictly follow guidelines for BLPs. // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: seems like we might be creeping towards delete, but not seeing clear consensus right now. A little more input in the last week, but no harm keeping open for one more week in case anyone else wants to input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to beIN Media Group - plausible search term. It is quite clear that this individual lacks significant coverage from reliable sources about them as an individual; the reliable sources cited seem to focus more on the company that he is CEO of rather than himself Spiderone 11:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's analysis of sources. The subject fails the GNG as well as WP:BIO Java Hurricane 12:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Is this a politically motivated deletion request? I fail to see the benefit of this deletion and I don't know why, but scope_creep nomination seems somewhat aggressive in his point of view towards SIGCOV. So Al-Obaidly is mentioned in many of the citations provided by name. The BBC one writes

"The chief executive of the Qatar-based TV giant beIN Sport, Yousef al-Obaidly, has written to the chairs of top-flight clubs about the deal, which could see the Magpies bought by a Saudi-backed consortium.
In the letter, Al-Obaidly accuses the Saudi Arabian government of the "facilitation of the near three-year theft of the Premier League's commercial rights - and in turn your club's commercial revenues - through its backing of the huge-scale beoutQ pirate service".
"It is no exaggeration to say that the future economic model of football is at stake," added Al-Obaidly, who has also written to Premier League chief executive Richard Masters."

The BBC are writing direct quotations and naming the person for it. The businessyear.com interviewed and profile the man, with Sportspromedia.com. Seriously, a google search provides the guy exists and gives credence to notability. I've seen far worse articles kept. There are now 31 citations, it's not about what each citation says or does, it's about building the story, using everything together that creates the content. So I am sorry, but this is just plain targeted deletion and I don't like that. Govvy (talk) 13:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the analysis of the first ten sources shows that biographical notability has not been established. SITH (talk) 13:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Spiderone. Not notable, but alternatives to deletion must be considered, and when one is available, it should be taken. Smartyllama (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to pass WP:GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp: Can you explain why it is worth keep, particularly when the consensus is moving towards delete? scope_creep^Talk 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am not seeing an appetite for deletion here, rather I see discussion on how the content of the article might be preserved and organised. Some sources have been presented to support the appellation of 'Little Switzerland' for Lynton and Lynmouth and I note that the nominator indicates support for a suggestion put forward for reorganising the content. I’m going to close this as keep and invite editors to continue this discussion elsewhere and to work on this article as part of the normal process of editing to resolve any issues. Pinging participants @The Parson's Cat, Andrew Davidson, Crouch, Swale, and Thincat: Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Switzerland (Lynton & Lynmouth)[edit]

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

I have not been able to find any reliable sources that support the idea that the area around Lynton and Lynmouth is known as Little Switzerland, suggesting that the term is not widely known and unlikely to meet WP:NOTABLE. There are separate articles on Lynton and Lynmouth. The original Wikipedia article dates from November 2015‎. The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have just gone through and followed up all the references in the article, making sure they are complete and doing verification checks. HTH The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Little Switzerland name is reasonably well-sourced within the article. And the villages are like a twin city, sharing the same local administration, and so an article about this is appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: Thanks, Andrew. I felt that the references in the article didn’t support the statements - for example, the evidence cited for Victorian use of the term ‘Little Switzerland’ was a pair of advertising sites, none of which said anything about this. How do you see things please? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe merge into one of the settlements or alternatively to a new Lynton and Lynmouth? It seems odd to have an article on a descriptive term for a place rather than describing it in the place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale:. Thanks - what do you think of moving the verifiable component - which seems small but documents the poets - to the Exmoor article? The Parson's Cat (talk) 07:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Exmoor appears to be in relation to it, the actual content appears to only relate to Lynton and Lynmouth. There doesn't appear to be anything that isn't about these 2 places in the article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really wish this wasn't being discussed under threat of deletion because there is a lot for discussion other than keep or delete. I remember what at the time (1952) was called the Lynton and Lynmouth disaster (which I still see mentioned on Google) but which WP calls the Lynmouth Flood. I've never heard of "Little Switzerland". So some sort of merge ought to be possible as C,S suggests. Thincat (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: As well as the Lynmouth flood article, there is a strong mention in the Lynmouth article. (There's a Lynton article too, and a current discussion about merging them.) What information were you hoping to see kept? If it's not there, I'm sure that's a possibility?

I'm entirely bemused why anyone should think it a good idea to nominate this article for deletion one day and, the day after, propose a merger into this same topic. Never mind, what happens at AFD is essentially arbitrary. I have other things to think about and will do nothing while deletion may be imminent. Thincat (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: I don't see it that way. My understanding is that here: we're discussing here whether to delete an article saying an area of Devon is known as Little Switzerland. In my mind, the question here is to whether there's verifiable evidence of notable usage of the term Little Switzerland.) This is separate from the merge question - this page isn't involved in that. The Parson's Cat (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase is certainly used. See Devon’s Little Switzerland, which is published by Devon County Council and so reasonably authoritative. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew - that looks to me like promotional material from a tourist board, created on their behalf by a third-party organisation. I wouldn't see it as authorititive - I'd see it as coming under WP:QUESTIONABLE. I agree that some local authority information could be viewed as authoritative, but I don't think this is it. Are there any sources that would count as reliable sources as per WP:RS? The Parson's Cat (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there is a conspiracy, led by Bill Bryson, to say the area is (or was) called "Little Switzerland"[20][21] Or maybe these are also not to be regarded as authoritative or responsible along with the visitor guides to be deprecated.[22][23] And, by the way, keep Thincat (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your first source - which actually seems to be a chapter by Tristram Hunt - does seem to be our first good source, and I think the second one is reasonable, too. Well done for finding these. The Parson's Cat (talk) 21:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this was my encyclopedia I would (1) close down this AFD, (2) move Little Switzerland (Lynton & Lynmouth) to Lynton and Lynmouth over the redirect, (3) merge in from Lynton and Lynmouth material that is relevant to both villages, (4) give mention and links out to Lynton, Lynmouth, Lynmouth Flood and Lynton and Lynmouth Cliff Railway (and others?). I would retain the Little Switzerland dab page. But if certain people turn up here and vote delete all this work would be undone so it should be kept on hold for now. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That could be the outcome of this AfD I would be 100% behind this solution. The Parson's Cat (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Knox[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL because she has never played in a WP:FPL or for a senior national team. WP:GNG is failed also. Dougal18 (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NFOOTY,. BIO and GNG by a long shot. Java Hurricane 12:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no indication of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to pass the GNG bar. She doesn't meet any of the yardstick criteria at NFOOTY either. SITH (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Almost all of the online coverage is routine, and the non-routine coverage, such as [24], is not in-depth. Jogurney (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
very week keep just seems little in google but no transfer market ID's, I think little bit pass GNG, (D grade), (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 10:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless I am missing something, does not seem to meet WP:NFOOTY and no sign of passing alternate notability criteria. Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lalaland (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic AI startup scope_creep^Talk 18:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - routine coverage for a start-up company, many of the sources have issues. 1292simon (talk) 09:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Adequate coverage in cited sources, specifically: [25], [26], [27]. Their Philips Innovation Award is also compelling. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Startup companies are very unlikely to be notable in a year. See Chemcon, red link, but came earlier than Lala land, say 2015. Computer age management services is a red link also and came as early as chemcon.Acidic Carbon (Talk) (Organic compounds) 13:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is definitely a borderline case however I am of the opinion that sustained, significant coverage has not yet been achieved in the requisite depth to establish corporate notability per my source analysis below. SITH (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment by SITH (talk)

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
^[1]	Assuming good faith, no obvious red flags.	? Appears to be an industry source, never come across it before however.	~ Significant coverage of launch, not necessarily indicative of lasting notability.	? Unknown
^[2]	Own site.	~ For some things, yes. For claims of notability, not so much.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
^[3]	Assuming good faith, no obvious red flags.	? Appears to be industry source, cannot assess reliability as I have never encountered it.	One point in a bulletin-style round-up about its funding launch.	✘ No
^[4]	Again, no red flags.	? As before, unsure.	~ Again, more news on the 50,000 euros, very much one-event coverage.	? Unknown
^[5]	Testimonial, not significant coverage.	? Nature of piece gives pause.	By nature of being a testimonial.	✘ No
^[6]	See source 1.	? See source 1.	~ See source 1.	? Unknown
^[7]	~ Phillips press release about competition winner.	~ Partially, but as they are funding Lalaland, potentially not.	~ Again, just more news on initial funding, nothing lasting.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

References

^ https://siliconcanals.com/news/amsterdam-startup-lalaland-funding-from-asif-ventures/
^ https://lalaland.ai/about-us/
^ https://www.sprout.nl/artikel/nieuwsupdate/oprichter-daan-kersten-verlaat-additive-industries-12-miljoen-voor-sociaal
^ https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/economie/business/artikel/5128791/dit-zijn-de-winnaars-van-de-philips-innovation-award
^ https://www.iamsterdam.com/en/business/key-sectors/creative/testimonials/lalaland
^ https://siliconcanals.com/news/amsterdam-startup-lalaland-funding-from-asif-ventures/
^ https://www.philips.nl/a-w/about/news/archive/standard/about/news/articles/2020/20200619-philips-innovation-award-opent-veel-deuren-voor-jonge-innovatieve-ondernemers.html

Delete My analysis of the above table-is that none of the sources are both substantial and reliable. I do not see the awards as being one that confers notability , so neither does the announcement that it has been awarded. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur with the analysis above and I am unable to locate any other references that may be used to establish notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not show convincing notability for an encyclopedic entry. Northern Escapee (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, maybe WP:TOOSOON --Devokewater (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also fails WP:GNG. Zing^(Talk!) 04:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ebro Foods. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Riviana Foods[edit]

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

Non-notable food brand. Being one of several accused of cultural appropriation does not make one notable. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the subject is not notable for a stand alone encyclopedia entry. Instead of deletion it should be merged with Ebro Foods, the parent company. Northern Escapee (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2020 UTC

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree, the subject should be merged with Ebro Foods, the parent company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In my view, this discussion has received adequate, guideline-based input to counter its relisting. This discussion has not led to a consensus for a particular action to be taken regarding the article. Also of note is that promotional content was asserted (in edit summaries) to have been removed from the article on 9 October 2020 (UTC) in these two edits: diff, diff. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Wallis[edit]

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

YouTuber who falls below the WP:GNG. Speedy was placed but removed several times by IP editors. Taking it to AFD. Note that I have trimmed out rafts of self promotional material so you might want to check older versions. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: although I concur with nom insofar as Wallis doesn't appear to meet NWEB or GNG, the more pressing issue is promotionalism: the state of the Steve Wallis#Career section, even now, is above the G11 bar IMO. SITH (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: reading the notability guidelines this seems to be perfectly legitimate. Just because a few wikipedians haven't heard of this person doesn't mean they aren't notable. Yes, the article is a stub and needs work. (pratfall effect? that seems like a user making things up) but that's not the issue, the issue is notability and reading the linked guide there can be no doubt this individual qualifies as notable. Kode (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep: (It was I who nominated the article for speedy deletion.) Since then, and indeed since this AfD nomination, the article had been cleaned up and the referencing has been expanded a bit. On the one hand, this is still yet another YouTuber amongst many; on the other hand, the coverage in Vice (magazine) and CTV Television Network seems to minimally meet the letter of the law. Dorsetonian (talk) 20:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received significant coverage in reliable sources (Vice, Medium, CBC, CTVNews). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: What is the potential coverage in reliable sources here?

1 is a Vice article that appears to be a human-interest story about "a YouTube rabbit hole" the author went down. I accept this as an RS, but only a weak one that would need ~~several~~ multiple others to constitute WP:BASIC.
2, on CTV.com, is another human-interest story, but only on a local news network for Edmonton. This appears to be a story on a local person getting 15 minutes of fame on the internet. I would only count this as an RS if it were on a national Canadian news network.
3, I wouldn't consider Miniflix (a subpublication of Medium) to be an RS either. See Wikipedia's list of perennial discussions, including 3 about Medium.
4, a 7-minute CBC radio story, on Radio Active with Adrienne Pan, seems too short and cursory to count as "significant coverage."

A brief search on Google News doesn't show any other RS, so per WP:BASIC, I vote to delete. If one more article comes out comparable to the Vice article, I'll be on the fence, and if two come out, I'll change my vote to keep. I also encourage editors to take a look at WP:NYOUTUBE. Jmill1806 (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmill1806: what about WP:NYOUTUBE, exactly? Neither in the article nor in this AfD are we referring to YT as a primary source to establish notability. We're all discussing secondary sources, as we should be. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 23:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to use NYOUTUBE to make my case. I'm just pointing to it as a resource of potential interest to you and others. There are some interesting guidelines and a list of Youtuber AfDs. Jmill1806 (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some of the sources cited indicate that the subject is fairly notable but the author should do more to build on it. Northern Escapee (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not convinced that there is enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish that this YouTuber is particularly notable. Promotional tone. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article is good enough to pass WP:BASIC with the sources indicated above. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the articles in Vice and on CTV are both examples of SIGVOC in reliable sources, therefore meaning that he passes WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obed Kofi Sam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:NBIO. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and doesn't seem to have the coverage required to pass GNG Spiderone 17:20, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gorman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:NBIO. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:39, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one more BLP about a footballer which fails NFOOTY. Java Hurricane 12:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 13:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Govvy (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maja Dimitrijević[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:NBIO. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as amateur player unless it can be shown that she has international caps. Geschichte (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NFOOTY-failing footballer biography. Java Hurricane 12:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:47, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion or evidence of notability Spiderone 09:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filip Stanković (footballer, born 2002)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:NBIO. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for now he is just a youth player. Geschichte (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - currently fails GNG; may well become notable later but also may not Spiderone 18:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suwit Paipromrat[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first two citations already in the article are in-depth profile pieces by Goal.com and Siam Sport, both reliable sources, thus satisfying the GNG. --Paul_012 (talk) 02:42, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The one by Goal.com looks SIGCOV but the Siam one is an interview from top to bottom, there isn't coverage, much less SIGCOV, even in between the bits. The rest have no qualifying coverage either. Since this is a footballer who doesn't even meet the often laughed-at lax requirements of NFOOTY, we need to incontrovertibly establish GNG. I am not sure that two sources would meet the "multiple" requirement for someone who doesn't meet an SNG, and we've got just one. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair analysis of the source, but I'd say whether a subject meets the GNG should be viewed independently of the SNG. A single piece of coverage is probably already more than that received by half of the Thai subjects who pass NFOOTY, which I agree is overly lax. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no footy ID and coverage is very low for GNG. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 11:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely fails NFOOTY and doesn't look sufficient enough for GNG Spiderone 19:08, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Onyekachi Amadi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY. Fails WP:NBIO. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
week keep no more to support the article, if more reliable source can be found would be better to keep. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 10:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and lacks the coverage to pass GNG Spiderone 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 07:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Cyrus Kalu[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY, fails WP:BIO. (NPP action) Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 09:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 09:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass any GNG. (F5pillar---/ ^{'Messager🖋📩}) 10:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTY and lacks the coverage to pass GNG Spiderone 18:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Gilgit River. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghizer River[edit]

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

This article is about a synonym of Gilgit River. Similar to Hindoo, we should not have articles about synonyms. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy merge to Gilgit River. This nomination shouldn't have been necessary in the first place, but apparently nobody is looking at merge requests. There's practically no content here beyond that already in the target article, and each lists the other as a synonym. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is an obvious merge, so can be achieved by bold editing without any discussion being needed. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Star (character)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFICTION and worse, this is one of those 'bad disambigs' - apparently there are several characters that share the same name, none of which appears notable in my BEFORE. Pure plot+list of appearances=fancruft. Previously prodded by User:Robert McClenon on similar grounds. No valid merge or redirect target I see. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:56, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not much has changed in two years. If the characters were notable, a real disambiguation page could be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Overall topic and the individual components do not meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per reasoning by nom. // Timothy :: talk 22:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 New Democratic Party of Quebec#Leaders of the NPD-Québec. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 23:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raphaël Fortin[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:NPOL. Minor provincial party leader with few references. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New Democratic Party of Quebec, without prejudice against recreation should new sources on the subject emerge. I was going to suggest examining French-language media to see if there is more substantive coverage of Fortin there - and there are a few articles such as this profile on Radio-Canada ICI[28], this HuffPo article[29] and this article in Le Soleil[30] but I also see the French Wikipedia doesn't have an article of Fortin - if he's not notable enough for them it's hard to see how he'd fit the notability bar here. Sowny (talk) 23:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against creation of a redirect to the party afterward. There was once a time when we just routinely handed leaders of minor unrepresented political parties an automatic notability freebie for being political party leaders, regardless of their sourceability or lack thereof, but that's been deprecated for quite a while now. The test that such a leader has to pass today require much more reliable source coverage about his work in the leadership than this is showing, and just being able to offer one or two sources demonstrating the technical fact that he was selected as leader is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to New_Democratic_Party_of_Quebec#Leaders_of_the_NPD-Québec, essentially merging the rationales of Sowny and Bearcat. Not clearly notable in his own right (and there's not a whole lot to merge) but I don't see the need to delete this uncontroversial article before redirecting. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to New Democratic Party of Quebec#Leaders of the NPD-Québec per AleatoryPonderings. The Quebec NDP received a little over .5% in the last election. He does not seem to meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munnar Ramesh[edit]

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

Article that I created, but there is only one source.^[1] TamilMirchi (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://tamil.samayam.com/tamil-cinema/movie-news/actor-munnar-ramesh-finished-his-100-movie/articleshow/66868366.cms

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for someone that has been in a lot of films there is a remarkable lack of coverage about them Spiderone 09:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:40, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources have been added.TamilMirchi (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Kindly do not close discussion as many sources have been added.TamilMirchi (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TamilMirchi, What do you mean by "do not close"? ─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Seven sources for over twenty listed acting credit. Lacks verifiability, the foundation Wiki is built on. Fails WP:BIO. Sunshine1191 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These sources^[1]^[2] cover the subject in detail. Wikipedia's guidelines state about how detailed the sources are and not the number. Is there a way to remove my deletion nomination? Sources exist and it was a mistake to nominate the page. TamilMirchi (talk) 16:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strike through your nomination with a note below it saying ‘nomination withdrawn' (and sign it). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:G3 (blatant hoax) (non-admin closure) Java Hurricane 12:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pak Jazeera[edit]

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

There is no such island anywhere in Pakistan called "Pak Jazeera". The article and its content had remained uncited for years. It seems like a hoax at best. Mar4d (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mar4d (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax per WP:G3. A good find, and I would add that the initial version of the article, where the author claims the island as the site of "many housing schemes" and "a tourist attraction for many tourists" seems wildly implausible as I was unable to find any mentions of "Pak Jazeera" in online sources -- Dps04 (talk) 04:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. Its pretty lazy to just drop a link to google at the end of the discussion and say keep per that when other editors have made a real effort to discuss and analyse the sources available. I'm not therefore relisting as I might in another discussion where sourcing had not been as well examined.

For the actual close, the redirect seems a valid compromise given the strong arguments on both sides, albeit the delete analysis around the context of the coverage seems more compelling. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khemed[edit]

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

May not meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirements. Perhaps redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. Goustien (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect - The topic currently lack real world commentary needed to fulfill WP:WAF and meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's false. The article contains extensive linkage and parallels between the fictional and real geography. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? WP:WAF is a writing guideline. Unless there is a GNG or copyright issue, it has nothing to do with deletion, or whether or not something is kept. If something is poorly sourced or poorly written, that's generally not an AfD problem. AfD is not clean up, and WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE are pertinent.

It amazes me how someone who has been active on Wikipedia for so long can lack a basic understanding of deletion procedure. WP:DELREASON exists for exactly this purpose. Dark knight 2149 03:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic has received adequate attention in sources such as Tintin: Hergé and His Creation and The Metamorphoses of Tintin, Or, Tintin for Adults and Tintin: The Complete Companion. It is therefore notable and so should not be deleted per our policies including WP:ATD; WP:BITE; WP:CENSOR; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a kid I grow up reading Tin Tin books and in fact it was my first ever book to read other than school books, so I may be a little biased, but I also know a lot about this subject. Tin Tin is a huge comical character in the World, much bigger in France, Europe and Middle East than the US. In fact the popularity can be compared to Superman and Batman. So if Gotham City can have a page, there is nothing wrong to have such a page here. Wiki is supposed to be an online Encyclopedia for research purposes, so it is good to have this. Expertwikiguy (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 6#Khemed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments, especially Expertwikiguy's comment noting its popularity in other countries; Wikipedia is already extremely US centric, it doesn't need to be more so by deleting this. WestCD (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The social and political structures in Khemed are discussed, along with Syldavia and Borduria, in Sovereignty Conflicts and International Law and Politics: A Distributive Justice Issue (Taylor & Francis, 2017). This is extradiegetic analysis that demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Toughpigs: Could you quote parts that you think go beyond a plot summary? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of it is plot summary. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see an assertion, not a refutation. All I see is a plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. All content is pure plot and the cited sources don't go beyond it, despite assertions to the contrary, no quote has been provided that shows existence of a non-plot summary analysis, nor does the article contain a shred of a reception/analysis/etc. PS. The French article has a small seciton about 'sources of inspirastion' fr:Khemed#Sources_d'inspirations_d'Hergé but I don't think it is enough, through if translated that would could be merged to the entry about this place in the linked list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep I don't see how the book linked by Toughpigs could be called a plot summary per se. It is used as an example for international conflict resolution. Not all pages are available (at least to me) but it looks like it provides enough about the situation for the author to explain how his ideas would apply. The rest of the sources seem okay, but that one puts it over the WP:N bar for me. Hobit (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a fine source for the main article or maybe an article on like the "World or politics of Tintin," but it adds nothing to the topic of the fictional country in terms of real world commentary. It's just an analysis of the fictional context with no emphasis on any of the countries. TTN (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. Fails WP:N. The commentary quoted above is about the Tintin books and their (fictional and real) politics, which are notable, not about the fictional location as such, which is not. Khemet is Hergé's pastiche of a stereotypical Arab emirate. How this culture is portrayed in Tintin is a matter of encyclopedic interest, but is best covered in context in the articles about the books and the series. What we have here is entirely in-universe description of the setting, i.e. fancruft fit only for fan wikis, but not Wikipedia (see MOS:FICTIONAL). Sandstein 09:40, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~ Merge and redirect and comment This info is fairly thin, but there are possibilities to beef up the context. For example, in Land of Black Gold#Third version: 1971, it turns out that this location was originally meant to be British Mandate for Palestine, but was changed at the request of British publishers. Perhaps this is covered in more detail in one of the Herge biographies or Tintin compendiums - I don't have access to the source used in the Black Gold article for that info. Also, there's nothing about how scholars and biographers interpret Herge's depiction of this fictitious country and its residents in the face of his other thinly veiled biases. Lastly, there's nothing about the role the country plays in the plot of the two books it appears in. Additional info in those areas might send this into weak keep territory, but right now it's a ~~weak delete~~ merge and redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Theodoros a suitable compromise?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 02:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: It is to me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Redirect is not a good compromise for Keep. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above comments and also because it contributes to a more complete and detailed understanding of Herge's universe and his era's Western perceptions of "the exotic" and "the other." --MaeseLeon (talk) 04:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of this sort is sadly presented in the article, and nobody displayed good sources to use - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Adventures of Tintin locations - I pretty much agree with Sandstein's analysis of the article and the proposed sources. However, as a valid target exists, I would think a Redirect might make more sense here than a straight deletion. If someone wanted to add any potential sourced information to that target article, that's fine, but as the current information in the article is purely in-universe plot summaries, most of which is not sourced to reliable, secondary sources, there is really nothing that would merit a Merge. Rorshacma (talk) 23:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - see above - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good scholarly commentary and academic analysis from researchers and writers at Google Scholar results. Right cite (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus among those who make policy-based arguments is that the subject does not meet even the relatively liberal subject-specific notability guideline. This closure overturns a previous mistaken non-admin closure, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 October 11. Sandstein 10:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Dock[edit]

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

Non-notable former tennis player who fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG, all the sources I found are either about Alex de Minaur or are just database entries. Iffy★Chat -- 22:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a read of Wikipedia:Notability (sports). While it detailed criteria for both players and managers in many sports, it left out tennis coaches. Cindy Dock fails the player criteria in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Tennis, how about as a coach? The question I want to raise is, how successful a player has to be for his/her coach to qualify? There is no guideline on it. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Grand Slam quarterfinal or above do it? If that's the case, Cindy Dock is not a lone case. Günter Bresnik, coach of Dominic Thiem; Carl Chang (tennis), coach of Michael Chang; Sven Groeneveld, coach of Maria Sharapova, etc. By the way, I don't think this AfD is supposed to deal with a guideline-wise broad conversation like this. Is there a better place? Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From the Alex de Minaur article it appears thst Dock was his coach until he was 9, while the others you have mentioned have been coaches of top professional players during their times as top professional players. Also, the place to discuss possible notability guidelines for tennis coaches are at WT:TENNIS and WT:NSPORTS Iffy★Chat -- 09:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She played in an international professional tennis competition. Which should be enough to pass NSPORTS. Although I'm not a fan of keeping badly sourced articles either and if I had my way NSPORTS wouldn't allow for them, the guidelines are the guidelines. They should be stricter though, but this isn't the place to litigate it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NTENNIS already has guidelines on which type of tournaments require participation, and which ones require winning the tournament to pass the guideline. She never won any of the $25k events she played, she lost in the 1st round of the only $50k event she played, and failed to qualify for the only WTA event she played. She doesn't meet the guidelines, which is why we're here. Iffy★Chat -- 09:36, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: NTennis speaks of Singles and Doubles, and a $25,000 ITF Women's tournament. She made it to ITF Women's Circuit $50,000-category in Thessalonki, Greece, so qualifies. As to the above comment, NSPORTS is hopless, all you need to do is play one First Class Cricket match and you qualify. Yes, this not the place to scream about NSPORTS. -- Whiteguru (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She has played International sports competition. Passes NSPORTS. Priyanjali singh (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per wp:sportsbasic, enough notable sports figure.--☆★Mamushir (✉✉) 16:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Obvious notable figure in tennise. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to badger the keep voters, but what is your basis for claiming that this person is notable? I've already explained why her tennis career doesn't give her a presumption of notability and nobody's presented a source that can pass GNG. Iffy★Chat -- 08:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her career as a tennis coach attracts much media attention. Whether she deserves that attention is beyond our scope. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a bit more time looking for some media attention today and came up empty, can you provide me with an example that meets the requirements of WP:GNG? Iffy★Chat -- 07:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her achievements do not suffice for WP:NTENNIS; she played on ITF woman 50K, but did not get a title. Coverage on her is limited and largely WP:ROUTINE, so does not meet WP:SPORTSBASIC. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 18:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep this is a difficult one. She does not exactly fit in the WP:NTENNIS guideline but perhaps the WP:NSPORTS. I think there should be a place for her in the encyclopedia WP:BARE Wm335td (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She does not even closely fit NSPORT or WikiProjectTennis guidelines. It's possible she could fit GNG but that is not my area of knowledge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could use more input on whether the subject meets NTENNIS or the GNG. Sources for these claims would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 01:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She meats no Tennis Project Guidelines or NTENNIS Guidelines at all. You have to remember that tennis has many levels, just like baseball. Tennis has the WTA Tour level (which is everything you see on tv). And just like major league baseball, just playing any event you are notable. You are also notable if you play at the Olympics or Federation Cup (also the major leagues). Then you have the ITF level minor league, today $50,000+ tournaments but when she played it was $25,000+ tournaments. Less than those amounts are the minor-minor leagues... professional but lots of kids playing for $100. To be notable in the minor league a player must "win" the event. That's a pretty low threshold and she didn't do it in singles or doubles. She was a on match and out type player in the minor and minor-minor leagues. Not notable for anything tennis related however I can't speak to her general notability. Sometimes a person becomes notable just for spilling a cup of coffee. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Wm335td. Deus et lex (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are some of the worst keep votes I've ever seen. WP:NTENNIS is plainly NOT met, appearing in a 50k tour event is not sufficient. I don't see coverage that meets WP:GNG either; she isn't even mentioned in the SMH reference. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew T. Miltenberg[edit]

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

The subject is a lawyer who represents people in cases that might themselves be newsworthy (and so he is mentioned), but I cannot find significant discussion of the subject himself in multiple reliable sources. Furthermore the article is not written in a rather non-neutral (if not promotional) tone (for which an earlier version of the article - Andrew Miltenberg - was deleted). ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 01:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable lawyer, paid for spam. Praxidicae (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable lawyer. No redeeming features to support an article. scope_creep^Talk 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Knowledge Network. (non-admin closure) Pamzeis (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Kids[edit]

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

It's a children's programming block on a public TV channel. Cut out the massively long and crufty list and there is nothing here to suggest WP:GNG at all. Salt might be needed when deleted or redirected: this article is, unbelievably, pending changes protected! Raymie (t • c) 00:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 00:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 00:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect to Knowledge Network - Any information could be covered on that article. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Knowledge Network. All unsourced and fails WP:GNG. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 13:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wyverin Entertainment[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. No sources outside 1 or 2 local features. Article seems primarily promotional. Elliot ^{Talk to me} 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Elliot ^{Talk to me} 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elliot ^{Talk to me} 00:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Not notable, Promoting Reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baby come (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is totally promotional. Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:NOTPROMO._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, this is the author of the article here. I gave my best to make this wiki page about the mobile game developer, whose games I am currently playing, as neutral as possible. I keep seeing comments about it being too promotional. Do you have any specific suggestions on how this can be improved? I already deleted a lot of references and edited some of the text. Any idea on what about it infringes WP:NOTPROMO? Tibikus (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tibikus - Sorry about that. I appreciate your work now since you have cleared things up. In the future, it is best to stick to secondary sources which don’t appear to advertise the game in a biased manner. Foxnpichu (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Foxnpichu Thank you for the feedback, I will try to make my future articles less biased. I will also work more on this one in case it survives AfD. If it doesn't, I will respect the decision and will not try to restore it. Tibikus (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Car Rentals[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references in the article are invariably based on company announcements and PR. References fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Happy to revisit this nomination if anyone finds good references. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence with this one. I'm not sure if the nominator noted down the previous AfD and looked at the sources that were provided, however since then I cannot find any sort of major press release regarding the firm. Nightfury 13:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nightfury since the date of the last AfD in 2015, the WP:NCORP guidelines have clarified what is meant by "Significant Coverage" WP:CORPDEPTH and "Independent Content" WP:ORGIND in paricular. Therefore unlike the previous AfD, references based on company announcements or mentions-in-passing, etc, are no longer deemed to establish the notability of organizations/companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion:? While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was keep.. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2015-01 ✓ keep.

Logs: 2014-12 ↻ restored, 2014-12 ✗ deleted, 2007-07 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a notable company. Spleodrach (talk) 10:48, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The current sources in the article are either typical corporate announcements, PR, or articles about a different subject, GoCar, whose notability is not inherited by ICR. Some additional references to ICR are out there in the news, as a commenter in the previous deletion discussion raised, but these are all trivial mentions of ICR within an article on a different subject, or reporting on typical corporate activities like annual performance - not substantial enough to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The least trivial of these, which was provided in the previous deletion discussion, is Thrifty owners agree to bail out rival ICR - Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, May 16, 2010, which perhaps suggests a bit of notability but certainly not enough to meet the GNG. I did encounter some more substantial articles on the owner (?), Colm Menton, who might themselves be notable ([31], [32]). -M.Nelson (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharman DiVono[edit]

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

I have heard of her but she does not seem to pass WP:BIO. And because the single source in the article refers to a book, a very careful Gsearch didn't turn up anything other than a brief mention of her name. (I didn't notify the article creator because s/he retired in 2009.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 00:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that she apparently wrote quite a few books as Victor Appleton, a publisher house name. See ISFDB. pburka (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://kungumam.co.in/VArticalinnerdetail.aspx?id=9753&id1=40&issue=20191101
^ http://kungumam.co.in/VArticalinnerdetail.aspx?id=9028&id1=40&issue=20181130

[1] ttps://www.primerahora.com/noticias/puerto-rico/notas/desolado-el-zoologico-el-arca-de-noe-en-quebradillas/

[2] ttps://siliconcanals.com/news/amsterdam-startup-lalaland-funding-from-asif-ventures/

[3] ttps://lalaland.ai/about-us/

[4] ttps://www.sprout.nl/artikel/nieuwsupdate/oprichter-daan-kersten-verlaat-additive-industries-12-miljoen-voor-sociaal

[5] ttps://www.rtlnieuws.nl/economie/business/artikel/5128791/dit-zijn-de-winnaars-van-de-philips-innovation-award

[6] ttps://www.iamsterdam.com/en/business/key-sectors/creative/testimonials/lalaland

[7] ttps://siliconcanals.com/news/amsterdam-startup-lalaland-funding-from-asif-ventures/

[8] ttps://www.philips.nl/a-w/about/news/archive/standard/about/news/articles/2020/20200619-philips-innovation-award-opent-veel-deuren-voor-jonge-innovatieve-ondernemers.html

[9] ttps://tamil.samayam.com/tamil-cinema/movie-news/actor-munnar-ramesh-finished-his-100-movie/articleshow/66868366.cms

[10] ttp://kungumam.co.in/VArticalinnerdetail.aspx?id=9753&id1=40&issue=20191101

[11] ttp://kungumam.co.in/VArticalinnerdetail.aspx?id=9028&id1=40&issue=20181130

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[1]

[1]

[2]