Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 February	2 March >

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with bipolar disorder

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

Recently an IP posted a proposed deletion of the page. I've removed the proposed deletion and am opening up a formal deletion discussion, as I feel that at the very least this is the type of thing that should be discussed. Here is their post:

"See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders as to why it should be deleted. There are no objective medical tests for bipolar disorder, and the article has a huge potential to cause major WP:BLP issues."

I feel like a formal discussion will lay any concerns at rest one way or another. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was discussed previously at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder, but was in 2005, before many policies came into play. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Valid list article as many sources discuss famous people with bipolar disorder. This AfD is part of a series of driveby bad-faith deletion nominations by Special:Contributions/2606:5580:30C:7F9E:0:0:0:0/64. All of them should be kept. Binksternet (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Binksternet: What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders? It seems to not be too much different. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My thought was that this could put rest to the concerns. I wasn't aware that he did this out of bad faith. Also, IP - please don't respond to every post. It's kind of heavy handed, as one post at the bottom of the page will do. This could be seen as harassment by these editors, as it's a bit much. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. I got too carried away. I will take your other suggestions into account. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep provided that all entries on this list are well and properly sourced, I see no policy-based reason that this should be deleted. Natureium (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureium: What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders? It seems to not be too much different. 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Having reviewed most of the cited sources on this page and familiarised myself with the Wikipedia guidelines for biographies, dismissing this proposal is obvious to me.Unoc (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Unoc: Should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders be undeleted then? 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment Sorry for replying too many times to other editors. However, for editors that think this page should be kept, should Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders also have been kept? 2606:5580:30C:7F9E:D05B:81E5:63E3:29CD (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Keep the discussion on this item regardless of similar lists. – The Grid (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Worth keeping as per WP:STAND Legion X (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete this seems like a BLP violation for the living people, and is likely speculation by recent historians about the dead. I see no need for this article and a strong BLP reason to delete this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By that reasoning nothing is needed.★Trekker (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is something that should clearly exist. Anything that is speculation can simply be removed if that is an issue.★Trekker (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Haw Haw

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FocusVision

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

This page is a festival of corporate peacockery, close to a full house of buzzword bingo. Even in the earliest versions of the article, before all the promotional edits, I don't see any evidence that the topic meets WP:GNG. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nom is right about the promo, see [1] as the pure PR version before I trimmed most of it. Bakazaka (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks for the trim. But looking at the sources in your trimmed version[2], I don't see much RS coverage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. Just trying to focus our vision, so to speak. Bakazaka (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Originally created by a WP:COI WP:SPA, with edits shortly afterwards by another WP:SPA. Aside from provenance questions, though, routine announcement coverage (including this about a recent company strategy announcement) is not sufficient to establish notability, nor is a bronze Stevie award in a specific category inherently notable. There is summary coverage in a 1998 book but stated as being based on primary information. Enough to verify this as a company going about its business, but fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andrei Rublev (film). ansh 666 07:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Passion According to Andrei

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

This article is essentially a WP:DUPLICATE of another very large GA-rated WP article called Andrei Rublev (film) with only tiny differences as shown by the article comparison tool (Comparison of The Passion According to Andrei and Andrei Rublev (film)).

The article author refuses to add references to support these small differences in this version of the film, or merge their small differences into the main article (they reverted an earlier merge by myself months ago). Their main reply to the lack of references for these small differences is to "see the film" (per Talk Page). The author granted his copy-article a GA-rating (since removed [3]). The references in The Passion According to Andrei are simply copied from the Andrei Rublev (film) WP article.

The Andrei Rublev (film), is a notable with lots of WP:GNG. There are references to calling it The Passion According to Andrei, but it is the Andrei Rublev cut that is the official and notable version (and chosen by the Director himself, per the Andrei Rublev article). Hence a redirect (and merging any content, but only if referenced) to Andrei Rublev is proposed. The Andrei Rublev article already discusses the The Passion According to Andrei cut (with references to support). I could not find any WP:RS that would support the various small edits the article author has made (probably why they have avoided producing any). There are no RS discussing the tiny differences between these two copies, so the The Passion According to Andrei article is either WP:OR, WP:POV or just false.

Having persevered with this author for months now, awaiting references or some resolution of this situation, am now using AfD to see if we can resolve this and get community consensus on a Redirect to Andrei Rublev (film); and merge, to the extent any of these small edits are true/supportable/referenceable. Britishfinance (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been reviewed as a valid article by Wikipedia and should be retained. In this case, these two films have two different chapter outlines and were released in different years. The first film was made in 1966. The second film was made and released in 1969. The Criterion Collection also released both films as separate films as a further indication of these being two separate films. The requesting editor Britishfinance appears to be upset that after posting this on the Talk page some weeks ago that no other editors have supported him. Similarly Britishfinance does not appear to have seen either one of these two films. Since the editorial board at the Criterion Collection has released these 2 films as two separate films with different titles, both of these articles at Wikipedia should be retained. The new article has already been reviewed by Wikipedia as proper and the article should be retained. CodexJustin (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @CodexJustin: @AndrewOne: WP does not decide notability based on the Criterion Collection. WP is not a catalogue or directory of films (e.g. WP:NOTADIRECTORY). For a film to have its own WP article, it must be independently notable. Almost every reference for this film (even the ones titled The Passion According to Andrei), turn out to be for the Andrei Rublev film. Apart from passing references to the original working title of The Passion According to Andrei, there is no significant independent WP:RS reference that even gives the separate plot of your article (underlying its lack of independent notability), to stop your edits being WP:OR; and which according to your own small edits, is almost identical anyway to the Andrei Rublev film. That is why what AndrewOne makes sense and is in line with WP:PAG. Britishfinance (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Criterion Collection is a reliable source for information on hundreds of films which they have released with useful liner notes and included booklets of critical essays. They are a standard reliable source of information used throughout Wikipedia for film articles. CodexJustin (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Yellow Pages (and many directories) are RS, but being listed in them does not mean notability. The Passion According to Andrei doesn't even get listed in Rotten Tomatoes (although Andrei Rublev does [4]). This is a non-notable working title of a more famous film and is therefore a Redirect to Andrei Rubliv. Britishfinance (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. AndrewOne, an editor on the main Andrei Rublev (film) article, made the following helpful point on the Talk Page [5]. Britishfinance (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Thanks for pinging me. WP:FILMPLOT reads, "The plot section describes the events of the original general release. Plot details in alternate versions released theatrically or on home media may be described in other sections if appropriately sourced." A separate article on The Passion According to Andrei is unwarranted, because it is currently too similar to the page Andrei Rublev (film) (and would likely remain too similar). I prefer the mere addition of a new section to Andrei Rublev (film). fer the mere addition of a new section to Andrei Rublev (film). AndrewOne (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

That note from WP:Filmplot only works for films released under the same name. In this case, the two separate films were released as separate films with separate titles in different production years. The 1966 film was banned in Soviet Russia and it was illegal to show this film thereafter in Soviet Russia. The other separate film in 1969 was released as legal to circulate in Soviet Russia thereafter. The editorial board of The Criterion Collection has now released these as two separate films and the two separate articles on Wikipedia are useful and based on a reliable source which is the editorial board of The Criterion Collection. CodexJustin (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But your article has an almost identical plot to the Andrei Rublev article (per the comparison tool above); and no significant RS discusses your article title as significant; whereas there are lots of significant RS on Andrei Rublev (which is why it is the only notable cut). You are trying to "contrive" a case of separate notability using your own OR (as demonstrated by your comments above), which are not grounded in any significant independent RS, or by your own very small unrefrenced edits to the duplicate article. Britishfinance (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article states the opposite to your comment. Its links to Martin Scorsese indicate extensive efforts on his part to make the 1966 version of "The Passion" available as a separate film. CodexJustin (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Andrei Rublev is one of the greatest films ever created. The Passion According to Andrei should be covered in the same article as Andrei Rublev (film), as no RS identifies it as being independently notable. I am mystified by CodexJustin's insistence on using Criterion Collection's release as a basis for saying that The Passion is independently notable, as a cursory glance at Citerion's database page for the film Andrei Rublev confirms that the two versions of the film are included in the same box set, with "The Passion" labeled as a "Special Feature" of the film. Moreover, the films clock in at 183 and 205 minutes respectively–I would suspect that any separation of the two films on separate discs has less to do with their independence and more to do with the physical limitations of how much video you can store in one disc. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Andrei Rublev is one of the greatest films ever created. Since it is among the greatest films special efforts should be taken to safeguard it from poor editing. The edits for the 1969 film "Andrei Rublev" should go into the Wikipedia article for "Andrei Rublev". Similarly, edits for the 1966 film "The Passion" should go into the Wikipedia article for "The Passion". They should not be mixed up which is what the current separation of the article safeguards against. Previously, Wikipedia editors were forcing edits into the single article for the film indiscriminately and erroneously when they viewed the 1966 film and had nowhere else to put their edits. Since the chapter headings for the two films do not match up, Wikipedia editors previously would start forcing their edits into the article for the wrong film because there was no other article to put their edits. Now that the two articles for the two films have been separated, edits for the 1969 "Andrei Rublev" film should go into "Andrei Rublev" article, while edits for the 1966 "The Passion" film should go into "The Passion" article. Now that the article have been split and they have different Plot sections with different chapter divisions, and now that the different years have been distinguished for the two films with their different titles, then they should be kept as separate articles. To delete one article in preference to the other article is to perpetuate indefinitely the old Wikipedia problem of editors forcing their edits into one article for two separate films from different years. Both articles should be kept in order for this longstanding Wikipedia editing problem not to perpetuate indefinitely. CodexJustin (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Clearly the same film, as can be seen by the virtual copying of the plot from the proposed target. This isn't even a close call. This is basically a "director's cut" of the classic film, with extra scenes thrown in. Indeed, this film was never actually released. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are two separate films with separate outlines, released in different years and having different numbers of chapters. As you state, the 1966 film "The Passion" was never released in Soviet Russia and it was illegal to distribute this film in Soviet Russia. The other 1969 film "Andrei Rublev" was released in Soviet Russia and was released internationally in 1969. The two separate films with separate titles should not be confused. Edits for the film from 1966 titled "The Passion" should go into the Wikipedia article for "The Passion". Edits for the 1969 film "Andrei Rublev" should go into the Wikipedia article for "Andrei Rublev" in order to avoid distorting the article. Keep both articles in order to disambiguate edits with clarity and without ambiguity. CodexJustin (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Stone

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

Almost certainly either a WP:AUTOBIO or WP:PROMO based on its tone. His elected position fails WP:NPOL and all sources are primary and a search turned up nothing to establish WP:GNG. In my opinion it should be speedy deleted. GPL93 (talk) 16:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL includes "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". Larry Stone is one of the most notable, influential, and most quoted/interviewed of Santa Clara County local political figures - there are maybe 3 or 4 local regional politicians who can claim his level of influence, and a news search for references to him validates this.

Some of the self-serving language should probably be removed (like the entire Assessor Career section). A google search turned up four articles that would seem to fall within WP:GNG: https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/28/sunnyvale-larry-stone-honored-by-sunnyvale-chamber-of-commerce, https://www.mercurynews.com/2016/11/29/larry-stone-met-fidel-castro-in-1977, http://www.sanjoseinside.com/2012/06/26/6_26_12_santa_clara_county_assessor_larry_stone, https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/01/assessor-larry-stone-runs-again. JGriffithSV (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County assessor is not a level of office that confers an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because the person exists, but this isn't referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over the bar. Even the four sources JGriffithSV showed above aren't enough coverage to get him over WP:GNG by themselves — every officeholder at the county level in the entire United States can always show four pieces of local coverage, so that would make every county assessor and county councillor and county judge and county manager automatically notable. The notability test for a person at this level of prominence isn't just that the local coverage that would be routinely expected to exist can indeed be found to exist — it requires a volume of coverage that marks him out as significantly more notable than the norm for county assessors, namely coverage that nationalizes. And even if he actually had that, the article is written much more like a résumé than an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Al Awadi

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

Article was previously dependent on copied text that was removed as a violation. Without that, there is very little to talk about on this gentleman that confers notability. A search finds little more than routine listings of his works -- typically YouTube videos of his lectures and social media chatter about them. This article looks like an inappropriate attempt to promote those lecture videos. He will have to ask for hits elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. A search in Arabic shows him to be very noteworthy, and among a number of preachers who have had their Kuwaiti nationality withdrawn for radical religious ideas. Discussion of this in a couple of sources says that a number of people have been stripped of their nationality, ‘most notably’ Awadi. There isn’t a huge amount of coverage in mainstream Gulf media because the press is heavily controlled by the state and he’s an undesirable, but there certainly are sources from reliable mainstream publications such as Al Arab where even if you can’t read Arabic you can see the article is all about him and not just a passing mention; likewise this one in Al Hayat and this one in Al Khaleej online. Mccapra (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll save it , he's notable person , Thanks . -Imad_J (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Translate of Mccapra's finds convinces me: three independent mainstream news sources which single him out by name, not just in passing. Narky Blert (talk) 09:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Will add sources later, but this guy definitely has several independent and reliable sources talking about him. (Search on Google News, not Google proper-- the first few pages of Google results are not independent of the subject.) Gilded Snail (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but page needs cleanup, maybe some sort of protection. I just added 2 brief sentences to lede, sourced to some intense reporting by Andrew Gilligan at the Sunday Telegraph. Before that page had been cleansed of the terrorist/ ISIL ties that make him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nominator - The article has been improved nicely since my deletion proposal, which is a fine outcome to this process. In fact, I should have noticed the obscure news sources located by the folks above. It appears that the ultimate decision will be to keep the article, and I will not oppose that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 07:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stipula

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

Does not meed WP:NCORP. The only sources are catalog listings of its products. Searching does not turn up significant in-depth coverage of the company. MB 15:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Blog entries indicate that the original company encountered financial problems around 6 years ago and was acquired by another firm (Antiche Fabbriche Firenze), but I am not finding reliable sources which could support material on ownership (or whether production continues) or anything beyond listing sites for the past products. Not sufficient for WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mccapra (talk) 09:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sufficient reliable sources and failure of WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The collective impression from this discussion is that the author falls short of notability. While her work has been recognized, there not yet the depth or breadth of coverage to satisfy WP:Author or the GNG. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anita Bharti

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

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:ANYBIO by a few miles or so. ∯WBG^converse 13:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom except the "few miles" part. I'd say a few light-years. Massive fail of even basic notability. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 16:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This book from a university press has significant coverage, for one. Let's discuss this respectfully rather than by using silly, marginally insulting, hyperbole about miles and light-years. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any other source, regrettably. ∯WBG^converse 17:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You will see a few more sources if you simply click on "books", "scholar" and "news" above, but with less coverage than the book that I linked. The subject may not quite make the notability bar, but she gets pretty damn close to it, so I'd like to be able to say that I'm surprised that two editors chose to belittle this Dalit feminist writer. Unfortunately I can't say that, because insults seem to be tolerated in AfD discussions when they are not elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, whilst I agree that Gn-Z11's taunt was needless; miles short is quite commonly used to represent a TOOSOON situation.

It appears that an analysis of the sources is necessary:-

1) GScholar is pretty much worthless to evaluate anyone in these areas. High citation-count certainly proves the subject to be notable but an absence does not prove to the contrary.

2) The news-section gives me 7 hits:-

(a) Bhadas4media is not remotely reliable. Neither is The Citizen; which seems to have published a press-release.

(b) There is a RSN consensus that Scroll.in is an unreliable source and in addition, there's quite much haziness about their broader journalistic practices.

(c) The Indian express source is reliable but name-drops her as a panelist of a part. section over a lit-fest.

(d)The Wire has been deemed to be primarily unreliable for it's non-distinguishing between objective reporting; editorial-reporting and opinion-columns.

(d)The Independent Article takes a byte from her and devotes a single line.

3) The books section gives me 3 hits:-

(a) The one you mention.

(b) Another one that mentions a poem by her in a footnote and nothing else about her.

(c) And, the last which yet devotes a single line in a footnote and mentions her efforts in recovering the literary works of a part. writer.

Barring the one you mention; it's pretty much nothing and even with that one; I am hardly convinced. Incidentally; that book mentions lots of authors, in a very-similar fashion.

∯WBG^converse 19:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mention of Google Scholar was nothing about citations, but about sources about the subject, just the same as the book and news sources are. As I said, the subject may not be notable, but should be given proper consideration in this discussion, just the same as a male Brahmin would, rather than being dismissed with such insults. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Male brahmin; be very careful about what you say and what not......I don't like the casteist implications and I will be alerting you about the DS; at any case. ∯WBG^converse 19:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. If you don't like the implications of your insult then you shouldn't have made it in the first place. No deletion discussion should start with a statement that a subject that has several reliable sources in the article, and at least one better one available from the spoon-fed links elsewhere provided by the nomination process, fails notability guidelines "by a few miles or so". Your comment that "miles short is quite commonly used" in deletion discussions only underlines my point that such insults seem to be allowed in deletion discussions when they shouldn't be. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content and not on contributor (and the motivations). I don't take mentions in footnotes of books or any mention in sources that have been deemed to be unreliable by a RSN consensus, to be any meaningful coverage. ∯WBG^converse 04:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for sheer lack of WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As well as the book found by Phil Bridger, I have also found Dalit Studies, published by Duke University Press, which also has significant discussion of Bharti's work [6]. Not all of it is visible in this Google Books preview - the first result I see for her name starts "Bharti further suggests ...", and follows an omitted page. Visible discussion is on 3 pages of the book. I have also found two theses listed on WorldCat - "We fight!" Dalit feminist writing : analysis of a Hindi short story by Anita Bharti, a Lizenziatsarbeit from the Universität Zürich in 2015 [7], and Dalit Feminism and the Problematization of Patriarchy and Gender A Reading of Selected Short Stories by Urmila Pawar and Anita Bharti, unfortunately published by Lambert Academic Publishing [8] - but both those theses indicate that Bharti's work is being studied in universities. It would be useful to have a list of Bharti's published works in the article, to help in finding reviews. I think the heading "Literacy work" is meant to be Literary work, as the title underneath appears to translate as "Social Revolutionary: Gabdu Ram Balmiki". Other titles mentioned in sources include Samkaleen Narivaad Aur Dalit Stree Ka Pratirodh (Contemporary feminism and the resistance of Dalit women), a collection of short stories called Ek The Kotevalee, and a book of poetry she edited, Yathastithi se Takraate Hue Dalit Stree Jeewan se Judi Kavitaayein. It may be possible to find reviews, though probably easier with the titles in their original script. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at these mentions, it pretty clearly is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it doesn’t matter what book she wrote, the person herself clearly lacks notability as of now. That article is dire.Trillfendi (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Laura R. Brueck book is indeed a reasonable source, but it's not a great one. It's the only one that even comes close, and that's not enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 PlayMania. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Peachey

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

Non-notable tv presenter. Only sources are a couple of promotional biographies and some gameshow episodes she hosted. Google search finds nothing useful. PC78 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 01:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable TV presenter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a little surprised that this individual hasn't received that much attention in reliable sources as a result of her apparently major role as a host of this game show. Here's a passing mention: [9]. Absent anything substantive, I'm afraid I deletion is looking like the best answer. Another alternative to would be redirect to PlayMania. Mz7 (talk) 12:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct, I'm partially with Mz7 on this. Let's preserve the history and re-direct to Playmania or Quiznation. Karl Twist (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-direct, Agree with Mz7 and Karl Twist. Legion X (talk) 18:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unitrays

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

Words fail me. WP:N, big time Fram (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I mean, yeah, it's an unsourced article about a plastic tray with any cites nowhere to be found. –eggofreason^talk 18:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Legion X (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Odd that this article was created by an editor who’s been an admin for ten years. Mccapra (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly fails WP:GNG. Astonishingly crufty. SportingFlyer T·C 06:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above failure of WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three Worlds (Texas Miniatures)

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

No evidence of any notability (not in the article, not in the zero Google books results or the 11 Google hits[10]), and no possible source for a redirect apparent in the article. One capsule review in a minor magazine, that's it. Fram (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurers (Texas Miniatures) also nominated for the same reason. Fram (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are not a place to reprint product review capsules from a long-ago magazine. No other coverage found. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tékumel. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal of Tékumel Affairs

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

Lacks all notability. User:BOZ, please stop creating articles based only on "capsule reviews" in Space Gamer, the subjects of these reviews often are of extremely limited notability and finding better sources seems to be next to impossible. Fram (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Tékumel. BOZ (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The worst case here is obviously merger with Tékumel per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. There's no case for deletion as the nomination is self-contradictory. Andrew D. (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tékumel. The single source presented here is not enough to establish independent notability, and I have found no other sources talking about the publication in any significant way. Merging this small amount of information to the main "Tékumel" article is an appropriate action. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tékumel, as above. While I view this article as perfectly harmless and regret that we're devoting our energy to arguing over whether to delete it rather than doing productive editing, I recognise that it's hard to justify as standalone article according to the notability criteria. Alarichall (talk) 01:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There seems to be a consensus the subject meets WP:GNG (which counters "unsourced" claim from the nominator with sources that exist per WP:NEXIST) and the Bearian's rationale is WP:NOTNOTABLE, which is not to be used here. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bernardin Pavlović

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

Non-notable writer. A few sources mention him in passing, and facts about him appear to be scarce. The "importance" is claimed, but is unspecified and unsourced. GregorB (talk) 09:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am dumbfounded why anyone would think this person was notable. There is essentially no evidence. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some passing mentions here: [11] [12] [13] (as a source?) [14], mentioned here [15]. My Croatian isn't strong enough to understand everything but I think he passes WP:NAUTHOR, the research was certainly interesting. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed all passing mentions, save for the last one, which is from a 1939 book titled Naša Gospa od Zdravlja i njezina slava, by Ante Crnica [hr]. In it, there is a chapter dedicated to B. Pavlović ([16], pp. 215-220). It does mention his 1747 work, but does not assert its importance either. In particular, looking at this chapter, I cannot find anything of significance that would count towards WP:NAUTHOR. GregorB (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for a third time to allow for input regarding sources presented late in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This is a difficult subject to comment on. The article claims that the subject's published works were an important development in the Croatian language. The article about the Croatian language has a total of one sentence about the 18th century, saying "However, this first linguistic renaissance in Croatia was halted ..... in 1671. Subsequently, the Croatian elite in the 18th century gradually abandoned this combined Croatian standard." The next para in that article is about the 19th century. So whatever happened in the development of the Croatian language in the 18th century, English Wikipedia has no information about. Croatian Wikipedia has a longer section about that time period, which mentions a few authors but not Bernardin Pavlović.

There are certainly sources with more information about him, but most only have snippet views available on Google Books. The journal Mogućnosti, Volume 44, Issues 1-9, p 10 (1997), has an article which includes these lines (visible in the Google Books search result, but not in the snippet view; translation by Google Translate): "On May 6, 1730, Bernardin Pavlovic reached the Duchab on May 6, 1730, asking the statesman to reach the church authorities and proclaimed him a legitimate and legitimate place of residence, but the subsequent events reduced things faster than he thought. God. 1731. proclaims plague ." A 1934 source, Danica, shows in the Google Book search results the lines "Bernardin Pavlovic, Elder Franciscan, Our Lady's image of this fence. Archbishop of the Priest came to the other side of the fence and at that place solemnly blessed the image of Our Lady by finding that he was exposed to worship in one beautiful place .." Again, the snippet view does not show that part of the page, and it's not at all clear what this is about, or how much there is about Bernardin Pavlovic, but, like the 1997 source, it does seem to be about something other than his publications.

My conclusion from these very partial glimpses of sources is that, including the 1939 book linked above, I think enough probably does exist for him to meet WP:GNG. The sources which mention him date from at least the mid 1800s to the 2000s, so there is certainly sustained coverage. (Is there a National Dictionary of Biography for Croatia or any of its predecessor states? He seems the kind of person who might be included.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sources on the person, although Google Books offer only snippets, they might be more than passing mentions - [17] (looks to be the start of a biography)[18] as well as others [19][20][21][22]. It's hard to tell from some of those that offered only snippets if more are written there, but cumulatively they do indicate that he is not a nobody and may qualify under WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 13:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of recurring Monty Python's Flying Circus characters

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

100% unsourced. This is a mix of WP:PLOT, and WP:OR. My own searching for various character names failed to come up with any WP:RS for them. Lots of ghits, but they're all Monty Python fan sites, wikipedia mirrors, and various other WP:PRIMARY and or WP:UGC sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing has now been added to the article. Thank you to User:Spinningspark for that. I now withdraw this nomination, and return you to getting hit over the head lessons, already in progress. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources out there for this material including numerous substantial books of hundreds of pages and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide specific sources? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty typical Andrew tactic, claiming there are sources without actually linking any. He will likely either ignore the above request for specifics, or come back with a list of sources he hasn't read that, if anyone actually checked them, would support the assertion that this topic nothing but OR. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching news results for Morty Python and then each name of a reoccurring character might prove if the things listed are notable. [23] Found brief mention for Nude Organist, but not much. Back when the show was on, where was it reviewed at, and did they mention these characters in reviews? Dream Focus 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or at least redirect to Monty Python's Flying Circus and protect to prevent unilateral recreation The fact that so many of these "characters" don't even have names supports the idea that it is OR to call them recurring characters. Maybe some of them actually are and reliable sources could be found to support that assertion, but the fact that no one has in more than 12 years makes me somewhat skeptical. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ISBN 0814331033 is an entire book on the show Monty Python's Flying Circus, and discusses many of these characters in detail. The current (unsourced) text is atrocious, but AFD is not cleanup. I'll make some removals of content that I can't verify. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to withdraw my nomination if you can find good sourcing. That book certainly looks promising, but I'm not yet convinced. I looked up one character, the naked organist. All I could find was a passing mention on page 9: "Jones ... also appeared as a hustler, a naked organist, a salesman ..." That's better than what we've got now (i.e. nothing), but it's a far cry from discussing the character in detail. To be fair, I only spot-checked this one. I'll be happy to look at more when you find them. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Monty Python itself is unquestionably notable, and their universe has become so ingrained in popular culture that a list of recurring characters is more than justified on Wikipedia. Much of this discussion has zeroed in on "naked organist". Well, if it shouldn't be on the list then that one could be removed, but that in no way amounts to an argument for deletion. In any case, it does belong. The Complete Monty Python's Flying Circus, volume 2 (which is the actual scripts of the show) in snippet view has three hits for "naked organist", three hits for "nude organist" and eight hits for "organist", all on different pages. Bearing in mind that snippet view does not access the entire book, that is more than enough to show that this is a recurring character. User:RoySmith says that all he could find was a passing mention of the character. That is a baffling comment; a Wikipedia page needs in-depth coverage, an entry on a list does not. But even that criticism is unfounded; Something Completely Different: British Television and American Culture discusses the appearance of the character in some detail – in a rather pompous, intellectual way that Monty Python would just love to have ridiculed. The short entry in Monty Python's Flying Circus: An Utterly Complete, Thoroughly Unillustrated, Absolutely Unauthorized Guide to Possibly All the References tells me a factoid that is not currently in the article, that "naked organist" was filmed in Jersey. I could cite numerous other mentions in RS, but I'll give just one more that shows the character has become a cultural reference; Planningweek: The Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, in which someone suggests that an organist should have performed naked like the Monty Python one a quarter of a century after the programme first aired. SpinningSpark 11:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Keep, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary was (afd spam keep). You have to actually say keep here and list a reason why for it to be counted. Dream Focus 06:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They did say "keep", and in bold too. "Spam" may not be a policy-based reason for keep, but it is a reason. SpinningSpark 10:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I normally just filter out spam so didn't notice the "keep" in there. Dream Focus 14:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Spinningspark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldlywise (talk • contribs)
Keep Spinningspark makes some valid points. Also notable series do often have a separate article for their characters. Dream Focus 05:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It still needs sources. Right now, the article doesn't have any. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article should be sourced, but maintaining a "delete" position once you know that sources exist is an unconstructive attitude. Notability depends on the existence of sources, not their presence in the article. That's in the notability guidelines at WP:ARTN. There is also WP:PRESERVE in the editing policy, and the deletion policy pointedly does not give absence of citations as a valid reason for deletion. "Spam spam spam" above has as much policy-based rationale as yours. SpinningSpark 15:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going to wikilawyer this to death, I'll counter WP:PRESERVE with WP:UNSOURCED, which says, Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. So, since there's no sources in the article, should I go ahead and blank the entire article? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The important word there is may. Just because you can blank something does not mean you should. It would be POINTy to blank something you know full well can be sourced. You've got sources now, so you could SOFIXIT if it's troubling you that much. I won't be wasting effort working on it or risking adding to my deleted edits while people are still trying to get it deleted. SpinningSpark 18:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in fixing it. I think it's total WP:FANCRUFT and doesn't serve any useful purpose. If somebody put in the effort to carefully reference the article, then at least it would be well-sourced fancruft. It doesn't sound like you're willing to put in the effort either. It's one thing to spend a few minutes googling and find some books about the Pythons. In quite another (much harder) thing to carefully go through the article and find backup for each statement. At this point, we're running 5:3 in favor of keeping, so it's unlikely your efforts would be wasted. How long do you think it would take you to finish the referencing job? Would a month be enough time? I'd be willing to withdraw this nomination now, with the proviso that I'll come back and look at the article in a month and if it's still not sourced, I'll re-nominate it. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be POINTy to blank something you know full well can be sourced. Umm ... no ... there are lots of reasons not to include something other than it not being sourceable. Since most of this stuff is "plot summary" (such as it could be for something like MPFC) it can technically be sourced to the show itself (and believe me, it hurts to say that), so it's a given that that information "can be sourced". I'm frankly shocked to see an admin express such a poor understanding of how Wikipedia is supposed to work -- you really have to explain how I'm just misinterpreting what you meant. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reasonable response to criticism that a passage is unsourced. If the fundamental problem is something else then raising the sourcing issue is wasting other people's time if one is not going to be swayed no matter what sources are found. SpinningSpark 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My original objections were that this is unsourced, WP:PLOT, and WP:OR. You have shown that sources exist, and thus this is not unsourcable, so WP:DEL6 and WP:DEL7 don't apply. It's still unsourced, WP:PLOT and WP:OR.

Keep for reasons stated by power~enwiki. WP:Not paper. No compliance with WP:Before, since it plainly can be sourced; no reason to inflict the wikipedia equivalent of capital punishment, as that is the last preferred method of dealing with articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 04:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:7&6=thirteen: I'm not sure what you mean by No compliance with WP:Before, since it plainly can be sourced -- it's obvious that sourcing was not the problem here and had no relevance to the OP's rationale. Implying otherwise is an accusation about personal behavior that lacks evidence, and when combined with your off-colour reference to state-sanctioned murder it makes your entire comment really ... ugly. Also, per WP:CHEAP, and a series of RFCs that resulted in a clear (near-unanimous, if I recall) consensus that AFD is the correct place to propose "redirecting, not merging, as the content is crap and should not be kept elsewhere", saying that this is the last preferred method of dealing with articles is not even true as a technicality. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apparently you have either not read, or choose to ignore, the plain words of WP:Before. We will have to agree to disagree on its interpretation. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The very first words of the nom are "100% unsourced". It is perfectly reasonable to comment on the noms failure to look for sources when they raised the issue themselves. SpinningSpark 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. "100% unsourced" is not the same as "Not notable -- I searched for sources and found none". The requirement to do a source search only applies when one feels the topic is not notable, which is not what the nom said. Saying the article is garbage because the topic is not of encyclopedic value, which the existence of sources would not help, and also pointing out that the present article is particularly bad because it seems to consist of nothing but OR, is not the same thing. This "Topic is notable! Keep! You have not read WP:BEFORE!" strawman argument that I see popping up in hundreds of AFDs really needs to stop. "Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

90% of the nom talks about sourcing. PLOT and OR formed the rest, but these are not insuperable problems in an article, and are not of themselves deletion criteria (although TNT might sometimes apply). If the nominator wanted to make a WP:NOT argument, they should have said so and named the category of NOT they felt it came under. Then you might then have got responses to that rather than the sourcing. SpinningSpark 00:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have now thoroughly referenced the page and added out-of-universe influences and references and other real world information to address the WP:PLOT issue. I thank RoySmith for withdrawing the nomination even before that job was half complete. I have also added more spam to the article which it was clearly lacking. SpinningSpark 23:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per latest improvements made to the article. Accesscrawl (talk) 09:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A little unfair to expect to find much in the way of online sources for a higher education college in a country that ranks 118th out of 140 per the WEF. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kasama College of Education

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

PROD declined by Phil Bridger. Original rationale was Per WP:NSCHOOL, schools must comply with WP:NORG. This does not, as it shows no coverage in independent, reliable sources whatsoever. Despite the one source Phil has added, I still consider it to be the case per WP:MULTSOURCES. SITH (talk) 14:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is listed in an official government website as provided in the sources.Tamsier (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that constitute significant coverage in an independent, reliable source? I would say not. SITH (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia." [24] That is the prevailing view of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially when coupled with the fact that it is a government backed institution.Tamsier (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further, it is not necessary to establish notability by use of the internet. As with all older organisations, especially those from developing countries, we should be slow to delete such articles as Google may not know much about them.Tamsier (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep higher educational institutions are almost always notable. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. – Joe (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Art Hate Week

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

Declined PROD, courtesy ping Northamerica1000. Fails WP:NEVENT. Turned out to be nothing consequential, the only independent coverage is the Guardian article cited. SITH (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I think the nominator has it right here. WP:NEVENT requires persistence of coverage in order to show encyclopedic notability, and I'm afraid this one-off event wasn't very consequential beyond this Guardian article. We often nominate breaking news for deletion on the basis of WP:NOTNEWS – I think this is one case where looking in retrospect at the event, we realize it wasn't noteworthy enough for indefinite inclusion in an encyclopedia. Mz7 (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark of Cain (novel)

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

Declined PROD, courtesy ping MarkZusab. Fails WP:NBOOK due to lack of major reviews, awards or other significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was Israel's "leading paperback for five weeks, and spent a total of 19 weeks on the list" (Jerusalem Post). --Michig (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Along with the coverage mentioned by Michig, the book has been called the "fastest selling book in Israeli history" by the Federation of American Scientists ([25]) and garnered attention from Publishers Weekly ([26]). In 1998, the book was on the Jerusalem Post bestseller list. ([27][28][29]) Given that the book was published in 1996/1998, there are also likely sources of offline reviews. MarkZusab (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is also discussed in Modern Hebrew Literature, Issues 16-21 ([30]). MarkZusab (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, being a bestseller ticks one box in WP:NBOOK, and one would expect reviews (a second tick:)), but i have been unable to find any english language ones thru a gsearch, hopefully a hebrew speaking editor can list some, until then ..... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEY I added a couple of sources directly to the page. I only found one review in English (JPost). Both JPost and Haaretz seem more interested in this book as part of Oren's successful career as a writer of thrillers who made a comfortable living by regularly producing thrillers that he published himself - thus earning enough to be a writer. Unless more attention on the book (reviews, literary analysis in later years) is found, it might make more sense to integrate this to Ram Oren, not a particularly long article at present, it is thin and poorly sourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To author, Ram Oren.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:03, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this book straightforwardly meets WP:NBOOK because it has been the subject of two non-trivial reviews. I have cited them clearly in Mark of Cain (novel)#Reviews. Alarichall (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christogram. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christogram IHS

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

Duplicates a section of the article Christogram and adds nothing new. keypunch (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christogram, which is a much better article with English-language sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge/redirect Shouldn't be controversial, no need for separate article. Reywas92^Talk 22:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. All of this can be covered as a section in Christogram. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor housing inequality

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

This appears to be an essay which has been created by synthesis. Synthesis is discouraged as it is a form of original research and essays fall under what Wikipedia is not. There does not appear to have been a major conversation about housing inequality in Ann Arbor more so than there has been in other locations, as is evidenced by the lack of such debates in reliable sources. Eleven out of the fourteen sources (1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) are just run-of-the-mill documents ranging from demographic statistic dumps to visa information to lists of student accommodation prices. The remaining three sources are a local newspaper discussing house prices (5), a local news story about a plan to attract 3,000 immigrants (13), and a community pressure group (14). It's important to note that these three sources were all published in June 2017 and there has been no coverage of the matter since then. This event likely fails event notability guidelines, and certainly shouldn't be used to prop up an essay about the underlying issue, which appears to not be notable enough for its own article. SITH (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nominator stated, this is a violation of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:NOTESSAY. This is just a policy paper and has no place on Wikipedia. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Textbook WP:SYNTH SWL36 (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this article was created as part of Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Michigan/Social Inequality - Winter 2018 (Winter 2018), i have notified Shalor (Wiki Ed) as the course's wikicontent expert editor. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:24, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Starts in Augusta, Maine

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

This organisation does not seem to have attracted the depth of independent, reliable coverage required to be considered notable. Most of the sources in which the group is mentioned cover a different group named United Way which presented Fresh Starts with an award. The coverage is not of Fresh Starts itself, as evidenced by the source assessment table attached.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://getconnected.volunteermaine.org/agency/detail/?agency_id=82504	Includes sections such as "Who We Are" and "What We Do", appears affiliated.	For basic verification, yes. For claims of notability, no.	By virtue of affiliation.	✘ No
https://uwkv.org/Campaign-Awards-Recognitions	Source is by a group the article asserts to have given them an award.	Don't see why not.	The source does not mention "Fresh Starts" at all.	✘ No
https://www.centralmaine.com/2018/02/17/united-way-of-kennebec-valley-raises-record-breaking-1-66-million/	Appears unaffiliated.	Don't see why not.	Mentions Fresh Start twice, the majority of coverage is given to United Way, a group which gave Fresh Starts an award, not Fresh Starts itself.	✘ No
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}}.

SITH (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources do not indicate this is a notable local organization. Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 12:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an apparently worthy organization, but coverage is all local. Mangoe (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and the nominator's decisive forensics. -The Gnome (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dapp Life

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

Non notable crypto publication. Not cited in any reliable sources and no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional advert for the website that fails wp:Promo, the article creators have repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag which still applies as G11, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: I agree with Biwom's CSD. It's still valid because the article creator isn't supposed to remove it. SITH (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just to make it clear why I have reverted speedy deletion tag second time: Biwom placed a speedy deletion tag as I believe he has a personal issues with my presense on Wikipedia, you can check his talk page and you will see that. Also note to admins (regardless of what the outcome of this discussion will be) Biwom has been flagged multiple times for disruptive editing as the only thing he does on Wikipedia is nominating pages for deletion, which is kind of disruptive negative patern. I'm greatful for the editor who did Prod because he did a correct edit by placing Prod, so that we can have discussion, instead of adding another speed tag. As of whether its notable or not, I've placed notability tag as I'm usually creating small stubs upon which other can expand. If it has to be deleted so be it and I have no issues with that, but I'm strictly against personal attacks which Biwom clearly has against me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jone Rohne Nester (talk • contribs) 22:02, March 1, 2019 (UTC)

you need to comment on content, not contributors. Any issues you two have can be dealt with elsewhere but this is not the appropriate place to do it. Praxidicae (talk) 22:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11. It's simply not notable no matter how you look at it. Bradv🍁 22:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, the sooner the better. Obviously not notable, and the creator is already cluttering up sister projects, with a Wikidata item and Commons category, for this non-article. ARR8 (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Jianhui67^T★C 10:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Field Marshal Aryan (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage and lack of reliable sources Reddragon7 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gough Engineering

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

Spam which fails WP:NCORP. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I’ve looked for reliable independent sources and not found them. Mccapra (talk) 22:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Easy delete, entirely unsourced and promotional. SWL36 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything beyond press releases and directory entries - nothing that would satisfy CORPDEPTH. Looking at the article's history, a lot of copyvio was removed, and it's been maintained by an editor blocked for socking and undisclosed paid editing - looks like spam. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Independent sources WP:ORGIND and advertising and promotion WP:ADPROMO AmericanAgent (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virinchi

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

Company which does not seem to have received the necessary depth of coverage to be considered notable. All of the sources appear to be either affiliated or press releases, neither of which constitute independent, reliable and significant coverage. An analysis of the sources is included below.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://in.reuters.com/finance/stocks/company-profile/VIRC.BO			It's a database entry which all publicly-traded companies have.	✘ No
http://corporateethos.com/tech-terrain/virinchi-partners-us-based-financial-provider-for-qfund/	404	404	404	? Unknown
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/todays-paper/tp-info-tech/Virinchi-Technologies-acquires-KSoft-for-2.6-m/article20286608.ece	Unfamiliar with publication.	Unfamiliar with publication.	Appears to be a press release.	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/national/virinchi-arm-sets-up-rs-300cr-multispeciality-hospital-in-hyderabad/article8788086.ece	Unfamiliar with publication.	Unfamiliar with publication.	Appears to be a press release.	✘ No
https://virinchihospitals.com/	Self-published.	~ For basic information, yes, for claims of notability, no.	By virtue of being self-published.	✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-cm/board-of-virinchi-technologies-approves-scheme-of-amalgamation-116012800274_1.html	Unfamiliar with publication.	Unfamiliar with publication.	It's a press release.	✘ No
https://www.equitybulls.com/admin/news2006/news_det.asp?id=217641	Unfamiliar with publication.	Unfamiliar with publication.	It's a press release.	✘ No
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}}.

SITH (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SITH (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above analysis; and none of the coverage I could find from searching were in-depth per WP:CORPDEPTH. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm not sure why this was relisted, there is clear consensus to delete based on both NFOOTY and GNG failure Fenix down (talk) 13:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jhai Singh Dhillon

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

Deleted as PROD by @Ad Orientem: 12 months ago; request by article creator @Wikipagecreator101: to restore it. Fails WP:GNG (no significant coverage) and WP:NFOOTBALL (has never played in a senior FIFA-recognised international game, or in a competitive match between two teams from fully-professional leagues.) Giant Snowman 12:17, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the comments above, however Jhai Singh Dhillon has been a professional footballer for Stevenage F.C. and also represented Chelsea F.C. In terms of international games, he has played in two CONIFA World Football Cup, one of which he finished as a runner up with his national team Panjab football team, who he still represents. His name features in several BBC News articles relating to association football and to this day he remains a member of the Professional Footballers' Association.

Again I understand he may not be a household name, however I feel the above makes him "notable".

Is there anyway we can amend certain parts of the article, to meet your requirements? As I feel the criteria for being notable is not black and white here. Thanks in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipagecreator101 (talk • contribs)

@Wikipagecreator101: - none of that is sufficient. Being part of a professional squad is not enough - players need to actually play. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-league footballer who clearly fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:03, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no sources from the BBC per comments above, some sources don't work, the rest seem WP:ROUTINE. This leads me to say the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, (even known he played for Panjab national football team, this is not tier 1 international football.) Govvy (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Did find this brief coverage in the Independent from 2013 (seems he hasn't come knocking down Premier League's door yet). Fails WP:GNG. Icewhiz (talk) 14:09, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Women's football in Brunei. Fenix down (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brunei women's national football team

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

According to the article, the team doesn't exist. Can't see any sources online either. WikiArticleEditor (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 12:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename to Women's football in Brunei. There has been significant coverage of the lack of national team, but the current title is confusing and inaccurate. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudi Arabia women's national football team which was closed as keep but the article was later moved to Women's football in Saudi Arabia. Smartyllama (talk) 14:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Women's football in Brunei per prior AfD Hhkohh (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above/per prior consensus. Giant Snowman 10:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Grenadier Models. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knights, Fighters, and Men-at-Arms

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

This is just one of many mor eor less similar articles, about gaming products which got a usually very short review in Space Gamer in the 1980s, and now have an article solely based on this. This specific product doesn't get attention in any other reliable sources available online, online some Pinterest pages, a few shops selling these, and some scanned catalogues from the company that made these.

Perhaps some general discussion is needed to see what to do with things like Traveller Supplement 11: Library Data (N-Z) or Personalities (Ral Partha), most of them will need to be redirected or deleted probably, but for now let's focus on this one article only, which seems to lack all notability. Fram (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to Fantasy Lords. BOZ (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have added Traveller Figures: Adventurers and Alien Mercenaries to this nomination, two other sets of figures from the same company with only an extremely similar source as well. Fram (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more: Imperial Marines. Fram (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One more set of figurines, Soldiers of Fortune (Traveller), and a set of dice for crying out loud, Traveller Dice. Terrible. Fram (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those can all be merged into Grenadier Models rather than deleted. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Grenadier Models. A merge can be performed as well if people think its necessary, but the target article is a pretty big mess itself, so it would probably need some cleanup before any additional information could be merged to it in a practical way. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All clearly fail WP:GNG and I question the usefulness of a redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 07:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:39, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visioncon

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

After a quick search I doubt this will meet WP:GNG. Currently lacks any WP:Reliable source Grey Wanderer (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non notable as lacks any credible sources. Ajf773 (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything in my before search seems really press release-y. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Reddragon7 (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 was a little surprised by the outcome here but hey, learn something new every day! There was some discussion below about potentially merging this; it sort of petered out and I don't think there's vast agreement on that front, but it doesn't seem there's great opposition to it. That is to say, there's consensus that this material should be kept, so this is a "keep" close, but there may perhaps be value in having further conversation on exactly where it is kept. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports in Poland with unpaved runways

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

Just WP:LISTCRUFT. Mostly unsourced and generally an unencyclopedic topic Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was going to suggest a merge with List of airports in Poland, but between this article, List of airports in Poland with paved runways and List of highway strips in Poland, it would just be too unwieldy to have them all in one article. The current arrangement is fine and this is a valid subtopic given the size. Smartyllama (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While normally I would agree with Smartyllama that it could be kept as a valid split, I'm rather concerned about the complete lack of sources and notability for nearly all of the information presented here. The vast majority of these airports appear to be extremely unnotable, and there are absolutely no sources showing where the details of each one are coming from, giving the list a complete lack of WP:Verifiability. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With the sources and comments below, I can support a Keep, as long as the list is only restricted to airports with ICAO codes, as suggested by Spinningspark. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looked at several of these on Google Maps, and I'm not convinced that a list of strips of grass where a very small airplane could land is a notable topic, even if this had even a single source. Agree that this is listcruft, and List of highway strips in Poland could go too - pilots aren't using Wikipedia to see where they could land on the highway in an emergency. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of this article already makes it clear that this is not a list of strips of grass where a very small airplane could land: "Since almost any approved flat area can be assigned as landing area or airfield, the following list is limited to unpaved airfields with a distinct purpose and functionality". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, so long as it is restricted to "official" airports with ICAO codes. While the article might be unsourced, it is not unsourceable. this page provides a list, and several book sources (eg [31][32]) give the total number (although without listing them). SpinningSpark 23:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At first glace that source looks self-published. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an official list of currently operating airports from the Polish Civil Aviation Authority. Those with unpaved runways are marked "bez nawierzchni sztucznej" in the "Rodzaj nawierzchni" column. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've now reliably sourced half of the entries in this list, but haven't finished yet, and won't finish before the seven-day discussion period is complete because there are over 70 entries. We should certainly list the airports in Poland, and any other countries, and if a single list would be too unwieldy this is a good way to split it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think it would be unwieldy. There's no reason to have a list of airports subcategorised by paved runway status. I can't see any examples of these lists for other countries. Ajf773 (talk) 18:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean you would accept a merge as an outcome? SpinningSpark 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, merging with List of airports in Poland with paved runways. And that each entry is sourced and limited to ICAO airports. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why should any such list be limited to ICAO airports, rather than to verifiable ones? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because if it doesn't have an airport code it's not really an airport; just a flat piece of ground you might be able to land a plane on. For the record, I also support a merge if someone is willing to carry it out. I'm at WP:RETAIN on this one and not fussed where the information goes. SpinningSpark 20:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, your first sentence is not true. In sourcing this I have so far only targeted the airports with ICAO codes listed, but in the process I found reliable sources confirming that Chrcynno and Oława-Stanowice and Przasnysz are, of have been, proper airports or airfields rather than flat pieces of ground you might be able to land a plane on, even though they don't have ICAO codes. I'm also not fussed by whether these should be listed in a separate article or a combined list, but deletion should be out of the question. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps those can be included if they are notable enough to have their own article. Ajf773 (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parth Singh Chauhan

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NACTOR. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 07:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR at this time; appears to only have one significant role so far. PohranicniStraze (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently has minimal coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lourdes 08:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Indermaur

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Has only held minor local positions and local political party office. Reywas92^Talk 07:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as subject is a municipal official from a major Swiss city (City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan per WP:Notability). Sources show that Indermaur is written about in Swiss press. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- All sources are local press in St. Gallen, not wider Swiss press, a city of only 75,000 people, not an "internationally famous metropolitan area" (WP:POLOUTCOMES). Head of social services is not a significant municipal official; such administrators are rarely notable even for major US cities and states. Reywas92^Talk 19:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Gallen is the eighth largest city in Switzerland and one of the largest in Eastern Switzerland. Remember, this is a big city for a small country. Switzerland's largest city has approximately 409,000 inhabitants. St. Gallen is home to University of St. Gallen and in the twentieth century was Switzerland's largest exporter of textiles. It is a significant metropolitan area. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it appears that the author of this article has not been notified of its nomination for deletion. While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion per WP:AFD. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a local politiican without coverage outside the city where he serves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOL doesn't say that coverage has to come from outside of the area they serve. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. That can be local news articles so long as there is significant coverage in them. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All local politicians receive local coverage, so if we use such a low standard, all politicians would have to be included.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a claim. I, for one, cannot find substantial local coverage for every politician in my city. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- local politician needs more than just local sources.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Indermaur

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

Non-notable actress, fails WP:ENT. None of the sources have any substantive information about her, they are mainly context-free credits listings in minor films (and her own Linkedin page, sheesh). Reywas92^Talk 07:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Before nominating an article for deletion that is clearly a subject from a non-English speaking country, I would suggest searching for sources outside of English. Since the subject is a Swiss national, perhaps search for sources in German, French, Italian, and Romansh. Before nominating an article for deletion, Wikipedia suggests that the nominator:

- Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lede.

- Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted

- If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.

- If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.

These steps were not done prior to the nomination. She has been written about in Swiss press and has had lead, supporting, and minor roles in Swiss films, not "minor films". Are they Hollywood productions? No, but they are clearly notable in Switzerland. Sennentuntschi and Heidi have articles on English Wikipedia and Die Käserei in Goldingen has an article on German Wikipedia. She had a lead role in the Swiss horror film The Shed (as reported here) and was the lead role in the world's first Romansh language television feature film, Amur senza fin (as reported here) which in itself seems like a qualifier for notability. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually I DID take those steps and because I speak German I could analyze those sources! I do not believe that because a film may be notable enough to have articles on English or German Wikipedias means that anyone who appears in those films is also notable unless there are substantive sources about that person. That's great that a TV movie was made for the first time in a language spoken by just 70,000 people, and I see why Swiss news covered this film, but in my opinion the sources are covering the film, not her as an actress, and she does meet notability standards. Reywas92^Talk 19:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear so. There was also no effort made on your part to improve before nominating. While it may not seem significant internationally, it is in Switzerland. And this article is about her as an actress and learning Romansh in order to perform the role. Hardly just about the film. Just because something isn't the focus of English press does not mean it isn't notable, regardles of your opinion. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lol it's not my job to improve an article I don't find notable; that just means AFD is not for article clean-up. And the "opinion" link is about original research in articles - of course all discussion pages are opinion-based! OK there's one short article in Switzerland's tabloid about her preparation for the film, that still doesn't pass GNG. Reywas92^Talk 19:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't your job. But your focus should be on improving Wikipedia, and not having what feels like a personal vendetta against articles I've written or contributed to (not to mention the vast difference in tone you have used between conversations with other editors vs. conversations with me, but that's a discussion for another time and place). The opinion link does focus on original research in articles, as I am aware, but I linked it because you appear to be making an original analysis of the primary-source material regarding the subject. While yes, AFDs are opinion-based it is crucial to think about context. Blick is not a tabloid. While, in the early 2000s it was, the paper reverted back to a broadsheet daily newspaper in 2009. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NACTOR 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films- that has been met. Also coverage counts even if its a small country. Dream Focus 21:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACTOR 1. I echo the points by Dream Focus and Willthacheerleader18. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Willthacheerleader18 above. There are numerous sources as he/she listed above that are not yet included in the article. Sources do not yet have to be in the article, but simply available. This article needs more sources put in the article and expansion, not deletion. Z359q (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Willthacheerleader18 above and the subject obeys WP:NACTOR. Kaizenify (talk) 09:16, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bd2412 T 05:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Effect.AI

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

unreliable connected sources. ToT89 (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only sources are press releases / churnalism from unreliable cryptocurrency blogs. - MrOllie (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG unders standard crypto failings. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 02:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clear failure of WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional content Dr-Bracket (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also worth noting, creator has just been topic banned User_talk:Shuwun1991#Topic_banned_for_promotional_editing Dr-Bracket (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 08:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Covino

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

Article doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, or WP:ENTERTAINER. Article appears to be in a bad state, with a promotional and non-neutral tone, possibly indicating that much of the article may have been written by himself. Upon looking into improving the article, I found that all the sources were either dead, about his girlfriend, a press release, a facebook page, and a video of his, which are not independent sources for notability under WP:GNG. Searching for information on him also does not bring up really any independent sources or much of anything for that matter. His twitter account only has 3262 followers despite being active. It is also very hard to find information on the many shows listed under professional career. His website is also dead. One of his current shows does have an article, Covino and Rich, but its sources are not much better, including another facebook link and a forum post from a fellow presenter. His television and video game appearences also do not seem to be notable and over-exaggerate his role. For example, for his hell's kitchen appearence as himself, the only mention of it I could find is a tweet of someone congratulating him for appearing in an episodes promo, and Covino stating he should get credit on imbd for the appearence. Overall, seems like a vanity article that does not pass notability guidelines. Meszzy² (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a frankly pathetic attempt at personal promotion that is dependent on social media sources, and much of it veers into WHO CARES territory, like the name of the flower girl at his wedding and how he recently paid off his debts. He's not just trying to further his career with this article, but craves personal attention because his Honda Civic is awesome. His radio work and the small amount of reliable media attention it has received is already covered at Covino and Rich, and that is more than enough. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 07:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Very promotional tone that could be fixed, but heavy use of social media as sources and general lack of primary sources cannot be fixed. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 14:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did a little research in this guy, found more references and cleaned up page to remove unreferenced material and promotional content. I believe he meets basic WP:GNG. He is a famous Radio DJ/Host. I also found video documentary by LatinNation on Youtube that serves as a good reference to some of the content. The prior editors with DELETE vote should review this again. Peter303x (talk) 17:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC) 20250606090947[reply]
Delete. There are no adequate sources that can support notability, even post-make over. The general wretchedness of the text ("w/ the experts", etc) is not a factor but it surely does not help. -The Gnome (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Concerns over sourcing are particularly well-taken here ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing resource management

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

This looks like a WP:NEOLOGISM that has been created, replete with marketing jargon about "aligning people" and providing "solutions", via a single source. The article has already been briefly discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and doubts were cast regarding its notability. Am following through with that concern and nominating for deletion as promotional spam. A loose necktie (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep: Comment: The article has been in existence for over 12 years. About two weeks ago I had cause to wikilink to it (or maybe something similar ~~I forget~~ and related to an article I won't mention) and noticed it had no references and added one. More fool me. Been scummered all over WP:RSN that source has. Now the good people bringing this here and and at WP:RSN seem not to have noticed the same IP making this disruptive edit, then undoing it as reMove Inane ProMo jargon With AbSuRd capiTaliZation, not to mention this promotional edit before raising it here after wandering across it and recommending deletion and and egged on deletion here. Okay there is no proof these are the same person and they are year apart. But talk about co-incidence. Okay I suspect it started as a WP:NEOLOGISM but I now have 100,000+ google hits and I'm reasonably minded usage has waned ... but that is not a reason for delete. And what about isbn 978-9081330510 ? ... why was this not picked up at WP:BEFORE and mentioned ? Given the recent reference addition templating would likely be a better solution than dragging immediately to AfD. But an article improvement is likely needed more than deletion.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I'm noting a Gartner report from 2001, Gartner definition, Deloitte uses it], This work by S. Doyle .... and more from where they came from. Its quite reasonable for people to ask Wikipedia what the term means.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification: the human being writing this message right now is the same person who made the RS post, and the edit with "capiTaliZation" in the edit summary. However, I am not the same person who made the earlier edits to Marketing resource management. (When I log on from a new location, I often check the contributions of the IP address there out of curiosity; that's how I found the article, in its sad state.) --75.102.233.171 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The discussion was not allowed to run for 168 hours, in my view this was not best practice and contravenes WP:NotEarly, sometimes its the last hours or even a tad beyond people make comments that are helpful pre-relist. As per any time this happens at AfD which in the past has disrupted my RL I request the good faith relister who does a lot of good AfD work does not handle AfD relists for this article again. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete:~~neutral~~Comment: I've struck my speedy keep about as no longer applies. The article is tainted and stalked by an IP from the Windy City. The good faith reference I added do it to try to improve it from no sources to one source is positively cursed. I found it here. Purged from Wikipedia in what I still allege was a fail to follow procedure by Chetsford/Athaenara and blocked by discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 6 and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 February 18 by Sandstein+TonyBallioni+Cryptic ... Not to mention backdoored at WP:RSN by WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive 259#CRM Magazine (destinationcrm.com) to AfD. With all this this incarnation of Marketing resource management is doomed and the paid editor of Aprimo is free to promote DAM and remove traces of MRM. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted as pure WP:NEOLOGISM any good faith attempt to create a draft coud be speedied. While the current incarnation is tainted (I'd accept a delete current incarnation no prevention against a good faith replacement) I'm not happy to blanket ban against anyone who followed. The article beyond the first sentence is rubbish. It's inappropriate for me to do anything while I have a delete in place so I've moved to neutral and might try article improvement. DW&WR can wait.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Djm-leighpark – I've been as patient as I can possibly be, however, if you intend to keep weaving complaints about the failure of your Deletion Review proposal into every possible topic on Wikipedia for the indeterminate future – no matter how tangentially related – I really have to insist you stop pinging me into them. I'm in the middle of two GA reviews at the moment and really just don't have any more time to devote to this silliness. The fixation you've lately demonstrated on this long ago passed the threshold into the realm of disruption. In the most collegial way possible I'd suggest you try to find other subjects or activities on WP to interest you before a less collegiate editor suggests a TBAN. Also, I'm afraid I generally can't comprehend the substance of most of your comments (though 75.102.233.171 seems to have a similar style of writing to you and I can't understand what they're saying either, so perhaps it's just me). Chetsford (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a clear WP:NEOLOGISM problem, per nominator. From my research, it's an entirely made up term and is being used as promotional material. Strong hints of COI here. I don't think this article contributes positively to WP. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely unsourced neologism. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or selective merge to marketing operations management, an overlapping concept. If Gartner devoted a report to this topic 18 years ago, the topic is neither unsourced nor a neologism. It shows up in a Gbooks search in multiple sources. It's closely related to marketing operations management and is treated as a synonym in some sources. The page itself received 1,266 views over the past 30 days, suggesting it is a real search term. I haven't done enough in-depth research to tell if there is sufficient sourcing out there for notability. Gartner is behind a paywall for me. But a redirect and perhaps selective merge of sources and a couple of sentences to a closely related topic is a reasonable alternative to deletion per WP:ATD for readers wanting to know what this topic is about and where to look for further info. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The version of the article at the point of nomination was this Old revision of Marketing resource management. As at 10:00 10 March 2019 UTC the version reflects where I have done some restructuring leaving most of that underlying content unchanged (some has been removed) with some additional sources and templating. I intend to apply further improvements however I will be using a series of edits over a few days and have elected to use a sandbox for that purpose rather than mainspace under construction as interim edits may be drafts and inconsistent. To state the obvious many comments above be applicable to all versions of an article with this name, some will pertain to the version at time of comment. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article as now stands following improvement is rightfully sourced and sustained coverage and coverage in depth sates WP:NEO in terms of retention. That is not so say article isn't free of issues and in need of content improvement but those are not AfD matters per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I'd be highly concerned about a redirect/merge given the improvements to this article to the current ~~Market operations management~~ Marketing operations management (which I removed 2 references from yesterday leaving an MPM! source). While ultimately I might support a good quality redirect or merge properly done I can't see an obvious target and such matters are best discussed outside AfD. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:ADVOCACY for a current neologism. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is reasonable to assume that is directed at me, and therefore it would be inappropriate for me not to comment outside a reasonable timescale if elseone has not done so. If it is so directed then rightfully a WP:TBAN needs also to raised. But advocacy may apply to other major content contributors also. Marketing Resource Management has been in use for about 20 years or more now. It has been regularly used in product names by various competing manufacturers, though my perception is use of the term is waning and may be becoming historic. It seems reasonable people may wish to look it up on Wikipedia to see what MRM is/was about. The article at time of nomination was in my opinion (and from other opinions above) a mess (though I had added a reference to it a week or two before as a side activity when trying to understand MRM). I ended up reworking the article top to toe, though I did use the original as a starting point and while I used an intermediate sandbox I put edits back in one by one so I hoped my reasoning can be followed rather than a one shot copy-paste. There may be apparent views I am promoting MRM over Marketing Operations Management (MOM) and some edits I made may reasonably lead to that conclusion. These would include removal of MOM from the lede of the MRM article, removal of references from the MOM article and questioning the remaining reference, and taking action and commenting on an editor who made an unsigned essayed opinion on the MOM talk page of the article who had been promoting his own company elsewhere. Basically one issue I have with merger at this time is that the suggestion MRM=MOM has been in Wikipedia for about 10 years and *some* later sources are using Wikipedia as a source for the assertion. I have a feeling MRM was before MOM but will place no bet on this. While I'd welcome a merge discussion I strongly feel the MOM article would need cleanup first and also strong sources identified first that support MRM=MOM (they probably exist); these are best done outside AfD (and I am not volunteering). In the event MRM is deleted MOM, EMM and likely others on Template:Marketing operations will need to be examined, that may need to happen anyway. Indeed nearly anything marketing possibly needs careful neutrality scrutiny as these are the people aiming to sell one the Emperor's old clothes. In overall context this article is now reasonably neutral and reasonably descriptive and not trying to explicitly align people. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Group

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

Fails WP: NCOMPANY, in that there is no verifiable evidence that company has attracted significant/in-depth coverage in multiple independent verifiable secondary sources (see WP:ORGCRIT - which generally follows WP:GNG but puts a greater emphasis on the quality of the sources, in order to eliminate justification on the basis of press and promotional coverage of the company being used as arguements that there is significant coverage in multiple sources. Dan arndt (talk) 05:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it is the parent entity which owns several popular schools in Sri Lanka, although I agree the current article currently lacks sufficient references. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gateway College, Sri Lanka. Reh man 09:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've searched and can't find any reliable sources that support WP:NCOMPANY - just because the company owns schools in Sri Lanka doesn't make it automatically notable. If you can find evidence that satisfies WP:ORGCRIT then I be prepared to reconsider this nomination. Dan arndt (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs drastic improvements, After additional research - I found enough secondary sources for Gateway Group ^[1] NirvanaToday^t@lk 10:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ ""Gateway Group" Sri Lanka - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2019-03-07.

Comment, @Nirvanatoday: in accordance with WP:GNG, they need to provide significant coverage not just mentions in passing in press releases or promotional pieces as most of thses appear to be. Can you be more specific as to which reference supports the organization's notability - rather than just a Google search link. Dan arndt (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 07:44, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be plenty of sources on various aspects of the group (the schools, the awards organised, etc.) - [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43], I'm sure there are likely more (perhaps even more in Sinhalese sources). The college itself might have been worth keeping (a number of the sources are about the college), but it has been redirect here, so we ended with this parent group only. It appears to be a significant provider of education in Sri Lanka, and should satisfy WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Hzh (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Excluding ducks and socks, the consensus evident in this discussion is to keep the article. Discussion about article content, renaming, forking, merging can be taken up on the article's talk page. Lourdes 08:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SkyWay Group

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Simply doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Page is riddled with original research, unreliable sources, and WP:SYNTH. Sources do not add up to WP:CORPDEPTH. (Note - Not related to the content of the page, but likely to this discussion, there are a number of blocked accounts and WP:SPAs who have been editing the page who may show up in the comments below. Just an FYI for the closing admin). CNMall41 (talk) 04:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article, as i see, has the only one goal to defame some organization. It is written negatively and it is on purpose. It is about a group of companies that does not exist legally. The absence of direct evidence proves it. But it mentions the name of some technical project, that was mentionet positively on different sources. For example: ^[1] Here there are only negative sources selected.

The aforementioned article alleges that Skyway have never implemented a single project, although they have just created the first product of the range, and the rest is still being created. For any sane person it is obvious that such a sophisticated commercial product as a transport and infrastructure complex cannot be implemented in such a short time.

The warnings from banks mentioned in the article apply to companies that have no relation to the transport developer company. Moreover, the warnings themselves are not an evidence of fraud, but the article presents them as if they are a proof of something.

~~The article alleges that there is no technology at all, that Skyway is only a fundraiser, which is a lie.~~

~~We can learn about developer on official site http://sw-tech.by/~~

~~In general, the article is written at a level that does not correspond to the reputation of such a serious encyclopedic edition, like wikipedia.~~

~~In connection with all the above, I kindly ask you to remove this article. Igor Koiro (talk) 10:06, 1 March 2019~~ striking sock contribution (UTC) — Igor Koiro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

^ https://www.technology.org/2018/09/20/roads-of-the-future-what-they-will-look-like/

Comment @Igor Koiro: Word up! I would call the entry somehow like “Fear of SkyWay non-implementation” that is really irrelevant to be covered in objective knowledge base that Wikipedia is. Taking into consideration Rail_transport history it’s like to draw a new house project, to lay the foundation and just next morning to claim its failure of building… If smb intends to warn he will better to post warnings on appropriate platforms or to think about creating of a warningpedia. I’m voting for deletion too! striking sock contribution
Comment @Igor Koiro: You are a WP:SPA, which is not prohibited in WP, but it means you need to be very (very) precise in your objections or they will get ignored here. You are making contradictory claims above; saying a group does not exist but then saying that a group called "SkyWay" does exist and is doing projects. Key items this WP:AFD will consider are:

1. Is this a notable company or group that appears in several significant independent and reliable sources (per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP) – if not, it will get deleted?

2. If it passes GNG, we also ask (although this is not specifically an AfD purpose), whether this material is:

2a. An unambiguous attack page and therefore should be deleted immediately under WP:CSD, criteria WP:G10, and/or

2b. A page with such biased content (e.g. WP:SYN), that it is effectively a WP:TNT case (e.g. if you started editing it, it would end up blank).

If this article survives the above challenges, then it will probably will survive AfD. If you want to contribute, you should read the above WP policies, and be more precise in your comments on this page. You can add internet pages/references from the internet using by enclosing the URL in hard brackets like this SkyWay scam warning in New Zealand. Britishfinance (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have found no evidence yet stating that the SkyWay Group is itself a legal entity. Furthermore, the SPA himself states, "It is about a group of companies that does not exist legally." This is not to say the group does not exist or that it is "illegal". However, it is a non-legal entity AFAIK. So regarding this specfic point, the SPA did not contradict himself.^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 15:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Igor Koiro: You provided 2 links and both are self-published materials. www.technology.org says clearly: "Source: SkyWay". Your account is created just recently and it is probably one of sockpuppets of User:Yauheni moskov (admins, please check). You have chosen the name of known critic of Skyway so I don't think that this opinion is independent.Dron007 (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dron007:, Speak for yourself. Dron007 WP:SPA - an account created with only one purpose. He edits the SkyWay group page. This member takes an active part in the discussion of all headings and edits of this article only. All his edits concern only this section. He leads a discussion with all participants on their pages and discusses the section only negatively. Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See my activity since 2006 in Russian Wikipedia.Dron007 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Dron007 is username similar to the one actively trolling SkyWay on the web.~~ striking sock contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeromeRRR (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Careful with untrue accusations Leonid Kotvitsky. Look at the talk page sub-heading 'String Transport→SkyWay Group name change' for discussion with user:Dron007 about careful alteration of misleading wording to PREVENT untrue negative implication for the SkyWay group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 17:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Igor Koiro: It should be mentioned here Igor Koiro suggests that the regulatory warnings from banks don't actually mean anything in particular or aren't referring to particular instances of fraud. It need to be said here that these references DO say something: that an internationally recognized organization has issued a very particular warning to the public of any given country that they should not invest in this specific company because it is illegal, risky and dangerous to do so. The fact that so many countries have issued different types of warnings about different aspects of the company demonstrates how notable and pervasive the marketing techniques of these companies have been. They are hardly empty warnings, and each one is different for the specificities of the marketing plan applied in their country. There are also REPEATED warnings like the 7 times SkyWay group companies are mentioned by CONSOB, the Italian regulatory agency, from 2014 to 2019. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zaxander and Zachar Laskewicz: As most crowdfunding financed startups are illegal, risky and dangerous, beyond controversy, warnings have the right to exist, but these are pure WP:SYNTH and WP:G10 to create a WP article about a company fitting not to WP:NCORP containing only list of warnings and nothing more. striking sock contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeromeRRR (talk • contribs) 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Delete. WP:SYN In this article, references to sources of information do not meet encyclopedic requirements. Instead of the definitions of SkyWay Capital Ltd and Eurasian Rail Skyway Systems Ltd, these names include links to articles in the media that are destructive in nature. The author deliberately cites facts in a negative way. This violates the basic principle of Wikipedia - neutrality. Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators. Account Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year is one of many others, including already blocked accounts who are created recently and use names of well-known critics of Skyway. Leonid Kotvitsky has Youtube channel where he unveils fraud projects along with Skyway: [44]Dron007 (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - help improve it. It seems to me like there are a lot of published verifiable sources on this subject. There are definitely users who regularly post unverifiable propaganda in concerted editing wars but we are trying to make sure that such postings are quickly removed. Users have been going to considerable effort to translate articles from different languages from third-party verifiable sources and to collate a wide-variety of different published sources to build up a set of data about this set of companies and its practices. We are trying to use the talk page to achieve consensus before publishing to the article. But it's easy to panic if an edit war starts and large sets of changes start to be made which undermine all the good research which has been done. Recently the article name has changed. It has been agreed upon that there is not enough verifiable scientific research to justify covering the 'string transport' of the old title and that the sum of verifiable research we do have (which is growing by the day) concerns the companies who promote the science (as opposed to the 'science' on which it is very difficult to find third-party assessments at all). The name change was approved and we've attempted to update the article accordingly.

The last couple of days has seen consistent efforts by new users to add self-promoting unverified propaganda to the article. It has been a very concerted effort to make changes to undermine the article and its structure. But we've been doing our best to return it to how it was before these attacks and then gradually improve it in a fashion which achieves consensus among users. But such attacks make it difficult for change to be consistent and constant. There are obviously parties who are better served by this article being completely changed or removed. Before the name change had occurred I would have aupported a deletion as well. The unverified self-promoting resources made the article very confusing. But since the article has changed to an analysis of the SkyWay companies, it seems to me an enormous pity to remove the only place where balanced, critical voices on a subject can be brought together. If this site is deleted, the first access people who use an internet search engine will get are to the pages and pages of self-published 'SkyWay' propaganda. The many, many articles in Greek, German, Lithuanian, Indonesian, Italian, Russian and Arabic will be ignored. People will not have a chance to share their data at the talk page. They will be silenced. In other words, people will be misinformed. I agree that something has to be done to ensure that this article is protected and edited responsibly; in its best form it was hardly perfect but that doesn't mean it should be removed. Being critical of the article just because you don't like its contents will not solve the very real problems its removal will create: a misinformation vacuum.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Zaxander: I’m seeing everything to be in favor of the article deletion. Even those who support its keeping cannot bring any referable WP:PGLIST item nor forcible argument for saving it as is. However according to WP:VOTES and WP:NOTDEM it would be preferable to find a WP:CONS. As you ask to “NOT DELETE THIS ARTICLE - help improve it”, I would see you to be welcome to propose it re-edition describing SkyWay project on every side. Otherwise thanks for agreeing with its deletion as it's currently harmful to project (WP:G10). striking sock contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeromeRRR (talk • contribs) 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Zaxander: Being currently a startup technology venture project SkyWay can be called a notable company too soon. As well as it’s too early to make any conclusions about its “implementation failure”. Few organization warnings and negative publications violating WP:NPOV cannot be sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH and be a Wikipedia article basis. In my point of view such concern based post is rather worthy a specific forum / community board topic and I’m leaning toward this article deletion more than its improving. It seems to be more reasonable to publish another one including both pros and cons based on really reliable refers. striking sock contribution

@Zaxander: There are clearly serious issues with this company or group (I can see from my google search). However, articles that veer into WP:G10 (per my comments above), can get deleted quickly even outside of AfD. You need to take out any wording/language in this article that is potentially POV or not fully substantiated by a reference. In fact, for situations like this, it is often better to restate sentences as "On the X date, the Y [well-regarded] newspaper, made the following statement about the company: "[insert sentence from the paper]" – E.g let the RS do the talking, not you. Take a look at contentious articles such as Catherine Blaiklock - very bland sentances that let the high-quality references do the talking (and if they can't, then maybe the statement is not supported). When editors adopt this approach in such articles, the edit war intensity drops because it is harder to contest directly chronicled/quoted facts from quality WP:RS. Britishfinance (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Zaxander, can you please provide me with the links you feel show that the topic meets WP:NCORP? Everything you say above is related to content issues, not notability. We need to have significant coverage in reliable sources which meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Content issues can be addressed on the talk page. This AfD is specifically addressing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The problem is that the article is no longer about the 'science' of the skyway technology; we've established that there isn't really enough verifiable non self-promoting references to 'skyway' to make this 'notable' in and of itself, but considerably more about the companies as an entity and the problems they've had with regulatory services in selling their products in a wide range of different countries. Take the Belgian FSMA reference or any of the regulatory warnings listed in the article to national banks. These warnings provide real proof that there is something notable to be observed/commented upon. We know that there are a number of different companies registered in the Virgin Islands, London, Saint-Lucia and Belarus who belong to the Skyway Group as is stated in many of these verifiable references. I can see the problem with finding something 'notable' when the entire subject of an article has changed. But there is certainly much more that is notable now that the subject of the article is actually referring to what is being referenced in the verifiable sources. And it seems to me that there are more than enough of them. And I should note here that the article did not contain any self-referencing or independent research when the request for deletion was submitted. You can't blame an article for the work of vandals, sock-puppets and white-washers. The links in the article are all to third-party sources some of which are extremely reliable. Hope this helps. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also on my user:Zaxander talk page you can read the translations of the Lithuanian DELFI article which quotes Cibas the responsible party for the financial regulatory service there who is scathing in his criticism of the SkyWay Group. He defines the complexity of the marketing techniques these companies use. I'd be really surprised if you read this article you'd still think that the 'SkyWay Group' is not in some way 'notable' if not really surprising in an of it itself. The Italian article I translated also more than suggests that this group of companies is highly notable for what it does (or in the cases they refer to) talk about A LOT but then don't actually do: "SKYWAY - the 'flying' tram company which has never realized a project'. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELFI article (Lithuanian)[45] - Letteraemme article (Italian)[46] - Translations: user:Zaxander

Prepare to be surprised as I still do not find these references to meet WP:ORGCRIT. The first one is really good, but it is more about the founder and his dealings (potentially illegal). If you were able to find more of these, an article could possibly be created for him. However, the article is about HIM not specifically about the COMPANY. The second one does not talk in-depth about the SkyWay Group. It mentions individual entities but nothing in-depth about the Group. I understand where you are coming from trying to tie these references together, but that is exactly what WP:SYNTH. The references need to talk in-depth about the company, not mention the company and talk in-depth about the founder.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you surprised me. What do you actually mean? Are you trying to say that there is not enough notable material about either the technology or the businesses? Or that we should actually go back to how it was when the article was about the science? Because the company itself goes out of its way to make a connection between the science and the companies. That they are one and the same. And besides, although the article may say the name 'Yunitskiy' it is clear that they are not actually referring to what HE does personally, but what his companies do. You have to deliberately go out of your way NOT to see a connection between them. When an individual directs and own companies it is only natural that you'll use his name to refer to what the companies do. Sorry but you're clutching at straws if you're saying that the Lithuanian article is in fact about Yutnitskiy and not his companies. Besides the article doesn't just talk about Yutnitskiy - it talks about him and his representatives, i.e. it's talking about the SkyWay companies. And then there's all the official warnings for SkyWay companies from regulatory organisations. They don't mention Yunitskiy at all. There are enough references that comment on either the notability of either the SkyWay companies OR Yunitskiy, OR BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. How much notoriety do you actually need? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying the exact same thing I have said since I recommended the page for deletion. The company does not meet notability guidelines. What the company does to connect itself to the technology is irrelevant. I am not sure how to say this more clearly, but your assessment above is useless without being able to show WP:ORGCRIT. Warnings from regulatory agencies don't meet ORGCRIT. Also, I will address your comments below separately, but your "clutching at straws" comments as well as those below are bordering on not WP:AGF. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in your deletion request you state that the article is 'riddled with unreliable references and independent research'. I'm intimately familiar with all the references that are referred to. There is no independent research and a large number of the references are to very reliable sources such as national banks. On exactly what are you claiming that the article is riddled with independent research and unreliable references? It doesn't make any sense and incorrect assumptions like this would suggest that you or whoever actually made the request for deletion is deliberately ignoring or obscuring the facts.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your misquote of me above needs to be corrected. I am not sure how you missed it since it is literally written above. I did not say "riddle with unreliable references and independent research." I said "riddled with original research, unreliable sources, and WP:SYNTH." If you would read WP:OR and WP:SYNTH you will hopefully understand how they apply to the references on the page. Also, being reputable and being reliable are not the same thing. A bank may be a reputable source, but it is not necessarily reliable. The warnings are also primary sources and the content on the page cited to them is original research. Again, if you can read through WP:ORGCRIT which is the guideline specific to the references required to establish notability on companies, please show me any of the current references from a national bank meet that criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I love this in the deletion request 'there are a number of blocked accounts and WP:SPAs who have been editing the page who may show up in the comments below'. Does that sound strange to anyone else that you have to warn people about the possible danger of people who just might comment negatively on the deletion request? So have any of the blocked users you warn us about, have they actually been responding? And if they have: so what?!! Why would you possibly need to warn us about that? How can you actually justify negatively influencing us about the supposed dangers of users who may make themselves heard and who may once have been blocked? Surely anyone's opinion is equally valid. Or are you trying to insinuate that if there are negative comments they are probably posted by users who have edited the page and who probably have been blockied? Why on earth would you do that? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you love it. Now that you ventured beyond assuming good faith, let me be clear about a few things. First, the statement was made for administrators, of which you are not. If you took the time to read (which you haven't given your misquote above between "independent research" and "original research"), you would see that. I have no idea what the SPA or SPI accounts have in mind when they edit this article. Some may want to keep the page and others may not. I don't really care, but left the message for the closing admin which is not uncommon and not meant to swing a vote my way. I don't tolerate drama. If you feel I have violated Wikipedia guidelines by posting that above, please take me to WP:ANI. If not, I would suggest you WP:FOC or you may find yourself there. I still have not seen a valid argument from you which shows how any of these references meet WP:ORGCRIT. At this point, your arguments are ad nauseam --CNMall41 (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ihanks for informing me about all that. It still seems pretty strange but I am the only one who mentioned it so I'll just have to accept that it looked strange to me and me alone and comes from my ignorance. I actually do assume your good faith. I'm just trying to understand the basis for the argumentation and the pretty strange wording of the deletion request. You're actually saying that the references from the national banks are not reliable? And if not, if we can prove they are reliable resources then will the subject be considered notable? If this subject is really not worthy of an article because it simply not being notable enough then I've wasted a lot of my time researching a subject which has influenced people I know and stolen a lot of their money. And they did that thanks to them being misinformed by a Wikipedia article which inflated the science and which they wrongly assumed was fact and was therefore a good way to invest their money. I'm all for a deletion but considering what would come in its place, i.e. pages and pages of misinformation, it seems an enormous pity. Surely you would concede that the references that do exist won't disappear or become any less true in the future if you accept they're true now, and therefore that in the future more references will only accumulate knowledge and make the companies MORE notable not less? Surely there should be a place to collect this data? And here I'm referring only to third-party assessments, not self-aggrandizing propaganda. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:45, 2 March 2019 (UTC)'[reply]

@CNMall41: Checking for clarity here: are you really claiming that national banks and regulatory agencies are in any way unreliable sources? I could possibly see why you could question 'banks' in a general sense; they've hardly got the best reputation at the moment. But 'National Banks' which are internationally recognized organisations that represent national interests. And a large number of them have commented on SkyWay companies as included in the links below which I checked in comparison to the Wikipedia guideline for the notability of companies. It's really hard to imagine that there are sources which make something more notable than that.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why the Russian version of the Wiki article on SkyWay was deleted? Maybe there is something to learn from that which might apply here. siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 14:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmarinas86:I actually don't know why it was deleted. We assume that it was because there wasn't enough scientific research; it was after all an article about 'String transport' and not the company. And although it may be easy to assume they didn't change the article into a discussion of the company like we have here because they didn't have the verifiable resources we have now, we don't actually have any proof this is true. Surely that would be easy to follow up? It's certainly an interesting question. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmarinas86: It was deleted in 2016 and the reason was absense of notability. That was so in 2016 but now we have enough sources. I don't know why it is still not possible to create the Russian version.Dron007 (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only issue I can see is that there are not many sources in the English language. But those that are there seem to indicate sufficient notability. Any concerns over its neutrality should be addressed within the article. They are not reasons for deleting the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Escape_Orbit, content issues are not the reason I recommended the page for deletion. POV and other issues can be addressed on the article page which I noted above. I am concerned with notability and was wondering if you can provide me with a few references that meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41, Sorry, I shoud have been clearer. I was refering to reasons given above by Igor Koiro, which at the time of my comment was the only support for deletion. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Escape_Orbit, thanks for the clarification. Can you address the question relating to WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment [(from Zaxander, don't !vote twice)] Pay attention! The article was in the section "Technologies" and the tags in the article remain the same: "categories: monorails, proposed rail transport, infrastructure, rail transport, all modes of transport." The page is already indexed and has a rating in search engines for direct requests, so the page was specially stolen.

The content does not correspond to the description of the technology and has no encyclopedic value.

If the article is about the company, you need to describe the history of the company. The company is little known and is actually a startup of WP:NCORP. The General audience of the company among users of the social network is very small. Not even enough to check the official pages in social networks. And such articles are aimed at destroying the image of a young growing company. And aimed at destroying their business reputation. WP:G10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk • contribs) 14:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC) Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 14:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Leonid Kotvitsky: On the talk page of the SkyWay Group article a sub-heading was added ages ago to discuss the important issue of changing the 'Categories' and the 'See also' links which are misleading. The 'see also' links have already been updated to included MLMs and crowdfunding. These categories, however, need to be discussed and consensus needs to be reached before they are changed. That is no good reason for questioning the validity of the content. No one wants to destroy the reputation of a company. They just want verifiable resources well-represented and not distorted.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three years ago the topic was not notable, article contained 100% of self-promoted materials and could be deleted safely. Now there are many independent materials about Skyway especially after entering UAE market and signing MoU with Roads and Transport Authority. The problem is that this group of companies tries to enter different international markets and many materials are localized (India, Lithuania, Indonesia) or have only Russian versions because there are many investors from Russia and Belarus. Another problem is that it is MLM company and investors are very interested in creating positive image of the company. So there are many advertisement materials we need to filter. I agree that some sentences should be reformulated to make the article neutral but that is not the reason for removing the article. I may look as a WP:SPA but my account was created in 2006. This topic is interesting for me and I wish the article became a good starting point for readers who want to know valid information about this company/technology. If we delete the article they will most probably get one of many promoted materials. Dron007 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dron007, being a SPA has nothing to do when you created an account, it has to do with your editing activity. There is nothing against being a SPA, but I wanted to point it out so that administrators can take that into account. As far as your !vote, you mainly address content. This again can be addressed on the talk page. We are here at AfD because of notability. Can you, as I have asked others above, provide me with the links that meet WP:ORGCRIT? If the page is kept after this discussion, everyone can certainly work on the content issues. But, it makes no sense to go through that process if the topic isn't notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take Australian project, cancelled now. It was covered by popular news sites of Adelaide: [47] [48] [49] [50] (some problems opening last one now. Text is available here: [51]). So it has "significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources". Sources for Lithuania, India, Indonesia, UAE present in the article. Whole articles are about SkyWay, it is not just one-line mention. Of course most information exists in Belarus and Russian sites. Many of them independent like Onliner, Tut.By mentioned in the articles. There are many not mentioned yet like [52] or Popular Mechanics: [53] (it is placed on Skyway partner site but it is PDF of the printed version of the magazine. I cannot find it placed in the other place now.) Dron007 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will go through these one by one. However, this is a page about the company, not the technology. References will need to meet WP:ORGCRIT.

3. This reference is a podcast and hardly something that is fact-checked (meaning it would not be reliable as it is just one person's opinon). It is also about the technology, not the company.

4. - SAA

5. - Not in-depth about the company as it mainly talks about the technology. In fact, it is basically WP:SPIP as the majority of the article is quotes from the company founder.

6/7. Again, this one focuses on the technology, not the company. I would also consider this routine coverage as it simply announces that the technology will be installed at a specific location. What specific information in this reference is about the company?

The last two references are in Russian. The Popular Mechanics article I cannot translate as it is PDF format. However, the first one I used Google Translate for and it is solely about the technology again. There is nothing in there specifically about the company (founding, funding, etc.). This page is simply using the company technology in an attempt to show the company is notable. That's now how WP:NCORP works. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FIVEaa is not a one person's podcast but one of the biggest Adelaide's radio stations notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article FIVEaa

I agree that these articles tell us about technology because it is the only product of SkyWay group of companies. But it is also about projects, investments and they mention company which realise these projects. In the article above it is stated that "Mr Hook travelled to Belarus last year to meet Dr Yunitskiy and they have now formed SkyWay Transport Australia to push the idea in Adelaide." Isn't it information about the company? Nobody else offers this technology (according to Yunitsky) so we cannot separate the technology from Skyway company and from Yunitskiy. If any of these three (technology, projects, company) is notable (and it is!) we need to have just one article covering them all. That's why I think that our article should have more information about technology and projects.Dron007 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue. The references talk about the technology or the founder, but the only ones that talk about the company only mention it, not focus on it. Taking these references together to show notability for the company would qualify as WP:SYNTH in my opinion. The article you are referring to talks about the founder and the technology he invented. It then mentions he formed a company by the name of SkyWay Transport Australia which is one of the companies of the group. However, it does not talk in-depth about the company, just the founder and the technology. The page would be more suited as one about the technology (or the founder if there are enough references like the one you reference above). The relevant guideline is WP:ORGCRIT. If you can show me how the references meet that criteria, I will gladly withdraw the nomination for deletion. There is a suggestion below to merge into the technology name which at this point is likely the best WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we change the article to the arcticle about technology only then all information about shares, investments, companies, possible Ponzi scheme, warnings of financial regulators, Yunitskiy, projects' cancellation, work in different countries will became irrelevant. We would only have to quote self-published materials or Yunitskiy's words copied by 3rd party sources. There are sources that cover all aspects of Skyway - structure of companies, achieved results, criticism of technology. Look at Onliner articles.Dron007 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should also be emphasized here that with time it has become clearer that articles that mention the 'SkyWay technology' and/or Yunitskiy ARE talking about the company and how it works. It's marketing techniques involve everything Yunitskiy does and says. He attends every SkyWay event. He is the primary sharehold of the companies. He is SkyWay. Marketing practices should in the future be part of the article, but any valid verifiable that discusses the technology of SkyWay or its inventor/promoter, should by seen as valid sources of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaxander (talk • contribs) 11:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me add 2 cents. For those who doubt whether the Skyway Group is a legal entity: they have an investment memorandum that clearly confirms this.

See here (page 11 and also page 7): [54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.197.219.110 (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC) — 109.197.219.110 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

legal entity

An association, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, trust, or individual that has legal standing in the eyes of law. A legal entity has legal capacity to enter into agreements or contracts, assume obligations, incur and pay debts, sue and be sued in its own right, and to be held responsible for its actions.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/legal-entity.html

A group of companies consisting of legal entities does not itself imply that the group is in of itself a legal entity.^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 14:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

non-legal

not related to, qualified for, or phrased in the manner of the practice of law (distinguished from illegal): a nonlegal explanation.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/non-legal

^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 14:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename. This article was originally named String transport and was about the technology. It has previously been to AFD under that name and I have now added the previous AFD link box to the top of this page. It has only recently (22 Feb) been renamed and refocused as a company article. The company may not meet ORGDEPTH, but that only shows that the rename was a bad idea and should be undone. The technology, as a technology, cannot pass GNG as standalone article either. What is notable here, and what got this kept at the first AFD, is the questionable investment schemes that have got the attention of financial regulators around the world. That is what the article should focus on, and that is why it should be kept (with a title like Skyway investment irregularities or something similar). SpinningSpark 22:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that investment irregularities of some company could be more notable than company itself. There are many reliable sources that describe Skyway projects, some articles cover financial or technical aspects. Too narrow name will not allow us to cover activiy of this company and its projects. Dron007 (talk) 01:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In more mature companies critical contents will tend to have their own article such as Lawsuits and Controversies of Tesla, Inc. and Criticism of Walmart. Having a critical article on the company but no main article about the company would be quite irregular to say the least.^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 04:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a move discussion in February. I am not sure what would take precedence between the AfD to keep the topic of the technology or the move discussion that came after. I would say that there likely are enough references to support a page on the technology, just not on the company. So is your proposal to merge the applicable content back to the name "string transport?" I think that would be a solution here since the company itself falls short of WP:NCORP.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear here: whatever is decided, there are not enough verifiable references on the science to justify an article on the science alone. If there was, the name wouldn't have been changed in the first place. The problem is that the only valid verifiable references are on the company. This has been decided and agreed upon by many users. The argument is NOT whether or not the name change was valid and this should not come into any argument on a discussion of notability.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Weighing in on the 'keep and rename' argument: maybe we should consider simplifying the name from 'SkyWay Group' to simply 'SkyWay' which allows the article to either develop in whichever direction the research takes it without restricting it to the companies and the companies alone. After all, there is general consensus that 'SkyWay' involves a group of companies which promote a particular technology. 'SkyWay' is present in most of the business names associated with the company. 'SkyWay Group' is not. It could reduce the chance it has of being deleted and is in many ways a compromise that could please more of the people who have entered this discussion. It may give us more room to maneuver in the future and reduce that chance of the article being deleted again. It's also the name used by the current Czech and Norwegian articles. I've included a discussions of these issues on the talk page.-Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Primary criteria for the notability of a company (Wikipedia guidelines): a company is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The SkyWay companies HAVE been significantly covered. This is clearly so in the official warnings from regulatory agencies from the Czech Republic[[55]], Italy (Confob), Belgium (FSMA)[[56]], Germany[[57]], Greece[[58]], Lithuania[[59]] and Slovenia[[60]]. They refer specifically to companies in the SkyWay group and not to Yunitskiy himself or his technology. They HAVE, therefore, had multiple assessments. These are independent assessments by reputable regulatory agencies. These sources ARE dependable. These sources are also used by third-parties to make their own judgements about these assessments by national banks and regulatory agencies. Many third-party articles quote them as a reliable source. But we didn’t use these third-party assessments. We went back to the originals themselves and quoted them. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This deletion discussion has taught me about the actual value of primary references for use as notability. Please note that a request for more secondary confirmations by verifiable references of these warnings has been put on the talk page with each of these primary sources. But do note that we have many verifiable sources already. Some of them have been collected since this deletion request was made. I included examples of verifications of these primary sources in my comment on the accusation of vandalism below. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSOPINION

“

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in standard news article format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP § Reliable sources and WP:BLP § Using the subject as a self-published source.

”

^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 15:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources of each need to specfically mention SkyWay Group or the SkyWay Group of Companies. We cannot simply combine sources together to make inferences which are not stated in the sourced material. That would be WP:SYNTH. If you have found material warning against investment partners such as Sky Way Capital or Sky Way Invest Group you will have to see to it that the SkyWay Group or the SkyWay Group of Companies are mentioned. I see in a recent edit you deleted some of your example links. I was able to confirm only that one of them mentions the SkyWay Group (i.e. https://www.lb.lt/en/news/bank-of-lithuania-warns-skyway-activities-in-lithuania-illegal)^talk2siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia 16:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmarinas86: Sorry that happened by accident. Believe me I didn't want to remove all the links I had so carefully pasted into place. I agree 'SkyWay Group' is an abstract term that doesn't actually mean anything on its own. Because there are so many companies that are registered in the name of Yunitskiy promoting the SkyWay technology, and different members of these companies are active in different countries, I agree it is very confusing. In an earlier version of the article I suggested stating that 'SkyWay Group' is a 'blanket term' to refer to a group of companies. This was later changed simply to 'term'; but it's important to state that this is actually NOT a company name; it's just a term we use to refer to the large group of companies which you helped us make in the talk page. What unites these companies is the fact that they promote the 'SkyWay' technology and are founded/owned (arguably) by Yunitskiy who invented the technology. I thank you for your help with this list, by the way. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's appropriate to include SkyWay, String Transport technology and the associated companies within the scope of this article. "String transport" isn't a generic concept like people mover; it's a specific product developed and promoted by a dedicated company, similar to ULTra (rapid transit).

Most of the information about the technology was removed because it was sourced to the SkyWay website instead of independent secondary sources. The remaining content focused on the companies, so it seemed appropriate to rename the article to reflect this.

Most of the media coverage that I've found has only superficial descriptions of the technology, focusing more on the company and its investment schemes, but I would support adding more about the technology if it can be appropriately sourced. –dlthewave ☎ 21:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As i see, the article is infuenced by someone`s business interests. The souces are contradictory, the information represented is prejudised. It is seen even from the biased souces on which the article is based on. For example, the article is about the business scheme of SkyWay, but there is also an information about testing site with photos. Anyway, it doesn`t matter because it is better to wait and see if the tecnology will be implemented. If we will see a project at the markt soon - it will be evident that it worth the article. And if the company will be oficially charged with fraud - it will be evident what to write about too. Now it is just either an attack page or PR-activity. --Swin3000 (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC) striking sock contribution — Swin3000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please note that the reference you mention is concerning the EcoTechnoPark. If you notice in the actual article there is only one sentence about this place in Belarus because there is not much verifiable commentary on the test site. You could hardly say that from this one sentence that it was prejudiced or biased by the 'onliner.by' article you include. Not a single word of this single sentence was influenced by this article. Also, this deletion request as has already been mentioned is based on the notability of the company, not the technology and whether it is ever implemented. It's a pity that your request for delete is not very useful. Maybe you could reread the article and strengthen your argument? –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zachar Laskewicz Actually, I just mentioned only one source to be brief. But if to analyze the sources, we can see that the article is based on low-quality information like poorly reliable local media (The Baltic Times, Onliner) and primary sources (bank warnings) not acceptable according to the WP:ORGCRITE. So there is no sources worth mentioning here, and, accordingly, there is nothing to read about here. Also, according to the WP:ILLCON if an organization that is not itself generally notable (there is no actuall information on string transport in the article) will have a number of significant sources discussing its (alleged) illegal conduct, the sources shall not be used to establish an organization's notability. So I think that the article should be deleted. I guess that the purpose of the article is to warn someone about the SkyWay Group actions. But people are already warned by the local authorities as we can see. And what if other countries dont warn their civilians on SkyWay because it is legal there? Wikipedia is definetly not a place where governments and corporations should do their business. Swin3000 (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC) striking sock contribution[reply]

@Swin3000 Thank you for letting me know what your concerns are about the source material. Your valid concerns about the verifiable references are deserving of attention but would be far more useful on the 'talk page' of the article than here. And if you are going to mention sources at all, mention ones that ACTIVELY influence specific points made in the article. And don't list them here as they don't concern the notability of the company but the contents of the article. You advice can be really helpful but not here. Make another deletion request if this one is rejected and address the issues you suggest there. I'm sure that if your concerns are valid, someone else will do it anyway. But addressing those issues when we should be discussing the NOTABILITY of the companies is a waste of your valuable time. Also, are you suggesting that we should include information about countries that have NOT placed a ban on the sale of SkyWay products just because they well haven't encountered them yet? Maybe an individual entry for every existing country which says something like "Syria has still not placed a ban on the sales of SkyWay shares"? Are you suggesting that the warnings from a country should not be accessed by Wikipedia because, well, people have some type of responsibility to find this information out for themselves (despite the fact that this information is hard to find, unlike the hundreds and hundreds of pages of self-aggrandizing propaganda which are repeated ad nauseum in almost every conceivable language) and that pooling of this information is somehow wrong? I think you had better be very careful about making claims like that; the pooling of useful verifiable information to help people make better choices is why Wikipedia exists. What you are suggesting - misinforming by including excessive unnecessary information and making people wade through pages of propaganda to find the truth - is the exact opposite. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is written one-sidedly. Significant objective things are not mentioned, there is only negative examples. It looks unreliable and unprofessional from the point of view of journalism. Are pieces of information, without detailed descriptions, can be an objective presentation? The journalist must describe the material in an unbiased manner so the reader can come to conclusions on his own. That’s why this article should be deleted as an example of unfair and superficial work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.82.109 (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC) — 37.214.82.109 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. striking sock contribution[reply]
Comment. The article is written one-sidedly. Significant objective things are not mentioned, there is only negative examples. It looks unreliable and unprofessional from the point of view of journalism. Are pieces of information, without detailed descriptions, can be an objective presentation? The journalist must describe the material in an unbiased manner so the reader can come to conclusions on his own. That’s why this article should be deleted as an example of unfair and superficial work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Юрий Сыров (talk • contribs) 17:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC) striking sock contribution — Юрий Сыров (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thans for your criticism but this comment is totally unrelated to the AfD issue: if the company is NOTABLE or not according to Wikipedia guidelines. These are all issues that can be confronted in the content of the article through its talk page. Please check the wording of the deletion request to argue for or against this issue.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. The article in its current form should be deleted or renamed to "Financial problems of SkyWay Group" (or something similar). Most sources describe only financial violations of the company but do not mention the products that this company produces, or the technology that it develops. Financial problems of the company cannot be more significant than the company itself.

Information about the regulatory warnings is about 40% of the article, information about its products or technologies that it develops - one sentence.

This SkyWay Group created the so-called “unicar” and “unibus” and presented them at the exhibition Innotrance 2018, but the article does not have a single word about it:[61] and [62]

In addition, the article is far away from being neutral. For example, information about the negative assessment of the technology by Moscow State University of Railway Engineering three times emphasized in the article, along with quotes from their report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 07:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The content of the article is not the subject of the deletion request. They need to prove notability of the companies. The two links you include, furthermore, are to self-referencing, self-promoting sources that have absolutely no meaning to anyone. Even if what you were saying meant something to this deletion request, your links are just skyway propaganda. If you really want the article to be deleted and renamed you have to find reasons that the company is NOT significiantly notable and that the resources they do use to show this notability (i.e. the internationally recognized regulatory agency warnings) are untrue and unusable. Considering that they primary links they do have are so such reliable sources, i.e. national banks, it seems to me that you would not have any success there. If you do ever have better links which show actual scientific assessment of the technology, believe me the article will include them and the section on the technology will grow in size. The only reason this aspect is so weak is because there is so little published verifiable research on this subject that is not propaganda. In the verifiable resources they refer to the things that are included in the article, like the negative assessment of the testing sites in Moscow. We include these because these are the only things that the verifiable references say. But in any case, that has no relevance here because you need to prove that the company is NOT notable in some way, not that there is something wrong with the content which can be improved from consensus on its talk page in the future.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that 'Andrew-Postelniak' 'Yuri Sirov' and 'Swin3000' are all new users who don't seem to have contributed to any other discussions and who seem to have come into existence purely to ensure this article is deleted. It would be fine if they made suggestions that related to the deletion request but the only comment on problems they have with the 'biased' content of the article, the value of propaganda and its supficial journalism. All these issues are irrelevant to this deletion request. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has the name "SkyWay Group", but the main content of the article describes only its financial problems. So I suggested to rename it. Furthermore, you probably even didn't review two of the above-mentioned links. The second link is a link from the official Innotrans website, and it proves that the company was there in 2018 and exhibited their vehicles. Comments like "your links are just skyway propaganda" are obviously not neutral, and it seems that you are also interested in adding only negative information to the article. I used to edit different articles as an unidentified user but created my account today to write what I think here - editing of this article was restricted for unidentified users for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew-Postelniak (talk • contribs) 09:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew-Postelniak: Andrew, I am listening to you and paying attention to what you're saying. It just doesn't mean anything in relation to this deletion request. And for the record: I'm only interested in adding verifiable sources to the article. You state that you think I'm only adding criticism. Although I may believe this untrue, what I think hardly matters. It would obviously be unfair to include only negative comments. We really want to see positive reviews we can use. You should make your feelings known on the talk page of the article and not here because your concerns do not relate to the subject of the deletion request which is whether or not the SkyWay companies are NOTABLE. Your concerns with my editing (which could be completely valid) are still entirely irrelevant. And I did check the two links you included. One of them is just the same self-promoting website with hundreds and hundreds of pages of unsupported tales with computer illustrations and sometimes links to dodgy YouTube films which in and of themselves can't mean anything scientific anyway. And the link to the exhibition site, obviously self-promoting and meaningless, I did look at nonetheless and you can't include something like that to further an argument. It has be an assessment of this technology from someone who is not related to it; an exhibition of a technology at a science fair is obviously self-promoting and doesn't mean anything. So what: they exhibited at a science fair. They've done that a lot - its how they get business. But explanation of such instances of self-promoting exhibitionism can't promote the argument for science. If you really think I only include negative commentary then you should make your feelings known on the talk page and explain why with valid reasons for me showing bias. But you really have to find better resources than the ones you used. Believe me, we only took the science out because it was completely unverifiable and misleading, not because we wanted to. But as you seem to think I could never say anything positive, please post your observations to the talk page of the article and request that other people appraise your material. Any valid scientific documentation will be appraised, analysed and included in the article. There are a lot of people working on the article such as [user|Dlthewave] who promote including more verifiable science. That is where we should be having this discussion not here. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment [(from Britishfinance, don't !vote twice)] 1) The article is to be deleted for it refers to unreliable sources of information WP:NCORP, for instance: “In 2016, a Russian government panel that evaluated the technology called it "innovative, but only in theory".[6]” [63]

I draw your attention to the fact that the cited source published the article of the political opposition to the then acting ruler who supported the technology and lied on purpose. There are words about innovations in the original document, but nothing about its theoretical nature. On the official website (in Russian) of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation there appeared the minutes of the meeting of the Expert Council held on February 11, 2016, during which the SkyWay transport system was recognized as innovative. This is the link to the document: [64]

~~In English the relevant paragraph reads:~~

“V. On consideration of SkyWay Technologies Co. application (Davydov, Shatrakov, Slepak, Zarechkin, Polozov-Yablonsky, Zhankaziev) 1. The following information has been taken into consideration: 1.1. SkyWay Technologies Co. (Yunitsky) has spoken on the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way; 1.2. The Expert Council has admitted a possibility of recognizing the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way to be innovative.

2. There has been resolved as follows: 2.1. Recognize the technology of creating cargo, urban and high-speed transport system Sky Way to be innovative; 2.2. Recommend SkyWay Technologies Co. to additionally present a project for application of the proposed transport system Sky Way in specific operation conditions. In cooperation with the Industry expertise centre of import-substituting technologies in transport, it is recommended to prepare a comparative analysis of the proposed innovative solutions vs analogic existing technologies.”

Instead of quoting the source which is available on the official site, the author of the article has spent time finding a site that published an outright lie on this document due to subjective reasons, which is what he needed doing the same thing, because their goals are the same - defamation. Moreover, feeling the lack of negative info the author posts this lie twice, in the “Background” and “Test projects. Russia” paragraphs.

~~2) Can we believe in good intentions of such an author at all? No, meaning his point of view is not neutral WP:NCORP, WP:NPOV, WP:CSD, criteria WP:G10.~~

3) The article is to be deleted since the author’s point of view is extremely biased and thus violates the stated “Neutral point of view” requirement WP:NPOV. For instance, in “Abandoned projects. Russia” the article reads:

“In 2007 and 2018 pilot projects of the SkyWay Group technology were planned in Russian cities. But specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering gave a negative assessment of the project and it was not implemented.[3]”

The author refers to the article from a Sicilian newspaper which was written during the election campaign of the Mayor of Messina who at the time was supporting a transportation system reform. The political bias is transparent here. Anyhow, even without taking this fact into consideration, it is necessary to note that the author has found the real fact dating back to 2008, but neglected the following developments, moreover, he has lied about a negative assessment of SkyWay’s recent projects by specialists of the Moscow State University of Railway Engineering.

Vice versa: ten years after that event specialists of Moscow State University of Railway Engineering realized their mistakes, appreciated the works of Anatoly Yunitskiy and offered cooperation! It happened after a visit to the SkyWay EcoTechnoPark by the Professor of the Department “Bridges and tunnels” Vladimir Fridkin, Doctor of Engineering Science, who had doubted on the prospects of SkyWay transport previously. So, as a result, in December, 2017 an agreement on comprehensive cooperation between Moscow State University of Railway Engineering and “SkyWay Technologies Co.” was concluded. The subject of the agreement is to increase the efficiency and quality of the use of innovative materials and technologies while designing, developing and implementing SkyWay transport in transportation infrastructure.

The very fact of this final recognition is easily traceable in the official Moscow State University of Railway Engineering newspaper «Инженер транспорта» (Transport Engineer) №16 (824) dated December 22, 2017, where on page 3, in the article «На чём обогнать самолёт» (How to Overtake an Airplane) it is clearly written: «Нельзя не отметить, что 7 декабря было подписано соглашение о комплексном сотрудничестве между ЗАО «Струнные технологии» и нашим университетом. » (It should be noted that on December 7, an agreement on comprehensive cooperation was signed between “SkyWay Technologies Co.” and our university.)[65]

Referring to the above I am sure that the author of the article “SkyWay Group” is way too much opinionated, hence his approach lacks the required Neutral point of view and thus this article is to be deleted from your pages.

~~Subject to deletion. Igor Koiro (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)~~ striking sock contribution[reply]

Comment:@Igor Koiro Please note that even if these complaints are valid they should be addressed to the talk page of the SkyWay Group. It has been made clear again and again that the reason for this AfD is the NOTABILITY of these companies. Your complaint about the contents of the article are irrelevant here and they will be ignored. They are irrelevant NOT because they are necessarily wrong, but they don't relate to the AfD. They could be useful, however, to change the content of the article by adding them to the talk page and have other users discuss them. Or alternatively you could make another deletion request based on the issue of CONTENT and VERIFIABILITY [not NOTABILITY]. I encourage you, however, to repost your concerns to the talk page where they will be analysed and assessed. Also remember there is no single writer who you can blame this article on. A whole group of people have been writing it together and it's just wrong to blame a single person. -Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Zaxander|Zachar Laskewicz The usage of unreliable sources which i have showed is about NOTABILITY WP:NCORP. In fact most of the the sources the page is built on are not reliable. I have just showed it on some examples (Italian and Indian). Both of the articles were written in a period of regional gowernment elections and served to the one of the competitive sides interest (the other side was the protogonist for implementin skyway project). I think i have argued this fact enought in my deletion request. The arguing of neutral point of view absence WP:NPOV is to the case to. It characterizes the sources in the point of trheir unreability.Igor Koiro (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Igor Koiro Sorry the quality of the references has nothing to do with the potential NOTABILITY of the SkyWay Companies. I can understand your concerns with these articles and I've copied your information to the talk page of the SkyWay Group article. But proving these articles wrong does NOT make the companies less or more notable. Your concerns will receive the attention they deserve. I can understand your frustration but your interests are not served in this way. If this AfD is unsuccessful, there is nothing stopping you from making a new request for deletion based on the questioning of the source material used. But seeing that most of the sources are, in fact, extremely reliable I doubt your success in that regard. –Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaxander I understand your frustration about the deletion of the page you (almost alone) have done such a great work to rename and then to rewrite in accordance to your own non neutral point of view WP:NPOV. But the fact is obvious: sources are unreliable. Thats why we cant talk about the notability WP:NCORP of skyway group, which is argued on the basis of such a sources Igor Koiro (talk) 15:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC) striking sock contribution[reply]

@Igor Koiro - Just to make it clear: the renaming of the article was not recommended my me. All I did was beg that someone else who knew more about science would back up the scientific information with real references. Otherwise I had nothing to do with it at all. Someone else I don't know proposed the name change. I didn't even know you could change name of an article. Other users supported the idea. When someone suggested it and I thought it was a good idea, I supported it also. That is my complete involvement in the name change. You should check your information before you make such a claim. Also something is notable if it is mentioned by enough verifiable sources. I'm afraid according to these conditions it is very notable. The regulatory warnings are the most reliable information you can get. Arguing about the quality of the references could be an issue, but in the case of the regulatory agencies I'm afraid it's not. You're always free, however, to bring this up if it survives this deletion request.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Igor Koiro - Also if all that you say is true about a collaboration between MSUoRE, why then is there no Russian article on this subject? And what does a collaboration between the MSUoRE and SkyWay technology actually mean? Are they planning to build projects in Moscow? Will they collaborate or something? Another test site somewhere in Russia maybe? Or is this just tacit approval that otherwise has no practical meaning? And if this is all true how does it make the article LESS notable. Surely if what you say is true, it just helps make Yunitskiy and his SkyWay Group of companies MORE notable not less.–Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The "article" represents blatant negative WP:SYNTH and WP:G10 obviously not matching to either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, no matter SPA or Expert would it be reported by. Referring to sources that can be considered as reliable partially or not at all, and covering not proved facts but only blown up troll like suspicions, it can not claim, as currently drafted, to be a kind of “alternative” or “independent” opinion. It’s strange that Wikipedia severely banning any advertising and / or promotion passed this defamation. Stating nothing about core of technology developed by the group of companies the post just enumerates snippets of doubts that are not accusations as it mentionned in the beginning the “story”. Where are links or mentions of functional test polygon that is EcoTechnoPark in Belarus with its fully working transport models? Why not to refer to independent technology related articles like 1, 2, 3, and others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J35678 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC) striking sock contribution — J35678 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@J35678 It should be mentioned that link 1 above is to a SkyWay self-published site and can not be used as a verifiable source to prove anything. Site two is a press release in German of the appearance of SkyWay at a trade fair. A press release doesn't really communicate anything except that SkyWay presented it's technology somewhere. Site three is in French and describes the contract signed in the United Arab Emirates. None of these say anything in particular about the science or the companies. They are hardly objective opinions about anything. Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Comment [(from Zaxander, don't !vote twice)] Before the beginning of the war of edits, the article was neutral and was devoted to string transport technology with a history of its development.^[1] The article had various sources: ^[2] - explicitly declares an unsuccessful attempt to develop transport in the Ozeri and carries a negative. This information has nothing to do with advertising. ^[3] - is an official document of the Russian government. Conclusion MIIT - an official source, one of the main critics of the project. Sources from 12 to 15 (Notes and reference) of the old version of the article - the fact of work in the beginning of the construction of the park.

Thus, the article “String Transport” was not advertising, but informational. Before the changes, it contained both positive and negative sources. Since the publication of 2017, a lot has happened. Of course, this should be reflected in the editing of the article, but the changes should be objective. In connection with the vandalism of users @Zaxander:, @Dron007:, @Yauheni moskov: I consider the only right decision to delete the article and temporarily block this topic. WP:ABAN, WP:TBANG The publication, of course, demanded improvement, but not its full change. Definitely - DELETE. Until the attack stops. WP:G10 -- Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2019 (UTC) — Leonid Kotvitsky 73 year (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - summary of objections@Leonid Kotvitsky and others - Claims that the old version of the article was 'informational' are misguided and the accusations of vandalism are unfounded:

Observe the many dubious sources in Kovitsky's 'String Transport' link [66] - this is exactly why the article was changed in the first place;
Note also that the inclusion of only 'some' verifiable 'negative' links is particularly misleading because it falsely legitimizes the questionable ones;
View the contents of the talk page for an accurate retelling of genuine concerns voiced and argued by the accused 'vandals';
SPAs making unfounded accusations against people who are trying to ensure that Wikipedia is a misinformation-free resource are damaging and unnecessary;
See the SkyWay group talk page for translations, debate and summaries of verifiable sources;
Please note that users were at all times encouraged to post valid scientific references to improve the article on the talk page;
Note also that new verifiable resources have been added since this deletion request was made, particularly in reaction to criticism of justification of notability through primary sources, i.e. including verifiable resources [67] for primary ones like this [68]

Zachar Laskewicz (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is a material amount of WP:SPA activity on this AfD. Keep the comments shorter and specific, as it is very (very) hard to follow. Britishfinance (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I predicted from the beginning. Except now the comments are bordering on WP:ADVOCACY from both sides and becoming too confusing with the WP:WALLOFTEXT.--CNMall41 (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make the scope of the article both about the concept/technology, as well as the methods being used to finance it. The article was initially about the concept and was later renamed and somehow in the midst of all this chaotic editing, the scope of the article has changed. Actually, what is notable here is the "concept and the ensuing controversy over its feasibility, safety and financial issues". There has been coverage in multiple countries such as India [69], [70], UAE [71], [72]. [73], [74] Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania [75]. The concept seems to have been showcased in multiple transport related events such as [76]. MOUs with some governments have been signed which have resulted in controversy and warnings by some financial regulators. I think this is fair enough for an article. I am curios why so many sockpuppets are trying to get this article deleted.--DreamLinker (talk) 18:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DreamLinker, just to clarify you are not advocating keeping the current page, but are saying to keep the current content under a different name correct?--CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Previous versions of the article did describe the technology in depth, but it was almost entirely primary-sourced to Skyway. The sources you mentioned barely touch on what the concept actually is, with vague statements such as "Skyway Technologies Co. from Belarus presented its vision of an elevated rail system that can also run a tram beneath it." I agree that we could include more about the concept, but I haven't seen any independent sources that could match the previous level of detail.

The transport-related events seem to be the type of industry trade show where interested parties can rent a booth and give a demonstration of their product. I don't see anything that rises above routine coverage of such an event. –dlthewave ☎ 22:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Variety Child Learning Center

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

Was previously nominated for deletion by sock and the AfD was speedily closed due to that. This school only educates kids with learning challenges up to age 7, making it more a preschool than even a primary school. Contrary to Eastmain's assertion that this should be redirected to the settlement article associated with the location of the school, we do not generally mention preschools in settlement articles. And, not for nothing, this school now has campuses in two different communities, so where would we redirect it to? Delete is the obvious course here. John from Idegon (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school has in-depth coverage in reliable sources, including Newsday. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In this article, there are references to the center's teen group learning how to prepare for a job interview. Perhaps the members of the teen group go to school elsewhere and receive supplementary services from the center, but I can't tell. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even sure the SCHOOLOUTCOMES thing applies--I can't barely tell what kind of school this is, and "approved" doesn't add much. If it's in/across two different school districts it's not a "normal" school like we see 99% of the time, but of course for a private school that doesn't really matter. For practical purposes I suppose it does matter, given the problem of where to merge or redirect. So the way I read this article and the relevant policies and guidelines, it should pass per GNG. And that's problematic: this is just a kind of directory entry, and that leaves the two (short) articles in Newsday, a local paper, sourcing from which is reliable enough and would be unproblematic for adding content to a "regular" school whose notability doesn't depend so much on strength of coverage. But that's not what we have here, so I'd say weak delete if anyone asked me. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per reasoning in nomination. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a secondary school, so we actually have to clearly show notability, and the sourcing does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:56, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Super Donuts

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

no evidence of notability , The references are promotional. (and the article is apparently written by undeclared paid editng group) DGG ( talk ) 03:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references appear to be from reliable sources, including daily newspapers. While Wikipedia articles should be free of promotionalism, an article in a reliable source with a promotional tone is still reliable. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a couple local news articles noting a store opening count as satisfying GNG, then be right back, I have about a billion articles to go write. This coverage is not independent in many cases (multiple interviews with the founder and other articles that are rather clearly just press release/promo pieces). In others, it is not significant, representing just routine coverage of a business opening. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a stub more written like a promotional blurb than anything else.TH1980 (talk) 05:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 15:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources currently in the article don't pass WP:CORPDEPTH; a search for more sources is hindered by the fact that there appear to be many companies/brands around the world called Super Donuts; weighing the number of Google News hits on the first couple of pages, it's not clear that this is the most notable (or least un-notable?) amongst them. There's no unpromotional content at the article worth saving; delete.GirthSummit _(blether) 17:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as noted above the sources fail NCORP on depth and independence grounds. And no, that was not an intended coffee shop pun. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A WP:SPA article supported by routine announcement coverage, two Q&As, and a 5 paragraph description of the shop's wares bylined to one TNS. None of these provide the in-depth coverage required for WP:NCORP and searches are finding nothing better. AllyD (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This has already been speedy deleted under WP:G3. (non-admin closure) ^{[Username Needed]} 09:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Xu Yun

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

Looks made up, notability questionable. Mooeena ● 💌 ● ✒️ ● ❓ 03:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too much detail, no sources. It’s a mess. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 04:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Concur this looks like a hoax - doesn't jive with Xilinx on founders (nor does installing a propeller on a canoe (for a top speed of 80km) jive my canoeing experience and assessment of hydrodynamics of the resulting motion on the sea). @Mooeena: - note that since it has no sources and is on an (alleged) BLP - you could've WP:BLPPROD (or requested a speedy - as Bakazaka just did - though that's a judgement call) - a BLP with no sources is eligible for deletion (in 7 days, no discussion) - on that issue alone. Icewhiz (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unusual deaths#2010s. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 00:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Goldbloom

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

This article's subject has not been shown to have notability per WP:NBIO. Countless people have died in accidents at sports games, such as Shannon Stone in 2011. I follow baseball closely and I'd never heard of this incident until today. Songwaters (talk) 01:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of unusual deaths#2010s per 1E, has generated coverage for GNG but that does not matter unless it was significant enough to be a major news item all over the world (e.g. Elaine Herzberg). It should at the very least be renamed to Death of Linda Goldbloom. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 01:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t pass GNG. While the subject’s death was unfortunate, the subject hasn’t been the focus of in-depth coverage. For Wiki purposes, this isn’t much different than the victim of a car accident or house fire. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This case has significance for the MLB, and the way in which it uses netting and safety. The case had historical significance, as no such case had happened in many decades. However, I do understand changing the article title to "Death of Linda Goldbloom" and would support this. Linda Goldbloom is very frequently searched online, as the case is very active and relevant. The page itself would be more viewed were it displaying on Google in the same way. I believe this page has great relevance, and will submit more arguments to defend it if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PickleG13 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Dozens of cases have been documented of fatal accidents at MLB games. In the example I provided, in 2011, Shannon Stone died in a fall at Globe Like Park in Arlington while trying to catch a ball thrown to him by Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton. In response, the Rangers put a tarp over the area where he fell, then dedicated a statue to his memory. How is this any more significant? Songwaters (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 tallest buildings in Hamilton, Ontario#Other buildings. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Royale

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

Lacked secondary sources since creation, by apparent COI editor, in December 2009. I can't find any in-depth coverage in RS to make this building notable. Fails WP:NGEO. However, all the essential information is contained at List of tallest buildings in Hamilton, Ontario#Other buildings. Redirect. Just Chilling (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for nominator @Just Chilling: Since you're pretty experienced and would obviously just boldly redirect if this was routine, what's the unusual thing about this article that needs AfD attention? Bakazaka (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - a good question to which I don't have a good answer!! Last time I saw a similar tall building situation the redirect went through AfD but, I agree, I could, and perhaps should, have just boldly redirected. Perhaps speedy close as redirect? Just Chilling (talk) 14:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. Given the lack of substantial editing history in the article, it seems uncontroversial. Bakazaka (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Product Development

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

Non-notable local organization. Most of the references are to the company's own website or do not discuss the company directly. I have not found any sources that satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. Just not enough notability. Heavily doctored with primary sources. I read one source all the way to the bottom just to find brief passing mention. Otr500 (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article could no doubt do with some attention; their fairly generic company name makes searching for sources a bit harder than usual. However, searching for 'IPD + Volvo' found this, this and this - they seem like in-depth product reviews in independent publications, which might go some way to satisfying WP:NCORP. What I'm not seeing is much coverage of the company themselves - just product reviews. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: The salient point here is that these sources are reviews of specific products, not the company that makes them. I don't think that qualifies as significant coverage for the company. The article from Automobile could be used to add some info on IPD's 2006 SEMA concept. But other than that, it doesn't seem like these sources could be used to expand our article or verify its existing content. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into this a bit further, it appears that the section on the IPD's 2006 SEMA concept was copy-pasted from Volvo C30#2006 SEMA concepts (2006). The Automobile source is more relevant there than it is in this article. The same thing applies to the Autoweek and Road & Track sources you linked—those can be incorporated into our article on the Volvo S40. Again, these sources don't seem to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I second what Otr500 laid out Graywalls (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otr500 and His Lordship. Fails WP:GIG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:43, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Week Lasallian Missions (Northern Mexico district)

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

Unsourced since 2008, no sources found, close to incomprehensible. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. This appears to be a run of the mill charity, one of thousands of missions annually. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or repurpose -- This is currently a bad article that jumps from 1577 to 1964. It may be about the history of a mission in an area of Mexico, which might be the equivalent of a diocese, but the article would need to cover the whole year, not just a festival week. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Legion X (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Profitect

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

No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations (fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND). Edwardx (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All fair points as noted. I have replaced the references to company sources with news sources. I am struggling with the flag for advertisement writing. I think it is significantly less advertisement-sounding than the previous version (which was previously accepted). Additional details would be great so I can address them. Cameronjford1 (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC) Cameronjford1[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having such a distinctive name makes the check of WP:BEFORE much easier. Almost a complete black outside of PressWire stuff. No single (nevermind several) significant article on the company from an RS. Full fail of WP:CORPDEPTH (or basic WP:GNG). Britishfinance (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for additional details. I've added more citations, including Forbes and a widely circulated fashion retail publication. Significantly fewer press releases and questionable sources than previous iteration.Cameronjford1 (talk) 21:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cameronjford1, do you have any undisclosed connection to Profitect? Bakazaka (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do work for them, yes - I'm trying to figure out how to add the "connected contributor" tag to my main page. However, I am a journalist by education and I'm making every effort to publish a completely unbiased and fully, credibly supported article by Wikipedia's standards. As the previous approved page was clearly written as an advertisement I hope this can at least be seen as an improvement. Happy to discuss further.Cameronjford1 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing your connection. I have added the connected contributor (paid) template to the article talk page with a link to this discussion. Bakazaka (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above. Cameronjford1, thanks for the Forbes reference. Unfortunately it is written by the CEO of the company so is not independent (and more WP:PROMO), and is also about the space/other companies as well. Britishfinance (talk) 21:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to above. Thanks for the tip, Britishfinance. Wasn't aware of that. I've removed the Forbes article in question and replaced with other coverage.Cameronjford1 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A straight-up software house selling their products and telling folk via press releases. I hope they do well. Zero WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you for the thoughts. Since your comment I have removed some of the more questionable citations and coverage and replaced them. All citations are now linked to major industry and web publications, as well as leading industry organizations. Let me know if you have any other concerns. I'm happy to fix anything not up to Wikipedia's quality standardsCameronjford1 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All of the references I can find fail WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH including the ones in the article. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Parker Engineering

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Courtesy ping Ritchie333. SITH (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 23:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any reliable sources. Search turns out nothing . Lapablo (talk) 11:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References fail the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no significant independent coverage of this company. Papaursa (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 07:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brighter AI

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

I do not believe this company meets WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the startup company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear @Cwmhiraeth:, please consider the source from the updated version of the page: ^[1]. This is an article from a German newspaper, Die Welt Kompakt, a reliable and independent source, which is dedicated solely to Brighter AI.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Kugoth, Jana (2018-10-17). "Das Geschäft mit dem Datenschutz". Die Welt Kompakt (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 2019-02-19.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could only find press releases. Nothing from any reliable source. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Lapablo (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:00, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The charts mentioned don't seem to be suitable per WP:CHART. ansh 666 08:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Be

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

Not really my area, but I cannot see how this passes Wikipedia:Notability (music). Edwardx (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 08:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! New here, but it appears his album debuted on the Billboard charts, which is a nationally recognized music chart. According to those rules, this article should stand then, right? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bebnor (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That applies to entries on the main Billboard chart. His album "appeared in the Billboard Independent Albums and Top Heatseekers at numbers 41 and 10 respectively". Edwardx (talk) 10:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Docs

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

Article relies too much on primary sources and reads more like a sales pitch. Ruxnor (talk) 08:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 08:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only non-trivial reference I can find is [77]. Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:23, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adobe TrapWise

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPRODUCT. PROD removed by creator in 2017. No sources beyond passing mentions, usually in the context of a list of trapping software examples. The most substantial source I could find was an Infoworld article which briefly mentioned the software in the context of a company merger. – Teratix ₵ 13:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 13:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , per nom. Legion X (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RockAbilly.US

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for musicians and bands and the general notability guideline due to a lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. SITH (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:07, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. Quick search couldn't find anything newsworthy Actaudio (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any mentions of this band in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Looking through the revision history, it seems that the only references the article ever had were this press release, obviously not independent coverage, and this dead URL, which I couldn't find an archive for. The other external links I checked from old versions of the article are either broken or not relevant to the band. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Edward de Bono. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 01:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Research Trust

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NORG, reads like a press release. SITH (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:09, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edward de Bono. Not much useful here to merge, and the creator's page actually discusses criticism of the approach, so a redirect would provide better service to our readers by leading them to information about this topic in needed context (see WP:NOPAGE). Bakazaka (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. There’s not a lot to merge but the Edward de Bono doesn’t currently mention the CoRT and I think it would be helpful to readers to know there is an organisation continuing to work on de Bono’s ideas. A single sentence would suffice. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in Edward de Bono#Critiques. Bakazaka (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies so it is.

Redirect per Bakazaka. Mccapra (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstrakt Intellekt

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

Appears to fail all twelve criteria of WP:BAND. The Detroit Hip Hop Awards doesn't meet WP:NAWARD, so their biggest claim of significance per criterion nine of WP:BAND falls short. There's also a twinge of conflict of interest or at the very least original research, evidenced by *editors note* After email contact with the former members of Abstrakt Intellekt, it was confirmed that the groups new project is a live band called The Prime Eights. SITH (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:46, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. On a quick glance at some random references there is ref bombing and plain site advertising. The link supposedly to support "The group parted ways with Mike Clark in 2005 and signed to an independent record label called Protekted Records", is a dead link parked at Go Daddy. Try this dead link. The supposed Detroit Rap reference mentions a lot of names but I did not see the subject. The plug for suicide.org does not support the sentence. The "Note" mentioned by nom as apparent WP:OR includes "the groups new project" and follows "...started work in 2011 on a yet unnamed new project.", leading one to surmise there is some unnamed 8 year project in the works, when the infobox lists the years active as 1999–2010, and the previous paragraph states the duo "...released their final album in 2010... and performed their final show in September 2010". Otr500 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if this was to turn out to be notable (which it probably isn't), an article so littered with dodgy and fake references as pointed out by Otr500 can more easily be started from scratch than cleaned up. A classic WP:TNT case. SpinningSpark 21:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. Actaudio (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jugal Devi Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Kanpur

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

Per WP:NSCHOOL, all schools must comply with WP:NORG. Now that WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is quite rightly considered silly, I'd like to see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and I just can't find it for this. Opting for AfD to allow native speakers of Hindi to analyse such sources. SITH (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced. Run of the mill school. Bearian (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Non-notable institution. WP:NOTDIRECTORY Legion X (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failed to show notability. Unsourced. --Hiwilms (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Khabar

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

PROD removed by a possible sockpuppet of the article creator. Original concern stands: Non-notable news website with no assertion of significance, no third-party references. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination with creation salting. Sockpuppets have repeatedly moved this article from draftspace or userspace into articlespace even though the drafts were declined with the significant concerns outlined above. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree. Waste of time. scope_creep^Talk 15:50, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - I had a look for independent sources, can't find any, not notable; salt per Jon Kolbert. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of independent reliable sources Reddragon7 (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Michig (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shayne Workman

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

Self published a couple of Kindle books, uncredited roles in some minor TV stuff. Doesn't meet the GNG. Original malformed AFD submission by an IP. QuiteUnusual (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sign of meeting WP:NACTOR or other relevant guideline. The sources have the most fleeting of passing mentions. This one, that had his name in the title, seemed promising... but is it just me or is there no actual article there? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete uncredited film roles, self-published book, and I can't find him in searches.— Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ansh 666 07:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ansar Channel

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

Doesn't meet WP:N/WP:ORG. Juggler Juggler (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as next to no view, no assertion of notability and suggests is already historical. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is a translation of an article on ms.wiki to which I’ve now linked it. However I looked for sources in Malay (which I can’t read) but searching for ‘Ansar Channel’ or ‘Saluran Ansar’ produces only a couple of passing mentions here and here and no other mentions of the channel, so it definitely does not meet our notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 03:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:31, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maya Bond

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet criteria for WP:MUSIC. Most of the references were retrieved in 2006 and no longer work. Additionally, the end of the article says she left the music industry in 2009 because "she is no longer four years old and is way to cool for that stuff now lol." Actaudio (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 04:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could we get some votes on this? This person (who made one album when she was 4 years old and "retired" 5 years later) is really not notable. Actaudio (talk) 23:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's at least one RS mention ([78]) and probably more (I can't access Wayback right now). Has anything changed in policy since the last AfD? Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jagdish Chaturvedi

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

Twinkling XfD after IP 2401:4900:2503:1A19:4540:B6DA:8AC4:3DF8 tried to ask for speedy deletion (albeit without knowing how to and somewhat butchering the page). IP's rationale was "The article is regrettably pure self promotion. The personality is not note worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. The article may be moved for deletion with immediate effect. The text in the article resembles to a great extent the text in the personality's personal webpage. Such self aggrandizement and promotion ought not to be entertained on an Encyclopedic Platform." Moral of the story: although I don't know if the IP read/was familiar with general notability guidelines, the IP was on to something, and this article may not meet notability (among other problems the article has). Your folks' thoughts? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The personality is a notable author and inventor and therefore should have a Wikipedia Page. The article has been edited to remove promotional content. External links have been removed. Reliable sources and unbiased facts have been included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vikas222334 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:24, 8 March 2019 (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)} 13:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no real indication of notability as a comedian, and the medical career does not seem to meet WP:PROF. DGG ( talk ) 04:08, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject of the biography has received substantive coverage in publications such as MIT Technology Review, Fast Company, Deccan Chronicle, the Hindu, LiveMint and the Economic Times. There has been more non-trivial coverage in the Economic Times ^{archive.orgET2} and The Hindu. Therefore, this article passes the muster at WP:BIO. It could do with some clean-up though. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No one asserted that the subject met WP:NCORP, so the real issue was whether the GNG was met. While there were a number of sources produced, the analysis provided by the editors favoring deletion find them unsuitable was not rebutted. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality Policy Watch

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

Fails WP:NCORP which states:-A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject........The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. ....

Let's analyse the current sourcing:-

(1, 3 and 5)--.A BBC news piece, an IPS one and another one from Guardian inwhere two-line bytes from people belonging to SPW have been featured. None devotes any minimal coverage to the subject of the article. N

Ref 2 and 6--. Both are the About us page on their own website. N

Ref 4--> Genderit.org shows page missing. N

I performed a thorough search to the best of my abilities but did not locate any significant coverage that satisfied NCORP. ∯WBG^converse 12:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched on the group's previous name, "International Working Group on Sexuality and Social Policy" in google news and found nothing valereee (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As someone who's been a women's rights activist from the global South for many decades, I know from experience that this is a significant global organisation doing important policy work, but as always, organisations that are based in the global South or in areas of less obvious public attention (like women's rights) tend to have fewer significant mentions in secondary sources and certainly not always in English. This is a deeper structural imbalance that we need to be aware of, and work to correct as Wikipedians and beyond. As the original author of the stub, I take the concerns on board. I'll certainly update the gender.it link (thanks for pointing that out), and I'm looking at PT sources that may bolster the article. In the meantime, I'm grateful to Joalpe for improving Sonia Corrêa's article with some of the content from this one. Anasuyas (talk) 23:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quite concur with your observations but wikipedian writers don't have any huge part in the battle to counter it. If I see at-least 2 sources of enough reliability that significantly covers the organization, I can understand but as things stand, we have nothing.
On a sidenote, AfDs don't discriminate between English and non English sources, so if you see a reliable source in some other language covering it significantly, by all means mention them.
As to working to correcting the bias, the best way is to do the groundwork so that these organizations do get mentioned across RD and we will reciprocate over here. ∯WBG^converse 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I’ve added some more references, including a couple of Portuguese ones. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read NCORP which is miles more rigid than what you are providing us with.
This source yet again accords a trivial mention; as one among 5 organisations that collaborated to give a report on a certain issue. Most importantly; the report was sketched of their own will. I would have given more thoughts; if they were appointed by some highly reliable organisation to write it or anything similar.

Another of your source covers Sonia; not the subject and the sole mention is utterly trivial. (vide Sonia Corrêa is a feminist and researcher in gender studies, with numerous publications in the area of women's sexual and reproductive rights. Since 2002, she has also co-coordinated with Richard Parker (USA / Brazil), the global forum Sexuality Policy Watch and an associate researcher at the Brazilian Interdisciplinary AIDS Association (ABIA) and the Department of Gender Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Yet again a biography of Correa and a mention like the above one. ∯WBG^converse 09:58, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to both satisfy our notability requirements and to be a significant international academic organisation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's amazing about how you equate a piece published by Correa (who heads the organisation) about itself to lend to notability. Textbook violation of intellectual independence.
Thus, explain how this passes NCORP, please.∯WBG^converse 17:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent reliable soruces as required by WP:CORPDEPTH. A Google News search for "Sexuality Policy Watch" yield a grand total of 22 hits (a mixture of passing mentions, blogs etc.) but nothing that would satisfy WP:GNG or WP:CORP. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find anything that rings the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that claims of notability are insufficient to establish notability; claims that an organization meets NCORP need to be backed up by substantive coverage in independent, reliable sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 05:32, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A news search brings back some fruitful hits. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, after all the bytes spent on this page, you can be assured that I know of exploiting a news-search. From when did notability boil down to having Ghits in News? Where do you see significant coverage? ∯WBG^converse 18:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is, some of the useful sources are in Portuguese. However, this one, showing the group's opinion about the press commenting on Marcela Temer, could also be used to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the stuff that has been already discussed above. It's the same old story about Sonia Correa (who is damn notable) saying something or an interview of her or a profile or her and SPW is thrown in as a qualifier. FWIW; Sonia Correa, who coordinates the local website Sexuality Policy Watch, says XYZ does not mean SPW says XYZ. It's a typical habit of media units to describe the relevant activities of a person, in a phrase or so, when quoting them. Notability is not inherited.

I again ask for 2 sources of enough reliability that significantly covers the organization. ∯WBG^converse 19:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Especially in view of yesterday's comments more consensus need to be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indepenedent sources discussing the subject directly in detail. --Pontificalibus 08:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:35, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ritchie333 . It's a highly influential global forum founded by three of the worlds most elite activist academics. I agree sources are a little thin, especially as the forum has been such a key actor in the quest for erotic justice. They'd probably have got much more coverage in the regular press if only they'd titled themselves Sexual Justice Watch. There does though seem to be quite extensive coverage in academic sources, albeit it takes a while to ferret it out. To point out the requested specific two sources that cover the forum in depth, I'm suggesting it would be sufficient to consider the spotlight profile and the Routledge book Technologies of Sexuality, Identity and Sexual Health (2012), which devotes many pages to very indepth description of SPW's work. Also, while WBG well describes the reasons why most of the other sources confer little notability, they do seem to add a little when taken collectively, along with the many other sources not yet added to the article that Ritchie summarises. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claims of raising this to GA is absolute bunkum. You've been here for long long enough to know our GA standards.

Also, someone writing in the preface of his book, that he was inspired to write the book after attending a conference, one of whose organizers was SPW, is not enough to impart notability to SPW. And, please don't add such stuff to the article which resembles an attempt to ref-bomb and spam.

A write-up (~ a paragraph) by all of it's co-founders in a self-written-book (though published by Routledge) does not demonstrate notability either; for it is the textbook definition of violation of intellectual independence. FWIW, the passage states:-Since 2002, inspired by both local and international initiatives, the three of us have worked together to found and develop Sexuality Policy Watch (SPW), a global forum of researchers and activists from a wide range of countries and regions. SPW aims at contributing to sexuality-related global policy debates through strategic research and analysis, and at promoting more effective linkages between local, regional, and global efforts to change prevailing unjust policies.

I am willing to look at any other source, that you dig out.∯WBG^converse 11:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for evaluating my two sources. I skimmed several others, but the Manderson book looked by far the best for conferring notability, and as you weren't impressed with that it seems pointless to submit the others. Hopefully someone else will find a better source. Per SPW's work in a good cause, it seems a shame for this article to be destroyed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is still being discussed. After reading the various comments posted since my last, I still see nothing that would ring the WP:N bell. Accordingly I reaffirm my delete !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Awards. There doesn't seem to be any sourced material to merge, but the suggestion would otherwise be appropriate. ansh 666 07:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star Awards for Young Talent

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

Unsourced article on non-notable award - we have an article on the parent awards ceremony which barely establishes significance, the individual awards appear to have received next to no independent discussion and only two of the awardees in this list have articles. Guy (Help!) 12:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I don't see any significance to it. If any sources found, merge to Star Awards. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 02:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alpine skiing at the 2019 European Youth Olympic Winter Festival – Boys' slalom

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

Excessive detail. This is a continental cup for 14-18 year olds, not even the junior level yet in these sports. A long list of redlinked competitors, only a select few who will ever become notable. The Festival itself is notable, but not each individual competition in it. Fram (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reason are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 13:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The notable competitions. Like Alpine skiing at the 2016 Winter Youth Olympics – Boys' Super-G. 37.54.110.37 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all. Merging will work here. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 21:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. This isn't even the Youth Olympics, but the European Youth Olympic Winter Festival, quite a difference. Every single name on that list is (currently) not notable. They are either redlinks or blue links going to the wrong article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is not an auspicious start to the discussion. Here's hoping for something resembling consensus at the end of the week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Overly detailed, WP:NOTSTATS. I see the medalists were already on the main Cross-country skiing at the 2019 European Youth Olympic Winter Festival but the IP voting keep above also merged the full results there. Not sure they should even be kept there but speedy delete these articles since they provide nothing additional. Reywas92^Talk 07:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete all. I don't see anything of substance in any of these articles that would justify standalone articles. Kerberous (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that NSONGS is not met, but GNG is with additions subsequent to nomination. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:29, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doin' It (Big Boi song)

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

Song does not appear to meet WP: NSONGS. Has not charted. StaticVapor message me! 21:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 00:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is enough news coverage for this release, I just hadn't added it yet. The amount of coverage alone that could be added passes the coverage in independent news sources criterion. I've just added several reliable publications to the article who have covered the song. Also, charting alone is not proof of a song being notable per WP:NSONGS, so I don't really think it matters—it just indicates a song may be notable. Ss112 01:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only see coverage discussing the songs release, as there would be considering he is a notable artist. Without charting and expanded coverage in reliable sources, we do not have proof of long-standing notability. I have no problem with a Merge until the song establishes notability. StaticVapor message me! 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are also sources discussing it after its initial release. I'm expanding it as we speak. Long-standing notability is hard to determine at this point for any song, so I don't really see how that's a key factor or how that can be "proved"—even if there are sources reporting on a very popular song right now, including one that charts, we can't say that in two years' time anybody (including news sources) will be talking about it. Ss112 02:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment possible Merge: Why is there an inherent need to create new articles at the expense of a parent article? There would be absolutely no need for speculation of "song" notability under the parent article with a fork when warranted. Otr500 (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Otr500: What parent article? It's not from an album yet, so...Big Boi? I think we could find more info on the song than could feasibly be merged there. (Just want to say that I'm watching this page, so no need for pings back. I'm not sure if anybody else is though, hence my ping.) Ss112 18:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I would hope you would not discount Big Boi as a "parent" article? Are you suggesting that the only notability is is the song? These are the type arguments that keep Wikipedia fragmented with thousands of substandard articles when there is absolutely zero doubt that the content could have been started at the place it really should have been. There would have been no hint of promotion and I would hope no suggestion that the material would not expand and improve Big Boi. The popularity of a song is directly related to the popularity and notability of Big Boi -- Doin' It (Big Boi song). Otr500 (talk) 13:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how an article of over 6kB in size and with 10+ references is "substandard", and no, I'm not suggesting that the song is notable without Big Boi being attached to it. But that doesn't mean I agree with merging, because as I just said, I don't think it's feasible to merge all of what is there now to Big Boi. That would be giving undue weight to one song on a BLP. I also didn't make the article because I wanted to "promote" the song, so I also don't see how that's what you got out of it. That's like saying any article on a song is promoting that song, which is demonstrably false. Ss112 14:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: should this song have charted by now on various Billboard charts, if it was ever going to chart? Or will it chart this week? Richard3120 (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also of note it has been released for a month and has yet to chart it appears. Only because @Richard3120: asked. StaticVapor message me! 02:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is also important to note that charting alone does not indicate whether or not a song should have a separate article; it is really more up to whether or not it has received enough coverage from third party, reliable sources to meet notability standards. It is just that songs that meet that requirement generally chart somewhere, but that is not always the case. Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I do understand WP:NSONGS and WP: GNG. I made it clear in my posting, I only said that in response another user who questioned it. StaticVapor message me! 00:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My message was not directed towards you. I wanted to clarify that point to anyone else who participates in this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: My mistake then, and good clarification. With you indenting below my message as if you were replying to me, is what messed it up. Next time you might want to label it as *'''Comment''' without the indent. Happy editing. StaticVapor message me! 03:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. Apologies for my mistake, and I will make sure to be more aware of it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Aoba47: I agree that charting isn't a guaranteed sign of notability, but I felt that here with the sources already cited, that would make it a more clear-cut case. Nevertheless, I think there are enough reliable sources already in the article to pass WP:NSONG. Richard3120 (talk) 16:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as it's yet to chart (really???) but appears to have received coverage in sources, even discounting the blogs. ——SerialNumber54129 17:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ""Gateway Group" Sri Lanka - Google Search". www.google.com. Retrieved 2019-03-07.

[2] ttps://www.technology.org/2018/09/20/roads-of-the-future-what-they-will-look-like/

[3] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SkyWay_Group&diff=836199488&oldid=836199368

[4] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/doubts-raised-over-belarus-company-credential-for-rs-250-crore-skyway-transport-project-in

[5] ttp://rsw-systems.com/assets/files/news112015/minutes-of-the-expert-council-session-dd-february11-2016.pdf

[6] Kugoth, Jana (2018-10-17). "Das Geschäft mit dem Datenschutz". Die Welt Kompakt (in German). Axel Springer SE. Retrieved 2019-02-19.

[1]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]