Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 May	9 May >

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 merge to GCTools. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GCpedia

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

Totally non-notable private wiki. How has this page managed to survive for ten years? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See commentary in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCconnex. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NWEB per coverage here, here, here, and here, as well as in the following books: [1] [2] IntoThinAir (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with GCconnex and GCcollab into a larger omnibus article on GCtools. I agree that we don't really need separate articles about each individual component of it, but between the sources listed here and the the UBC book that was proffered in the GCconnex discussion, we've got enough sources to render a keepable article about the overall thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with GCcollab and GCconnex. Significant overlap. The combination of the three articles meets WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 18:58, 16 May 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mostar Diving Club

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

This article makes no attempt to assert the band's notability or give a coherent timeline, and not much more than the sources already given can be found. The one footnoted reference is a record company promo. The external link from Broadway World is a fairly descriptive intro but serves mostly as a gig announcement, and their album "Here Comes Joy" received a couple of brief reviews ([3], [4]). Otherwise only the typical routine listings can be found. It might be too soon for this band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The points you raise are very well-taken! I had created the stub article hoping others would jump in, but only a few new contributions have rolled in. I have added a basic timeline, mentions of their music appearing in film and prominent commercials, and provided a richer set of references to support the content in this entry. I hope this goes some way towards resolving the concerns raised. Thank you for flagging this once again. Fanyavizuri (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I appreciate the initial editor's enthusiasm, but unfortunately the sources provided don't pass muster. Sources added since this article was first nominated include more citations to the same music blog previously cited: forfolkssake.com, to IMDb (unreliable), and [5] which does not look like reliable secondary source coverage. I would also add that Rough Trade is a record label and the content cited there does not include a byline, leading me to suspect that it is less a review and rather a promotional blurb from a source that is trying to sell you the album. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 15 May 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 GCTools. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GCcollab

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

Theroadislong thinks this is spam. Certainly, I think it is non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it's both. Spam and not notable. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See commentary in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GCconnex. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with GCpedia and GCconnex into a larger omnibus article on GCtools. I agree that we don't really need separate articles about each individual component of it, but between the sources that have been proffered in the other deletion discussions, we've got enough references to render a keepable article about the overall thing. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made the updates to all the 3 of the pages, and I agree with the previous proposition to merge with GCpedia and GCconnex into a larger omnibus article on GCTools. I'm fairly new to wikipedia editing and I tried creating a GCTools page and it got flagged for speedy deletion, for understandable reasons. I've caught up on the guidelines and would be able to contribute more effectively on the merged "GCTools page"

Jason.Henri (talk) 13:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with GCpedia and GCconnex. Significant overlap. The combination of the three articles meets WP:GNG. — Newslinger talk 22:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 15 May 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 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adedayo Ojo

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG as the coverage is largely either routine, mentions, or not independent. Article has been predominantly created/edited by a number of SPA/COI editors, one of whom has requested it be deleted for lack of notability here Melcous (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many many issues here but the fact that one of the references is Amazon is the nail in the coffin for me. Blatant advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything notable in his life. But his company did receive a well known award. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 05:04, 13 May 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 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Eastwood

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

The subject has appeared on some reality TV shows but other than that there is nothing to indicate notability. Numerous low-quality sources mention his attempt to get 100,000 instagram followers but that is obviously not going to confer notability. SmartSE (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. (There are limited sources available, and those that are available do not seem to cover the subject in particular depth or as a primary topic. The source used to support the subject's First Dates appearance, for example, is a less than substantive discussion on "bantz" about Trócaire boxes). Subject also doesn't meet WP:ENT. (Minor appearances in two reality shows doesn't meet the expectation of having had "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"). Subject also doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC or related guidelines. (An association to a record label, regardless of its output or chart success, does not confer notability. Even if the latter were cited. Which it is not. Being a "co-manager" of any business [regardless of its success or notability] does not confer notability on any subject.) The COI, PAID, PROMO and other issues are also concerning. In short: a firm delete. Guliolopez (talk) 14:07, 8 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Canham

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

Non notable individual. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual is obviously notable, else why would the article have been approved by an administrator after being nominated for speedy deletion. The references given satisfy WP:GNG. Qualitee123 (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article - when the External links out number the citations that is a red flag. The BBC is the best source, but really how is he notable? How does he stand out amongst the rest of the paranormal investigators? He collects dolls that he says are creepy, his parents died when he was a teenager and he says he feels them around him ... and? If this is all you got then it isn't even close to being enough to prove notability. Sgerbic (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fringe theorists require quality sourcing, not just fly by night spur of the moment coverage, we lack the latter here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has enough refs to reliable independent sources to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:BASIC - Epinoia (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A7. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - definitley WP:PROMO, potential WP:G11. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 19:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Subject has substantial recognition in numerous reliable sources. Qualitee123 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC) You can only vote once. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:BLP1E situation at best. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as WP:PROMO and not GNG. Lubbad85 (☎) 14:53, 19 May 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 hazing deaths in the Philippines. Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Horacio Castillo III

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

BLP1e. Non notable student who had no coverage asides from that one event. (BLP guidelines apply to the recently deceased.) duffbeerforme (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Perhaps the article should be moved to Death of Horacio Castillo III or Hazing death of Horacio Castillo III. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and rename to Hazing death of Horacio Castillo III, The subject's death is notable in regards to the debate regard hazing rituals of greek letter organizations in the Philippines (even the existence of such groups itself) and widely covered by the national media while the subject/victim himself has no notability outside the incident.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of hazing deaths in the Philippines - while his death is tragic, it is one event WP:BIO1E - not notable if "reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event" - his name appears in the List of hazing deaths in the Philippines, so redirect there - not notable enough for a stand-alone article - Epinoia (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite as Death of Horacio Castillo III. --Bluemask (talk) 09:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those suggesting a move/rewrite. Is the news event itself notable? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Epinoia Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:28, 23 May 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'd much rather more discussion before closing however this has already been relisted twice and with the comments all being on the keep side of the fence, I don't see a reason to relist this a third time and keep this discussion open. With there being so little conversation on this, I have no problem with a speedy relist. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Dau

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

Can't find coverage other than reviews. If not delete, possibly merge to the article about his novel? Tacyarg (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep I added an article from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that includes a few bio details. He may not be recluse on the level of J.D.Salinger, but he appears not to have given a single interview despite the awards and praise heaped on his first novel. The page predates the novel by several years, and older versions include material since removed [6]. He's certainly young enough to produce more books in the future. And if he ever decides to give interviews, there will be journals eager to publish them. I think we should keep it, it really was an extremely notable first novel, which does make him notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep One notable book. That makes it borderline, but it is at least a straightforward non-promotional article. The article could be about the book, but, as E.M.Gregory says, it's better about the author, who might write more books. DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per E.M.Gregory remarks. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 17:08, 19 May 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Hazo

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

Cannot find coverage of this very prolific composer. Tacyarg (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have found some coverage, and will add it. The article needs editing and reshaping into the usual sections. Searching for "Samuel Hazo", I found many sources for his father, Samuel John Hazo, so will add those to his article. I presume that this Samuel Hazo gets the shorter version of his name as the article title because the article was started before his father's article, otherwise I can't see why the unquestionably notable father's article is not called Samuel Hazo and the son's Samuel Robert Hazo. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - no cited sources so does not meet WP:BASIC, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" - does not meet WP:COMPOSER, National Band Association awards are not a major music competition - "over four million hits on YouTube" is not "performed in a notable theatre" and does not establish notability - to offset that, his works have been performed by Hartford Symphony Orchestra and VOCE Singers, the Tokyo Kosei Wind Orchestra, the Birmingham Symphonic Winds, the Klavier Wind Project and at the London Summer Olympic Games - notability is questionable, but he seems to be an established composer - conclusion: a weak keep - Epinoia (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been significantly improved with the addition of many new references to reliable sources coverage so there is no longer an imperative for deletion and the article can be kept Atlantic306 (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just realised that I did not actually state keep! He meets WP:GNG - more work might show that he meets WP:COMPOSER, but I don't have the time to spend on that (or on improving the article, which could certainly use some editing). RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw (as nominator). Thank you for improving the article, and I'm sorry I didn't find the sources. I'll do some editing on the article. Tacyarg (talk) 12:11, 21 May 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 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Ramazan

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

No coverage in WP:RS other than affiliated Express Tribune. Clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Google search shows no notability. Cogaidh (talk) 15:19, 8 May 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! 05:29, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Buswell

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

"But... but... but...the Fashion Model Directory!" No. That BLP sources improve template has stood there for over 9 years unaddressed. It’s not even up for debate at this point. Trillfendi (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not shown to be notable for stand alone article. Trivial bio. Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well, it is up for debate, or it wouldn't be here at AfD. The Le Figaro article has all the info about her that's in the biography para (and as it was published in 2013, it was obviously added after the 2010 BLP sources tag, but the tag was just not removed). There are sources verifying that she has modelled for the brands named in the career section - and others, too. I have added some sources and info; more could be added. She meets WP:NMODEL. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets WP:GNG she has been featured in major fashion magazines such as Vogue. It is easy to find many sources which show notoriety so WP:BEFORE. A notable model belongs on Wikipedia Lubbad85 (☎) 02:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t see how a bunch of slideshow images or “look what we found in the forums!” from the Fashion Spot blog do anything at all to contribute to notability. Trillfendi (talk) 02:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source with substantial information is Figaro; It is, as expected ,an enthusiastic promotional interview with the magazine's comment in extravagent terms. I was suprised to see the NYT, especially as it did not give a usable ref--I found and added the link. Its not about her--it's a general story about backstage at a fashion show, and she's among the people there (she does get the first 2 paras of a long article, but no photo) ElNorte is a single photograph in an inside page. The others are either a collection of pictures, or documentation that she was a model in one picture in one magazine. DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 19 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reinhart

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

I fail to see how someone aged 20 could be a notable historian. Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that Christopher Reinhart met the Wikipedia guidelines. In 2019, Christopher Reinhart recieved the most outstanding title from the University of Indonesia (and the Minister of Higher Education). Therefore, he met the second criteria of Wikipedia's notability on academics which says as follows: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. See: https://www.ui.ac.id/berita/christopher-reinhart-peneliti-mudah-peduli-sejarah.html

Christopher Reinhart also promotes the usage of transnational perspective in historical writings. This perspective is relatively new in the discussion of historical research among the University of Indonesia's historian which indicates that his research has a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. Xiahe08

My auto translate of the award reads: "Christopher Reinhart was selected as the Achieving Student of the Faculty of Culture, University of Indonesia in 2019. The election of Christopher Reinhart as the main achieving student of FIB UI was supported by good academic achievements. Over the past three years, Rei has published 19 articles and journals about the history of Indonesia." So it is a best student award. The award may have been presented by a minister, although that is not stated in the source, but that doesn't make it a prestigious award in the sense meant by the policy. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiahe08, as the creator of the article (and the only article you have edited), do you have a conflict of interest to declare? Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (no indication of importance). --Tataral (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - core policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability states: If no reliable independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The article does not contain (and I could not find) any independent sources... let alone enough to satisfy PROF or any other more general notability guideline. Seems like a likely vanity page. -- Netoholic @ 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources indicate he is a research assistant. Doesn't meet any of the criteria of Prof, or GNG and in addition unable to verify as all the sources in the article were blocked by my ISP as possibly containing malware. Even if he did have the listed papers published, it isn't enough to show notability yet. Maybe later, much later probably. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this blurb. No notability expressed. Trillfendi (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only form of notability claimed in the article is academic, but our standards for academic notability explicitly exclude student awards. Merely having written a few review papers is inadequate for notability; the papers need to be heavily cited, and here they appear not to be. And the supposed references for the article are merely more things the subject has written, not anything that can be used as a reference about the subject. Far too soon. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG and all academic-related notability standard. There is also a possible WP:COI issue as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A research assistant to an academic who is a redlink must be NN. This is not altered by half a dozen academic articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Per nom. Fails WP:NACADEMIC- -MA Javadi (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The ageism of the nomination aside, the subject doesn't appear to come close to meeting WP:NACADEMIC. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOOSOON - doesn't pass GNG nor PROF. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Research assistants are unlikely to be notable and I didn't find anything in Google Scholar to support a claim of notability for him. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 14 May 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! 05:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Oswalt

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

Doesn't look like much notable. Most of the sources are cited from YouTube. Just because he convinced an actor to recite tweets doesn't mean he is notable. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete sourcing is considerably weaker than it looks at first glance. Not all of the links are to WP:RS, and many are less than they appear. The first source, for example, is the New York Times, but it is a brief story about his brother's wedding. I thought the article in Salon looked promising, it's something, I suppose, but it's not much Matt Oswalt for the win: Patton's brother was the comedian you needed to follow during #GOPDebate. He does have an impressive # of Twitter followers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because his brother is notable, doesn't mean he is notable too. As per WP:NFRIENDS, Wikipedia doesn't care how many followers you have. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 09:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 16:25, 15 May 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 is rough consensus that she passes WP:NCREATIVE now that new sources have been added. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manon Mathews

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

Fails WP:ENT and WP:GNG as there isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Sincerely, Masum Reza^☎ 10:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few sources, a little text, the article needs a lot of work, but I think she passes WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with E.M. Gregory. I removed a lot of unsourced (or poorly sourced) information and worked on formatting. Thsmi002 (talk) 22:11, 10 May 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 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Formula One World Championship

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

It is too soon to be creating the article. Most of the content is duplicated from the 2020 article. Major revisions to the sporting and technical regulations are expected for 2021 which would be cause to create this article to be created in advance, but as per this source, those regulations are unlikely to be published until October 2019. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, at this stage there is insufficent information to warrant an article for a season which won't start for almost 2 years. Normally I would say Draftifiy, however a draft of this already exists (here) from which this eintire article appears to be copied from anyway. As Mclarenfan17 points out details of the 2021 season are due to be released in October ^[1] and the article can be moved from draft to mainspace then or earlier if a significant announcement is made but at this stage it is simply to early. SSSB (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is already a draft version at Draft:2021 Formula One World Championship. It appears that most of the article has been lifted from that page. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at past seasons, it always seems to be typical that this comes up every season that a season wants to be deleted. For me this is properly a case of WP:TOOSOON as what the nominator said. Maybe when we get to October, then we should create this article but for now this a delete. Matt294069 (talk) 10:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Matt 294069. In fact there was a time when someone made F1 season articles 6-7 years ahead of time and a bunch of these articles were deleted at AFD per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just to soon for this. We already have a draft for this which we can expand and maintain until such time as it appropriate to publish it. Not enough 2021 specific information is known at this point. I would like to propose to WP:SALT so that we can focus on the draft and assure that that's the one which gets published when time is proper to do so.T v x1 22:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ironically, whoever created this article seems to have copy-pasted content from the 2021 draft ... but didn't carry over the (few) 2021-specific details in it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 FIA Formula One World Championship which was nominated 2 years ahead, just like this case. Everyone said to keep it and they were right as here we are now and so is F1. And there's an obvious alternative to deletion in all such cases – merger to a higher level such as List of Formula One Grands Prix. Per our policy WP:PRESERVE, we prefer such non-destructive choices. As for the argument that there's nothing to say about 2021, this is evidently false as there is lots of planning and publicity about this – see What's at stake in F1's crucial 2021 rules meeting..., for example. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's speculation and discussion about what they want for 2021, but nothing specific has been decided, let alone announced. Timeframe alone is not justification to have such an article. I can easily link toof a similar AFD which resulted in delete in a similar timeframe, where you were ironically the only one supporting to keep it based on the same flawed arguments as here.T v x1 12:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article – 2020_Formula_One_World_Championship – was not deleted and is still in mainspace. So, the precedent is clear – we keep such articles. Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: the reason that the 2020 article exists is because those articles include details which are new to 2020, (i.e. the vitnamesse grand prix) and a large number of entries are confirmed so there is lots of unique information on the season. The same can not be said for 2021. The 2021 article consists of 1 confirmed entry and a list of grand prix under contract, do you propose to have an article for every season which has a contracted race or driver? I think not. Besides WP:OTHERSTUFF means that you can't argue that the 2020 article existing means the 2021 article must exist too. SSSB (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No,you’re wrong. That article was actually deleted. It was recreated much later when 2020 specific information was announced. Also, there was another AFD dealing with the article you mentioned which resulted in it being deleted at that time. Moreover November 2017 is not two years away from January 2019.T v x1 22:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Information about it mentioned in plenty of places as evident in the references in the article. And the ESPN article [7] has a lot to say about it. Also no sense deleting an article only to recreate it later on. This isn't some planned film that might not get made, this is something which is guaranteed to happen so not a crystal ball situation. Dream Focus 18:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the parts of that article that cover the 2021 season are speculative (its mostly a history lesson), there is nothing in that ESPN article which states that anything definite except that there will be a championship, yet we know of championships extending upto 2026 with the contracts referenced in the article, do you propse to create championship articles to 2026? I don't think so. The only sources in that article are sources informing us of 1 team, 15 tracks which will be in the championship along with confirmation that Pirelli will supply tires. Those are also the only season specific information in that article and the only season specific information available in sources, primary or secondry. Finally, there is sence is deleting an article even for it to be created later as explained in WP:TOOSOON. SSSB (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon, only information is one driver has a contract, as do some venues. When the interesting, expected car changes get announced and finalised, that would be content worth having. Right now, no extraordinary, or at all interesting, information. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Noble, Edd Straw, Roberto Chinchero, Jonathan. "October compromise likely for 2021 F1 rules to help small teams". Autosport.com. Retrieved 2019-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 05:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijay Lama

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

The notability of the subject can not be established. Bulk of the article is a list of events the subject has managed (I guess!?) (is that wikipedia material?) which references self published, archived from dead, web link. The other reference links are no good either. Many editors seem to confuse (even Google knowledge panel) this subject with the notable wikipedia subject Capt. Vijay Lama and add information about him into this article. I have reverted those edits but I don't think this article should exist at all. Probably a case of TOOSOON, doesn't look as though the subject has simply been a victim of overshadowing by his more notable namesake. Usedtobecool (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Usedtobecool (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for clearing this up. There's still some confusion as the article on Truck Driver links to Bijay, if you can check the what links here. Also, is Catmandu and the produced film listed for Bijay correct ? Atlantic306 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the actor in Truck Driver (1994 film) was definitely the Captain Vijaya Lama (viewed the source itself), also Muna Madan (2003 film) (the Captain is on the movie poster in the article). And I have also removed wikilink from the Malaysia at the 2014 Asian Games (I don't think any actor participated in that, and there is no source linked there that says otherwise). I did not check other pages (user pages and the like). I will now look for all the information on Bijay Lama. Perhaps there's some video interviews where he can be identified. Catmandu was a real TV series that was quite popular. It cast all new faces that disappeared after the show was over. And it was pre-internet. So, fingers crossed! Usedtobecool (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source Nepalitimes (#5 on current version) has credible information on Catmandu but doesn't mention any Bijay Lama. Aago 2 trailer (#6) credits one "Bijay(a) Lama" (could be Vijay(a) Lama) as executive producer. No way to tell who that is. Could be anyone with some money and/or knowhow. Song from the same movie (#8) mentions one Bijay Lama as producer. Catmandu episode(s02e52) (#10) (actually just watched it myself) credits one Bijay Lama as the character Nawang. I do remember that character from back in the day. That means Bijay Lama is indeed an actor who played Nawang in Catmandu. Therefore, I can now say with some confidence that Bijay Lama is indeed an actor (Catmandu being his only work most probably) and a much younger one than Vijaya Lama. The singing (#2 on creator's version) is another mistake. There is another singer Bijay Lama, active since 1995, who is quite successful in the folk genre. That is who that is about. Interestingly, the event is in the list of events from this subject. So, my guess is, this Bijay Lama managed the event featuring a different singer Bijay Lama.

Final Clarification and recommendations: We have three people:
1.Captain Vijaya Lama an actor since 1984 and airlines pilot born in the 60's and the subject of the article wikilinked in this sentence who is referred to as having lended voice to the Guinness record-holder song as per the article and a credible news source that it references, therefore officially a singer too.
2.Bijay Lama, an actor who definitely played Nawang in 2002-3 tv serial "Catmandu" who probably is an event manager as per the self-published dead webpage referenced in the article and probably did produce the 2015 movie Aago 2 as well (someone named Bijay Lama certainly did).
3.Bijay Lama, a professional folk singer, active since 1995, born 1979 according to one source, is quite notable and probably deserves a wikipedia page of his own.
Therefore, Vijaya Lama should stay and be improved. Bijay Lama isn't notable enough to stay but if it stays it should be moved to Bijay Lama (actor) unless we want a wikipedia page about an event manager, listing events managed. Bijay Lama (singer) is a bit of a notable singer and deserves a wikipedia page which should be created in the near future. Bijay Lama should be a disambiguation page to disambiguate Vijaya, Bijay (actor) and Bijay (singer) if/when they all exist. For now, it should redirect to Vijaya Lama. It should be redirected to Vijaya Lama because it seems most people that stumbled on to this page were looking for him, and many editors added information about him to this page.
Source of confusion: The sanskrit word Vijaya, meaning victory, becomes Vijay in India and many Indian Languages. In Nepal, it can have one of the four forms: Vijay, Vijaya, Bijaya, Bijay. Therefore, most people use spelling as per their own standards. In this case, everyone looking for Vijaya Lama finds Bijay Lama and most tabloids just copy wikipedia text and google photos, producing pages about Vijaya Lama with his picture and text from this article which was (probably still is) a mashup of three different people's bio. Usedtobecool (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing out there at all that I could find, and I assume that if there are better sources in Nepali/etc. media, they'd be here. All sources appear to be crap -- the first one I clicked on didn't seem to mention the subject at all, youtube, crowdsourced. --valereee (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Usedtobecool Wow, that is really a mess. Several of the citations seem to be for a singer, is that the other Bijay Lama you're talking about? I'm thinking we should just remove those, if you can tell which ones are which. --valereee (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Valereee Hi, thanks for looking into it. There's probably tons that could be done. I just didn't want to put any more work into an article which I think will be deleted. But I could check each and keep/remove if you think that's the right thing to do. Usedtobecool (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, the only reason I suggest it is that it would help other editors to see what sources aren't actually sources for this person. It's not strictly necessary, but it could be what is causing editors to click here, see the mess, not want to spend the time investigating, and move on instead of !voting. --valereee (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Valereee I have removed irrelevant links. Of the links that remain, Reference #1 is permanent dead (no idea what that had), #2 is his personal website, also dead, but has his pictures for positive identification, and the list of events that's been copy-pasted into this article, #3 and #4 are youtube videos and have hardcoded producer credits for him in the videos themselves, #5 and #6 are youtube links to TV episodes he appears in (end credits credit him). I don't think any of them meet wikipedia standards. Were it up to me, I'd delete them all and nominate the page for speedy deletion, just seemed a bit too extreme/bold(?) at the time. Usedtobecool (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, yeah, I kind of hate to see removal of all sourcing, then CSD. We may believe it's clearly non-notable, but that's not a CSD. You might have been able to WP:PROD it as the creator hasn't edited in four years, but AfD is probably the best choice. I think that now you've clarified issues/removed irrelevant sourcing, there'll be some decision for this relisting. WP:NORUSH! --valereee (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested that Usedtobecool (via Teahouse) have this article moved to their draftspace to work on it instead of deleting it This is because the potential of becoming a article exists. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stinson Leonard Street

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

Non-notable company, fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would suggest proceeding slowly here. Sources for law firms are hard to find since there are so many false hits in sources that don't show notability; law firms are routinely named in court filings, lawyer-written articles, and directories. Good sources get lost in the haystack. But this article is about a firm formed from two firms each going back over a century, which almost certainly makes for notability. There's almost certainly some stuff out there, it'd just going to be way difficult to find, particularly online. TJRC (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no inherent notability WP:ORGSIG - no significant achievements or innovations or impact - references are thin (Twitter, seriously?) - the "there must be sources" defence doesn't hold WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST - Epinoia (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NCORP and the article reads like a directory listing. A simple search literally only shows listings with no notable external 3rd party coverage. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:33, 8 May 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. This is still not a very clear-cut case even after a DRV and three relists, but the "delete" arguments are more persuasive. I'm disregarding the conflicting views expressed by Djm-leighpark. There is exactly one opinion addressing the issue of third-party sources that is at the core of this AfD, and it's a "weak keep". There are two other "keep"s (and one "delete") that do not address third-party sources and must be given little weight. Everybody else argues that there are no (or not enough) third-party sources. This argument is, as mentioned, barely contested, and therefore remains decisive. Sandstein 17:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kst (software)

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Samsara (creator) with the following rationale "certainly not to be done via prod, after so many years!". Edit long enough, I guess one can see every weird iteration of Wikipedia:Arguments not to use in deletion discussion, including I guess "this has survived so long it should stay forever" :> Well, let's discuss this a bit more then. Sources, anyone? I couldn't find anything outside trivial mentions and primary sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: When undoing a prod, giving reasons is entirely optional. Doing so would merely be a courtesy. I find your personal attack extremely misplaced. Samsara 14:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I made any personal attack. You yourself noted you were not courteous in ignoring my specific request for a proper rationale, not me. All I said is that your argument is clearly a bad one (in fact, it is not an argument at all). I don't think my response to you at any point has been particularly so, nor less courteous than your reply to me. It is was not my intent to offend you, and if you feel offended, I apologize - but it was my intent to point out, inoffensively, that your argument is useless, not backed in any rationale we have (there's no policy, guideline or even an essay I am aware of that states that 'old enough' articles should not be deleted), and results in likely (as I expect this AfD will end up in delete) unnecessary expenditure of time for editors that will be posting here. Time will tell if I am correct or not, but if this ends up in delete, I hope you'll reconsider your future deprods. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software is somewhat notable. It is part of Debian. Google Scholar search for "kst-plot.kde.org" gives 28 hits. So our lemma is notable, and the article is a legitimate stub. -- Oisguad (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As best I can tell, none of those hits are actually about the software; they are about other activities, some of which used this software (or something similar to it) in the studies. Other hits included the "kst-plot" as part of a list of software that could be used for certain activities. When looking directly at Google Scholar for "Kst (software)", many if not most hits are for knowledge sharing technology (KST). Risker (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Per Risker, AfD is not a vote and your argument is WP:GOOGLEHITS - also from the list of arguments to avoid during AFD. Please try to find proper in-depth sources required by WP:GNG. All you have proven is that the topic is not a hoax and it exists, and this is not being disputed. Existence, however, is not sufficient for having a Wikipedia article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've looked further for sources, and please also see my comment above. There just isn't enough software-specific information here. It would perhaps be suitable for merge into an article (or list article) that focuses on similar KDE extensions; many of those individual articles probably do not meet the threshold for notability, either, but as a group of applications would probably cross the notability point. Risker (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I fully support soft delete/redirect/merge, as long as anyone can think of a proper merge target (or create it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This software already appears in the article List of KDE applications. Suggest deletion with a redirect to that page. There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application to demonstrate notability, let alone write a proper article. Risker (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:~~Weak keep~~: Comment: (was weak keep as relist but see re-!vote below) Rob Reilly Linux Journal Volume 2010 Issue 196, August 2010 Article No. 4 Real-time plots with kst and a Microcontroller ... seems a likely feasible reference though I haven't read it (its unlikely to refer to the Kepler space telescope but who knows?). One no-brainer tenable redirect target is List of KDE applications#Science. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Further scanning through some scholar hits ... and with kst meaning some other things as well filtering is nightmarish ... kst seems to being particularly applied where real time speed is essential. [8].Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 14 overturned the "delete" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked into the source code on this project and it seems to have stagnated, It may work very well but the toolkit it is using is a full generation behind with no activity in it's repo since 2014. The information is sparse even for a stub class article. I second the merge that User:Risker mentioned. I feel that it would better serve the average Wikipedia user if it was alongside similar software that would provide better context then an almost direct copy paste of it's main web page. On it's own it's notability is questionable, but with similar Software related to it, it's far more relevant. Andrdema (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The relevant criterion is notability, not software development activity. Samsara 14:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to second that. At some point in its lifecycle software can get to the point where it just works and doesn't really need further development. I don't say this has happened here ... but it is possible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can second (third?) that too - with a stress that this is a clear fail of notability, since nobody has yet found a non-WP:PRIMARY (manual) source. This piece of code doesn't seem to have been reviewed or studied in depth, hence, it is not important enough to have a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is notable and could become a proper article. I would highlight the following points:
- The title Kst suggests that this is statistics for KDE, and that seems to have been the idea when it was first created over a decade ago (and, btw, there are also stand-alone binaries for Macos and Windows, so it pretty much runs anywhere). However, the open source statistics market is now strongly dominated by R, which easily exceeds Kst in features. There isn't really any competition in that market any more, but of course, Wikipedia is not concerned merely with the here and now. As Djm-leighpark as well as the software's homepage emphasise, Kst's strengths are in real time visualisation of data. In fact, it may be the leading open source application in this area. This includes uses in electronics, medical devices, and astronomy. More on that below.
- Perhaps one might wonder why there aren't any third party books on Kst. Well, the Canadian Space Agency provided funding to support the creation of what ended up being an almost 300-page manual written at the universities of British Columbia and Toronto. In case this is of interest, the authors are Duncan Hanson, Rick Chern, Philip Rodrigues, Barth Netterfield, Yiwen Mao, and Zongyi Zhang.
- In terms of its connection to astronomy, Kst includes import filters for various formats that are either specific to, or were originally developed in, that field. These include HEALPix, CDF and netDCF, LFIIO, SCUBA and WMAP Time Ordered Data (TOD) files.

I may write more if I can find the time, but for now, I'd like to note that everyone commenting so far seems to have ignored the existence of the manual, with some even complaining about the absence of such material (e.g. Risker: "There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application"). Samsara 15:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manuals are problematic sources, since generally they are WP:PRIMARY. If manual would be sufficient to make a topic notable, every household appliance would be notable. Heck, even USB hubs and such come with manuals these days... what doesn't? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Samsara 15:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

s>*Keep: Following development progression of article to scrape start-class by myself within the last 24 hours and with adequate referencing and removal of some contentious claims from WP:PRIMARY I am moved to change my !vore from weak keep to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)</a>[reply]
Delete—fails to assert why it's notable as currently written, and cursory checks for sources turn up no significant third-party sources discussing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion now the article has been significantly improved since the start of the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've used KST for over a decade, but am not involved in the project. Linux Journal is in depth. The other refs just possibly push this over the line. It definitely shouldn't be deleted - at the very least it should be merged somewhere (KDE? An article on real time plotting?) - as the content does pass WP:V.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Verifiability is separate from notability. The issue is not whether we can determine KST exists but whether it is notable enough to have an article. A Linux magazine that uses the software to accomplish a tutorial doesn't expressly demonstrate the importance of the software. Put another way: are there interviews with the creators about KST? An article about KST's importance in applications (rather than just examples where it is used?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The contents should be merged at the very least. We do have an interview - [9].Icewhiz (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like we need some more source analysis here based on the last few votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources per article source are grand. The totality of the hinting of the use of the interview (almost a cherrytoppping that interview actually) the hinting almost seems like an attempt to motivate upclassing work on the article but after 3533 days at AfD/DRV by this one with associated scummering and another astronomical graphical pussycat as well I'm kinda spent and this is past the post.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This has been here too long. Just have your way and bin it forever as that's what everyone wants.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer Within a period of about 24 hours (my impression, did not count it precisely), Djm has added delete !votes or changed his keep !votes, with a "variety" of rationales, on multiple noms,[10][11][12] mirroring his "change of opinion" here, in one case verbatim. Samsara 19:07, 14 May 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 Gatsbys American Dream. Tone 19:49, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the Land of Lost Monsters

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. No results in a google news, books, scholar, or One Search. Significant original research. Theredproject (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gatsbys American Dream - not notable enough for a stand alone article - Epinoia (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Yeah, I think it's pretty clear that a redirect would serve better.💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 20:18, 15 May 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. Sandstein 17:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hexany Audio

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

Blatant Promotion for Non notable business. None of the awards are major. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. A business talking about themselves and their products is not independent. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Linked from Richard Ludlow, I guess this company passes WP:CORP. Nevertheless, a rewrite might be necessary to clear some of the non 3rd party sources used. Generally, the topic is in line with WP:GNG. My opinion anyway. Germcrow (talk) 06:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. So you're just guessing are you? Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic appears notable. Good sources out there to scale through WP:COMPANYLaosilika (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify. Searched for this topic in Googlenews, I only discovered three 3rd party sources. They include 1, 2 and 3.

There's also one source about an award on this topic from Variety magazine here. Certainly, the few sources are not good enough. More is needed. The current page is loaded with a refbomb many of which are not reliable. I recommend pushing this to the draft space for now. If it must be kept, it has to be properly cleaned up. All those promo lines and unreliable refs should be cleared. Nevertheless, outright delete can be very harsh as I stated earlier on Matthew Carl's AFD. Both pages have same issues.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Ludlow - Epinoia (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable project credits in line with WP:CORP. New draft removes the promotional aspects of previous draft. ParinazF talk
Delete There are very clear guidelines on establishing the notability for organizations and the references that can be located for the company all fail. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and the Keep !votes above are vague with no references to policy/guidelines. An examination of the sources shows none meet the criteria as per WP:NCORP:
- This interview with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent. The article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is no information provided about the company itself.
- This Sound&Picture interview with a founder also fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent.
- This Berklee reference and this one are from a connected source as Hexany are featured as Berklee Institute for Creative Entrepreneurship graduates and essentially were supported by the organizations publishing the articles, therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This Variety reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- This TVOM reference fails for two reasons. It mainly fails because it is an interview with Matthew Carl Earl and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails WP:ORGIND. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it only mentions the company twice, in passing, and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Forbes article fails because it is a profile on the founder, not on the company. Notability is not inherited. It also contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The Cultured Vultures reference fails WP:ORGIND as it relies on an interview with a founder and is not intellectually independent. It also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth information about the company.
- This blog post fails as a reliable source as blogs are not considered reliable.

There is no significant coverage and no independent coverage that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a normal relisting case, I know, but not all of Benleg4000's sources have been rebutted and High King's analysis came quite late in the AFD process. I'd like to see a bit more discussion before settling for a delete close (since most other keep arguments are quite weak given their lack of source analysis)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources from Benleg4000:
- flickeringmyth interview "with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails WP:ORGIND as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent. The article also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there is no information provided about the company itself."
Same problem as above as well stated by HighKing. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets WP:NRV as the references, though local, verify and support the content. More notable references like this [13] and this [14] can be added. Variety, Forbes, Sound & Picture are good sources. The article needs a clean-up to remove the redundant content like 'Credits and Clients' section.Sora Sailor (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment References may be deemed "notable" and still fail the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references you mention meet the criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hexany Audio is mentioned in many reliable sources, such as The Boston Globe and Gamasutra, the first of which is a mainstream newspaper and the second of which is a respectable platform in the area of gaming. The Boston Globe [15] found Hexany Audio an authority to quote with regard to the topic of VR while Gamasutra [16] provided in-depth coverage about Hexany Audio through an interview with its Audio Director. Although the article could use some cleanup, it meets the threshold required to possess an encyclopedia entry. desmay (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Mentions" are not part of the criteria for references to establish notability. The Gamasutra reference is an interview with the founder, therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article looks improved, the history notes that cleanup has been done after it was marked for deletion. As per the source analysis -
- Sound and Picture - this interview of the founder talks about the company
- The Boston Globe - this source supports the Berkelee genesis of the company

Further cleanup is required as per WP:NPV and WP:MoS. OliverKianzo (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer It is worrying that some editors above !voting to Keep do not appear to have either read or understood the criteria for references to establish notability. Just above, OliverKianzo quotes a reference and describes it as an interview with the founder - this shows a lack of understanding of WP:ORGIND. Similarly, quoting an article which only contains two quotes from the founder with no discussion on the company whatsoever fails both ORGIND and CORPDEPTH. The recent Keep !votes from OliverKianzo, Desmay and Sora Sailor above describe references as "notable" and "reliable sources" - but this is just one small aspect of a reference. Clearly none have correctly applied the interpretations of "independent" - see WP:ORGIND. I provided an analysis of sources and pointing out why each failed WP:NCORP. To date, nobody has refuted this analysis. The closer will not based their decision on the highest number of !votes recorded for either Keep and Delete. We don't simply count !votes at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There will always be some editors who make incomplete arguments, but that doesn't mean there aren't significant sources per WP:GNG, here are some that meet that criteria^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] (and yes, Berklee College of music is independent, not some sock puppet of Hexany Audio). In this case, WP:CCSI#CORP also applies (and "significant sources" also exist for the founder, here cited)^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]. Additionally, there are a few independent, reliable, significant, and secondary tha seem to meet a minimum threshold for notability (prevoiusly cited). In this particular case of a music production company elements of WP:COMPOSER apply as well with the numerous credits. There simply isn't a glaring, obvious lack of coverage in the sub-genre of "game music" also, and then there are pathways to notability because of the repeated, independent coverage to satisfy WP:NMUSIC as well, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", which their music product is, quite clearly, as shown by the citations. The page should be kept so it can be improved (itself a different issue entirely), but it does meet the criteria of notability.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kirsner, Scott. "Berklee students and grads create a noteworthy niche: music for video games". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ Francis, Bryant. "Gamasutra talks to Arena of Valor audio designer Richard Ludlow". www.gamasutra.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ https://www.gamecrate.com/interview-hexany-audio%E2%80%99s-richard-ludlow-challenges-making-video-game-sounds/20312. Retrieved 10 May 2019. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Hexany Audio, Berklee-Bred Business, Blasts Off | Berklee College of Music". www.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Audio profession sounds good to Fountain Valley High alum". Orange County Register. 12 September 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Fountain Valley Native to Speak at Europe's Largest Game Industry Even". Fountain Valley, CA Patch. 15 July 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Richard Ludlow | Berklee Music Network". network.online.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "81: Follow the Three P's Principle When Choosing a Job with Richard Ludlow of Hexany Audio". GameDev.net. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

Response Nubtrazolacine, once again, and I apologize for repeating myself, the criteria for references that can establish notability is different that the criteria for references to support facts within an article. For example, if an article states "According to the company, revenues exceeded $20m last quarter", then it is perfectly fine to use a quotation from the CEO to support this. BUT! That does not automatically mean that this same reference can be used to establish notability. There are different criteria for references to establish notability and for organizations/companies/etc, they can be found at WP:NCORP (especially the sections on significant coverage and independent content

You say the sources you've provided meet the criteria for "significant sources". They don't. Significant coverage does not mean "coverage in a well-known publication" or "namechecked in the Financial Times". Please read the WP:CORPDEPTH section of NCORP. References must also be "independent" - please read WP:ORGIND. You say that Berklee college is independent and not a "sock puppet" of the company. Nobody said they were a "sock puppet", that is a strawman argument. None of the information on the Berklee website contains independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and relies on information provided by the company. I've extracted the quotation below as this is the accepted interpretation of an "independent" source for establishing notability of companies/organizations/etc.

Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

You (here and as a comment below) use a section from WP:CCSI#CORP to support claims of notability and in doing so, manged to mangle the logic behind that section. WP:CCSI is an essay (not a policy/guideline and therefore does not have the support of the community) intended to assist in overturning speedy deletion requests. This is not a speedy deletion request. It has no weight here at AFD and does not mean we can ignore WP:NCORP.
You mention WP:NMUSIC and in particular, the WP:COMPOSER section and this guideline is for "artists, bands, albums, and songs".. It is an interesting and possibly compelling argument that a music production company should be treated the same as a band or artist but to date I am not aware that the community has accepted this argument and therefore this guidelines to not apply. Also, be aware, notability is not inherited. Even if the CEO is notable, it does not mean that this company meets the criteria.

Looking at the references you provided. The first four, you say are "significant coverate". They are not and *all* of them fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH.

The Boston Globe reference merely namechecks the company twice with no other information about the company. It is therefore not "significant coverage" as is fails to provide in-depth information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH) and is not independent (quotes from CEO) and fails WP:ORGIND
This Gamasutra reference is a recorded interview with the founder and is therefore not independent and fails WP:ORGIND (interview with the CEO) and provides no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
This Gamecrate reference is entirely based on an interview with the CEO. Not independent, fails WP:ORGIND and no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This Berklee reference relies on information provided by the company and/or the executives. Not only that, but Berklee are using Hexany's profile in order to promote the college. This is not "independent" coverage and fails WP:ORGIND.

The next four sources you mention are focussed on the founder. For the reasons I've quoted above, those references also do not meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would there be any value in merging Matthew Carl Earl and Richard Ludlow into this article? All three are up for deletion, and it's because they each have a couple of reliable sources but no more – as far as I can see Mr. Earl and Mr. Ludlow's notability comes from their company, so perhaps if they were all included in one article which would then have have a dozen reliable sources, there would be a better chance of keeping any verifiable information, instead of deleting all three. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This above suggestion doesn't make sense. They are distinct topics. While notability can transfer from a CEO's individual notability per WP:CCSI#CORP, their pages are different distinct topics.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, you are totally misinterpreting what is being said. Not only does WP:CCSI#CORP *not* state that "Notability can be transferred" but the RFC it in turn references discussed "significance" and not notability. The RFC was not passed and the example it uses in the closing summary makes it clear how common sense should be applied. Nothing in the example lends weight to your argument.
- Response *If* this topic survives AfD (which I doubt as to date, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been provided) then I agree that some relevant and appropriate information on those individuals could be included. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the articles has quite some sources, you will find that only the smallest portion (maybe 4) is actually reliable. The rest is primary (own website), tertiary (MobyGames), or some blogs. Definetly fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. Lordtobi (✉) 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Few mentions in passing plus primary / COI / self-published sources. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES, WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 15 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leader (spark)

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

0 sources, plus appears to be a part of a larger topic. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a well-covered and much-referenced thing [17]. Looking through the connected articles, Lightning#Lightning leaders goes into some detail, but with specific reference to lightning only. The phenomenon is more general and would benefit from standalone treatment, with generous links to special cases - which is what the article already does. Keep and add some of the readily available sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Complete failure of WP:BEFORE. Yet another case of assuming unsourced means unsourceable. In depth sources are easily found, this book spends several pages introducing the topic [18] and later devotes a whole chapter to it [19]. Other book sources with in-depth coverage include [20][21][22]. As for "part of a larger topic", I've never heard such an inane rationale for deletion. Everything is part of a larger topic. Shall we reduce the whole encyclopaedia to just one page? SpinningSpark 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Elmidae and Spinningspark. I might suggest a move to Leader (electricity), but that's not for this discussion. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:09, 09 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Maynard

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

Essentially all these publications are selfpublished. The reviews seems to be routine noticex in Whats On and the like. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic, confident Delete vote. Trevor Maynard is a unique-sounding name, so I ran a proquest gNews search. I scanned 93 hits on guys called Trevor Maynard: athlete, art student, brother of the deceased in an obit, petty criminal, a child interviewed at Disneyland (he liked it), and a risk assessor at Lloyds who may actually be notable, but none of the hits was on this Trevor Maynard. Even minor playwrights we delete always have a few hits in local papers in a news archive search. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had this on my list of articles to nominate for deletion when I get round to it. I note that an editor has been eager to give the impression that the publisher of the books was not Lulu.com or CreateSpace, well-known self-publishing outfits, but Willowdown Books, although Willowdown Books is simply a name used by Maynard to obscure the fact that the books are self-published. I see no evidence of any significant reviews in significant publications. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 9 May 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 Now, as the only user who voted delete switched to keep I can withdraw it. I will remove now remaining false statements in the article (when I nominated it the article only contained false statements and nothing else.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blagoveshchensk massacre and Sixty-Four Villages East of the River massacre

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

Unsourced claims of massacres, POV. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Draftify. It is a massacre indeed (Blagoveshchensk massacre can be found in a lot of journals and books [Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL]) and I did not see any POV. But the article is a bit short. It has even less information about the massacre than in Blagoveshchensk#The_Boxer_Rebellion and Sixty-Four_Villages_East_of_the_River#History. The author can expand the article by translating from zhwp. --94rain ^Talk 08:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the article says Russian army invaded the two cities in China whereas it is trivial to check that this is one city and a bunch of villages around, and they were (and still are) located in Russia. It is somehow not difficult to figure out that Blagoveshchensk is not a Chinese name.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Blagoveshchensk is a Russian name. Actually the city formerly belongs to Qing Dynasty, but it was ceded to Russia by Treaty of Aigun in 1858.--94rain ^Talk 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or, to be exact, the area was indeed ceded to Russia, and then Russians built a fortress in the area.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to starting another article with a similar title per WP:TNT - It's trivially easy to find academic sources for the term Blagoveshchensk Massacre but the article as it stands is just too poor and unsourced. Alternatively an editor with more time could make this article into something worth keeping and I'd flip to keep per WP:HEY KEEP per WP:HEY. FOARP (talk) 10:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not well-written but the sources for the massacre are abundant, including this, this, this, this and this. Russian troops massacred Chinese nationals who were living on Russian soil, though that’s not really clear from the text. No reason at all to delete. Personally I don’t think it’s even so bad that it warrants a Draftify; I think it just wants some tidying and filling out. Mccapra (talk) 14:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unsourced ≠ POV. That is a falacious rationale that is used far too much at AFD. SpinningSpark 19:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides which, the improvements made by 94rain make the nomination moot. SpinningSpark 19:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a massacre indeed, not good in writing, but the sources are abundant.--SalmanZ (talk) 23:57, 8 May 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 Scott Taylor (politician)#2018 election and ballot fraud investigation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Brown (politician)

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

Per WP:N and WP:POLITICIAN. Does not meet either criteria. Comatmebro (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win. For her to warrant an article, it would be necessary to demonstrate that either (a) she had preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten her an article anyway, or (b) her candidacy received so much more (i.e. nationalized) coverage than every candidate in every election always gets that she would have a credible claim to her candidacy being a special case over and above everybody else's candidacies. But neither of those things is shown here at all, so a smattering of the purely local campaign coverage that's routinely expected to always exist for all candidates is not enough to get her in the door. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Her candidacy was apparently important enough that someone who worked for the incumbent Republican was allegedly willing to risk prosecution to get her on the ballot. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm talking about. We need to see nationalized significance on the level of "Christine O'Donnell denies being witch and generates national cable-news firestorm that lasts for weeks, to the point that ten years later she's still about a million times more famous than the actual senator she lost to" or "Jon Ossoff gets distinctly unusual volume of nationalized coverage as first national "referendum" on the presidency of Donald Trump, to the point that four years later he's still about a million times more famous than the woman he lost to", before her candidacy would be enduringly "important" enough to earn her an article — "somebody on another candidate's campaign did something unethical to help her get onto the ballot as a spoiler candidate and here are three pieces of purely local coverage to prove it" is not enough. The basis for an article about her would be evidence that the entire world will still care about any of this in 2029, not just evidence that she's currently slightly newsy in her own local media market because of other people's actions. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, she wasn't nationally famous, but her case was unprecedented enough that they had to come up with new regulations to prevent something like this from happening again. This was cited as having profound implications statewide, because it was the first time that a candidate certified for the ballot by the State Board of Elections had ever been kicked off the ballot. So, it's of more than local interest, but of less than national interest. Anyway, undecided about the best way to proceed. Зенитная Самоходная Установка (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scott Taylor (politician)#2018 election and ballot fraud investigation. Not notable enough for a standalone asrticle. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Scott Taylor (politician)#2018 election and ballot fraud investigation. Agree with GPL93. Failed candidates do not meet WP:NPOL. The fact that she was used as a political pawn can either be mentioned in the article for Scott Taylor or in the article about the election Bkissin (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with the idea of a redirect here if we think that's better suited then a full on delete. Comatmebro (talk) 04:02, 15 May 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the Strength of All Convinced

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

No WP:RS to establish WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. No results in a google news, books, scholar, or One Search. Significant original research. Theredproject (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:21, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's the AllMusic review linked in the ratings box, and a brief review in The A.V. Club [23]... would that be enough? Richard3120 (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly (as nom) I don't think so: according to Wikipedia, is "AllMusic is an online music database" like IMDB, which is not a WP:RS. The A.V. Club may or may not be RS, but it is barely substantive coverage, and I don't think that source alone can establish N. --Theredproject (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic has been well established as an RS for many years - it began as a print book edited by Stephen Thomas Erlewine and featuring reviews by many established music journalists, before moving online. Richard3120 (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for jumping into this conversation, but AllMusic is a reliable source for Wikipedia and is not comparable to IMDb as stated above. The A.V. Club is also a reliable source. However, there should be more coverage on a topic than just two sources. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: agreed, I'd like to see more than the one and a half sources I found before voting keep... the nominator does have a point that coverage is very thin. Richard3120 (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The avclub.com review is also a reliable source as it's a review by someone who appears to be a staff writer. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources for a larger list of acceptable album review sources that clearly lists AllMusic and avclub. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep The AllMusic review is both a reliable source and good coverage. While AllMusic is a database, if a reviewer had to write something up, we accept that as a reliable source. We do not accept entries that have only a rating without a review. We do not accept user-submitted reviewers either. We do not accept the genre clouds that are machine-generated. We only accept the prose as reliable, but with that said, we need more than one reliable source, and the PunkNews staff review would be enough. My concern is that the article may not ever be more than a track listing. The article should incorporate elements of all three reviews. I suggest that the nominator should improve the article for not adequately doing WP:BEFORE, but I have no way of enforcing that and since BEFORE was ignored I suspect that this suggestion will be as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: I did extensive research WP:BEFORE I nom'd. I just didn't (and don't) think that AllMusic and Punk News establish N-- There is nothing else here.Theredproject (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 14:05, 15 May 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 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moinul Islam Kowshik

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

Mainul Islam Kowshik has been on the Bangladesh men's national field hockey team since 2012, and played in the South Asian Games, Hockey World League, Hockey Asia Cup, and Asian Games. He is regularly mentioned in primary source match reports such as [24], [25], and [26]. But there are hardly any mentions in secondary sources - ones that aren't first hand accounts by an observer of the event - as called for by the WP:GNG. All I could find, including when searching by মইনুল ইসলাম কৌশিক (name in Bengali script), is a mention that he was high scorer the previous season and a mention that he scored against China in their prior match. This does not rise to significant coverage in multiple secondary sources. Worldbruce (talk) 05:35, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep notable enough to be interviewed by Prothom Alo, the second largest newspaper in Bangladesh [27]. Given that he has played at the international level and is being interviewed by a major national newspaper, I think necessary sources exist but may be in printed newspapers in Bangladesh. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not persuaded by "think necessary sources exist [in print]". These days every periodical in Bangladesh also publishes online. Their online archives for 5-6 years ago may be weak, but the subject should be at the peak of his career now, so if secondary sources exist, one should be able to find them online. That said, I did miss the Prothom Alo interview, so good work finding that. It contains a few sentences of analysis by the interviewer before becoming a primary source interview. Perhaps participants will feel that is enough. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not up to speed on Bangladeshi news practices, so I can't speak to that. You make a good point that being near his peak finding sources shouldn't be this hard, but I'm also wary of systemic bias considering this is a player from a non-anglophone country in a niche sport. The Prothom Alo source, in the context of what else we know about the player, makes me think the necessary sources exist not just out of hope but based on WP:NEXIST and WP:NSPORT. An internet search cannot turn up every possible source, and per WP:NEXIST we need to consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. This is the reason NSPORT exists, to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level. The reasoning being that players at the highest international level are likely important enough in their home country to be covered in local publications, and so presumably sources exist to satisfy the GNG even if they don't readily appear in search results. The assumption that he'd be covered by local new sources is bolstered by him having been interviewed by the second largest newspaper in the country, and so the idea that sources with lower circulation and a limited online presence would have covered him does not seem far fetched. This isn't the ideal evidence, hence the weak keep, but based on my reading of WP:N I am more convinced that the subject is notable than not. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If we knew a difficult-to-access publication existed (Bangladesh Field Hockey Monthly, say), it would be reasonable to assume per WP:NEXIST that some issue of it likely covered Maninul Islam. But we have no evidence of any such niche periodical, and after three years and an extensive WP:BEFORE, no substantial secondary source has been found. A player runs through stock sports cliches along the lines of: 'It's a team effort', 'I'm just happy to be here', 'We gotta play 'em one day at a time', etc. Is that an indicator of notability, when printed in a major newspaper? I hesitate to assume that the Prothom Alo interview is the tip of some iceberg trove of encyclopedic information.

The phrase "at the highest level" is key in "likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics)." Field hockey is an Olympic sport; that is the sport's highest level competition, where the world's 12 best teams compete. Bangladesh has never fielded a men's Olympic field hockey team and, currently ranked 34th, is unlikely to soon.

WP:NSPORT is a raw deal for Mainul Islam. Many other sports define high levels of competition (other than just the highest) for which sports figures can be presumed notable. But not field hockey. This appears to be intentional on the part of the community. If one looks at Asian Games squads (the highest level at which Mainul Islam has played), they're a sea of red links except for countries who have qualified for the Olympics: India, Pakistan, Malaysia, China, and South Korea. (Asian Games 2018 - 2014 - 2010 - 2006 - 2002)

If this is kept, so be it, but short of stringing together all the primary source match reports, I don't see a way to make it more than a permastub. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When there’s absolutely no evidence of notability you end up with one sentence “articles”. Trillfendi (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search didn't find the significant independent coverage needed to meet WP:GNG. None of the sources in the article provide that (one link doesn't even mention him). There's no evidence he ever competed at the world championships or Olympics so WP:NSPORT is not met. Papaursa (talk) 00:00, 12 May 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. All "keep" arguments (one by a now blocked editor) are "meets WP:NEVENTS"; which doesn't count for much when the other side discusses the actual sources used. Sandstein 07:40, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Les Femmes Underground International Film Festival

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

Promotion for Non notable film festival. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the organisation. The only reasonable sources appears to be the local university source KPBS Public Media which falls short of WP:AUD. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to lack good sources in line with WP:GNG Laosilika (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets WP:NEVENTS - Epinoia (talk) 02:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KPBS (TV), KPBS-FM and Phoenix New Times are reliable sources. The KPBS stations serve southern California, nut just the university community. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see one source listed as KPBS Public Media, not two seperate KPBS sources. And the Phoenix one is just an event listing. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NEVENTS TMagen (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEVENTS. — Stevey7788 (talk) 17:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAGUEWAVE. To those making a vague wave at NEVENTS, how does it meet it? duffbeerforme (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional events listing. There is no substantial content, for they seem have never done anything noteworthy. One local TV listing and copies of it is not enough. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 23 May 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 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Tracks

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

Promotion for Non notable business. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:53, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. UPE concerns, yet page seems promising. incubate in draft is possibleLaosilika (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 03:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. No objection to moving to Drafts is someone wants to take it on but they'll need to find/provide good references. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 14 May 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 "delete" arguments are stronger. Nobody has really argued that there are the kind of in-depth reliable sources, as opposed to passing mentions, that are a requirement for the inclusion of a biography. Sandstein 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Meighen

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

Semi-advertorialized résumé of a philanthropist, not reliably sourced as meeting our notability standards. This is referenced 8/10 to primary sources that do not constitute support for notability at all, and 2/10 to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people -- which means it's referenced exactly 0/10 to reliable source coverage that's substantively about her. As usual, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN; we are not a place where people are automatically entitled to have articles that read like résumés, and talk about how "avid and highly accomplished" they are, just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

this one appears to just need sourcing, much of the page is now PRIMARY sourced. Some of her positions on boards of charities can be confirmed by news sources [28]. More to the point, there is this Globe and Mail story: CAMH Centre for Addiction and Mental Health: Kelly Meighen The Globe and Mail; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]29 Nov 2014: B.2. from which a bio can be sourced. And this: Stratford Festival Receives $5-Million Donation from Couple Canada AM - CTV Television; Toronto : n/a. Toronto: CTV Television, Inc. (Sep 27, 2000) ...to Stratford Festival; hitKelly hitMeighen, Donator to Stratford Festival; Antoni... ... hitKELLY hitMEIGHEN: We have a passion for Stratford. We love the theatre....... CIMOLINO: Thank you. hitKELLY hitMEIGHEN: Thank you... E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is an obvious PR piece. "Highly accomplished" in the lead? I can't find any secondary sources indicating notability. Most passing mentions are in association with her politician husband. Fails WP:GNG. Skirts⁸⁹ 11:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete UNAMBIGUOUS advertising from even the very first sentence. Trillfendi (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article needs to be reworked to remove promotion, however WP:NOTCLEANUP WP:ATD WP:NOTPAPER subject passes WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.

The Philanthropist of the Year Award from the Association of Fundraising Professionals in 2008.
The Dr. Ivan Smith Award.[8] Along with her husband, she was a recipient of the Yorktown Family Services Humanitarian Award for community service in 2013
The Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal.

I also removed some promotional language as cleanup and then arranged the research Lubbad85 (☎) 19:59, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO is not automatically passed by just every award that exists on earth — it is passed only by notable awards that generate news coverage about the granting of the award, and not by non-notable awards that can be referenced only to their own self-published web presence. Zero of those awards pass the necessary conditions. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO due The Philanthropist of the Year Award and the Queen's Jubilee Medal. Article can use work with sources (without a 'blow it up and start over' approach. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Jubilee Medal is not an ANYBIO-passing award — it was presented to 46 thousand people in 2002, to honour any random act of community service that motivated any random person to nominate any other random person, so it is not a magic notability-maker in and of itself. And receiving an organization's own internal proprietary award for its own members, such as the Association of Fundraising Professionals' own "Philanthropist of the Year Award", is not a notability clincher either. For the purposes of whether an award gets its recipients over ANYBIO or not, we care only about awards that generate journalism that covers the granting of that award as news, and not about any award that can be referenced only to the award's own self-published website about itself because news coverage about it is nonexistent. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat The Queen's Jubilee Medal is noteworthy enough that is has a Wikipedia article. In addition the subject has received RS coverage. I think the article has been improved since the afd. WP:ANYBIO covers this: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". It is a significant honor. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a Wikipedia article about the award is not the test for whether an award is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it; for one thing, its article is based entirely on primary sources, with not even one single solitary piece of real media coverage shown at all. The ability to source her reception of the award to a news story about her reception of the award is the test. Again, the medal was presented to forty six thousand people in a single year just in Canada alone, and another four hundred thousand people in the UK — so if she clears ANYBIO because of the Queen's Jubilee Medal itself, then so does every last one of those other 445,999 people. But they don't, and given the number of people we're talking about they can't, all clear ANYBIO on that basis alone, if they can't be properly sourced as having established notability for any other reason. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to rewrite the GNG criteria to include all of the hurdles that you are putting in front of the subject. As it is ...the award is well known and significant - I am unconcerned that 46k people received the award, nothing in the criteria speaks to numbers...again you would need to rewrite the criteria if you think too many people get the award for it to be "significant" and "well known". I am not concerned with other recipients who are not part of the afd, bbut this subject has many other GNG qualities besides the significant and well known award. In addition WP:NOTPAPER and no reason to WP:RUSHDELETE. cheers Lubbad85 (☎) 20:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't have to rewrite a damn thing. GNG is the hurdle I'm putting in front of the subject — GNG is a measure of the quality of the sources, not a measure of what the article does or doesn't say — and the award is not "well-known and significant" enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. As a Canadian, I'm also a much more reliable judge of whether a Canadian award is "well-known and significant" or not than a non-Canadian is. And I also don't give a flying fig what you're "unconcerned" about: if the award constitutes an ANYBIO pass in and of itself, just because it can technically be referenced to the award's own self-published website about itself in the absence of any media coverage about it, then 446,000 Canadian and British people just got instant inclusion freebies that exempt them from actually having to pass GNG on real sources. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you are getting angry with me. I am actively researching the subject. You should take it as a win that your afd has caused others to improve the article. By the way...I just added another award she received On Thursday Janury 31st, 2019. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another non-notable award sourceable only to the awarding organization's own self-published content about itself, with no evidence of reliable source journalism reporting the award's presentation as a news story, still doesn't change anything. As I correctly said earlier, ANYBIO is not just automatically passed by just any award that exists — it is passed only by awards that media outlets care enough about to assign journalists to write news stories about, and not by any award that does not. Bearcat (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do not share the same opinion, but I am actively improving the article and that is because of the Afd. I will discontinue this debate with you since it is taking time from the active research. Ferreting out sources is often difficult for those who did great things pre-internet, however I have no such awards as this person - and they are significant and well known. It seems this person is a great credit to humanity and a great Canadian, the sources and research clearly show that. I will continue to seek sources that show GNG. Have a great day. Lubbad85 (☎) 20:50, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NBIO - the Meighen Family Foundation and The Meighen Centre are significant and notable achievements - Epinoia (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The extent to which those are "notable achievements" is strictly coterminous with the extent to which they generate journalism in reliable sources. There is nothing that any person can ever claim that constitutes an automatic inclusion freebie just because they exist: the inclusion test hinges on the extent to which media did or did not report on those things as news, not on simply being able to offer primary source verification that the person exists. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What she has created and awards she has won seems to make her notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Someone dedicating their life to helping others might not get as much coverage in the media as some random model or entertainer, but there are other ways to determine their notability. Dream Focus 04:12, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 02:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source coverage is directly challenged, so awards won are not relevant. Arguments are needed based upon the presence, or lack thereof, of source coverage, when that is directly challenged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this article has been relisted in violation of wikipedia policies and guidelines for closure of afd. We have WP:CONSENSUS. Editors disagree with the relisting assertion that the awards are not relevant and with the nominator's assertions. Also ignored are editor arguments about this person's philanthropic WP:GNG. (also posted on relister's talk page) Lubbad85 (☎) 21:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Online searching is turning up passing mentions, or quotes in stories focused on something else (usually focused on the recipient of their gift). Nothing that would be significant enough to meet WP:BASIC. The best I can find is this article, which is more about the organizations than the person, and this book, which does not appear to be a reliable source because Dog Ear Publishing is a vanity press (so I think using it would be an SPSBLP violation). I don't see WP:ANYBIO as being met, either. The Queen Elizabeth II Golden Jubilee Medal is given out to 46,000 people; by definition that's not an award that confers notability, as it's given out to too many people. The Philanthropist of the Year Award is, well, given by the Association of Fundraising Professionals Greater Toronto Chapter (i.e., the people who solicit charitable donations [29]). So that would be an award given by people who ask for money to people who give money...in Toronto, where the Meighens are based. Hmm. Definitely not independent or conferring notability. The "prestigious" (our article says) Humanitarian Award for Community Service was given by Yorktown Family Services in 2013. I guessed: if I look at their annual reports, will I find that the Meighens became donors in, say, 2012 or 2013? Yup. Here are the annual reports if you want to look. They show up in 2011–2012 as individual donors, the foundation donates in 2012–2013, and the Meighens get the award as mentioned in the 2013–2014 annual report. What a surprise. Look, she and her husband Michael Meighen sound like great people and great philanthropists, and the organizations and causes they support also sound worthy. At some point, she, or the foundation, may receive enough significant coverage to meet WP:BIO, but I don't see evidence of it today. I do think that she and the work she does might be included in the articles about the organizations she is involved with, such as Stratford Festival and Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. But after researching, I have to !vote delete here, at least until they donate to the WMF (just kidding). Leviv ich 23:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SIGCOV. Meets WP:GNG. Several substantial awards, philanthropic activity, etc. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What are the WP:THREE that meet GNG? Leviv ich 17:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are already 19 sources in this article. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Keep per SIGCOV". Which of the 19 would you say are SIGCOV, i.e., significant coverage in an independent, reliable source? Leviv ich 20:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a synergy and consistent theme here. The whole is more than the sum of the individual pieces. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That’s not how the GNG or SIGCOV works. We don’t have a “X minor mentions equal one significant source” rule. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. I have min. We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—since there are plainly erroneous interpretations of policy and guideline above, registering my opinion. As Levivich amply demonstrates above, the awards are basically peacock philanthropist titles that don't demonstrate real notability beyond spreading money around. To go through the sources presented in this version:
- 1,2,3: Stray mention in Montreal Gazette, does not establish notability (not significant part of the article nor subject.) 2 and 3 are Geneological sites and an obituary not about the subject.
- 4,5: Non-independent source that is used for a degree citation, and an honorary degree in a year given to multiple other people including her husband.
- 6,7,8: Non-independent sources.
- 9: Quoted in one line about a totally separate subject. Doesn't demonstrate notability.
- 10: Actually a source from an independent reliable source about the Meighens ' charitable gift. It doesn't really spend much time on Ms. Meighen (she's barely quoted.)
- 11: Non-independent source.
- 12–19: The aforementioned awards that are anything but prestigious or unique enough to meet WP:ANYBIO.

The sum total of this is far short of a number of significant mentions in reliable sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:10, 14 May 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! 05:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fr Dominic Valanmanal

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

At the most he is a Televangelist, the organization he found is not notable.Other than that there is little to no mention in reliable sources. Daiyusha (talk) 06:20, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:57, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added more reference links, he is an emerging icon of christian community and serving Usa,uk and Asian region etc. he is not a Televangelist, he has million of followers on YouTube and social media etc and he is focusing his Conventions all over the world not organization he found, we can see millions of audience on his Conventions (please refer YouTube link) Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has 27k subscribers on YouTube.That is very less for establishing notability in 2019.Also people who preach religion on TV are called televangelists, which as you mentioned in your article, he does. Daiyusha (talk) 08:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christians are minorities in india, There is no one have more than 20k followers in india (community).27k subscribers on YouTube means he is popular.and this article not only for Indians but also everyone from the different countries, i dont know which language is this but just check this link Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, this person is acceptable in Europe so this article provide short description about him, his other bio and description are in Malayalam. English and wiki article helps everyone, please rectify me if i am wrong Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend you find news artices, malayalam too,about him. If he is really that popular, I believe newspapers like times and Hindu will mention him in Kochi, Trivandrum or ernakulam editions.The concept of minorities is relative, and for a place like India, Christians(with 2.3% of 1.1 Billion)are higher than the populations of most European countries. That is not the right way to judge youtube popularity, 27k is a small amount. Daiyusha (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

here is the some news link from British Malayalam paper and another news portal naradha news. the another thing is, he is not interest to make news and channel coverage, but he has 44,326 people likes on facebook and 49,130 followers, https://www.facebook.com/FrDominicValanmanal/ Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually there are quite a few people within the community who have much more subscribers. Fr Joseph Puthenpurackal has about 54K [30], Fr Bobby Jose Capuchin and K P Yohannan publishes Youtube videos via their respective TV channels and have much more subscribers. Both the references provided can be classified as blogs at best. So Delete this is. Jupitus Smart 16:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its not about subscribers, Fr Dominic Valanmanal conducting conventions for German natives and other region, you can see here link, so he is emerging icon in the community. the audience from allover the world so its a positive point. i think you should consider the point and user will get useful information from the article especially outsiders please rectify me if i am wrong Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a minimum threshold of notability to qualify for an article. We do not allow articles on grounds that some people would be interested in reading/knowing about the subject. Until you can establish he is notable in his own right, the article would be deleted (Always sign your comments by appending 4 of the tilde ~ symbols to the end of your comment). Jupitus Smart 03:57, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know about notability and Biographies of living persons^[1] Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Comment -- I would be happier if we had an article on Krupabhishekam Convention, before one on its founder. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

definitely Krupabhishekam_Convention , added more data like countries and date about the Convention, under the Krupabhishekam Convention title, please take a look into it Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 09:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Activate I request to everyone, please remove this article from the delete section and activate the article Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Krupabhishekam Convention - most of the text of the Fr Dominic Valanmanal article is a direct copy from the Krupabhishekam Convention article - Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both are different one is Biographical also will add more content in future Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the comments here are helpful in judging the article's suitability. Please focus on whether there is or is not a substantial amount of coverage about this individual in multiple reliable sources. Popularity, on YouTube or otherwise, is irrelevant, as is nationality.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--he appears to be notable, as this ref given in the article is independent. Another third party source is this one. Along with the two independent Hindi language sources provided by Shanu-t-thankachan above in this discussion in the comment dated 09:47, 2 May 2019 this means he has four news sources documenting notability. Also, there are a large number of church bulletins and similar circulars discussing his speaking engagements in the US and Canada, demonstrating his international notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News24Live is a blog and it has only 1 sentence, which goes as - 'Angamaly Bible convention Krupabishekam animated by Fr Dominic Valanmanal' followed by a video. The Dagen reference mentions him as one of the charismatic leaders active in that area, and that's about it. There are no Hindi references provided and the refs you seem to be indicating are in Malayalam, and are also blogs which are not reliable sources or considered good enough to impart any notability to the people mentioned therein (the 1st ref is more of an advertisement for the convention and the 2nd is yellow journalism at its best - none of which talk about the person concerned in any detail). Jupitus Smart 15:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can see lot of PDF, news links, blogs, youtube videos regarding "Fr Dominic Valanmanal" also i remembering you that india have 22 language's and Hindi is not a popular language in South india and kerala,so dont ask about HINDI links, provided lot of news links for reference like this^[1], but i dont know why your not considering this things or you have any hidden agenda under religion base Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I merely stated that the references are in Malayalam and not in Hindi, just to clarify. That does not mean that I asked for Hindi references. If you are insinuating that I am anti-Christian, then you can take a look at my page and decide for yourself. Jupitus Smart 01:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You crated St. Joseph's Cathedral, Imphal with 5 references and references are from local Blog and 2 religion websites, i have 1000+ cathedrals around me, is it okey to create pages with 2,4 references ? in the case of "Fr Dominic Valanmanal" i provided news links from some different resources, also here we can see, you created a page called Ashvin_Mathew, reference from indiatimes both seems PAID news LINK 1^[2] LINK 2^[3] and ^[4]LINK 3 haven't mention his name, as a contributor, why your not check this and i have doubtful about your contribution Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

If you have the audacity to call Times of India and The Hindu as paid news outlets, why don't you start a deletion discussion and see what others think about that. Cathedrals normally qualify as notable because of their place in the religious hierarchy, but you are free to start a discussion for that as well. Jupitus Smart 16:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Epiphyllumlover. There are enough sources indicating that he is notable. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - just a note that the WP:PLEASEDONT comments are from the article creator, Shanu-t-thankachan - Epinoia (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep I worked so hard on this article.Please Keep this article Shanu-t-thankachan (talk) 04:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like there is some disagreement about whether there are sources that satisfy WP:SIGCOV which needs to be sorted out. Only 2-3 people have commented on them so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see, and can't find, any WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. There is one independent source in the article, News24Live, which as another editor has stated above has one sentence and a video (which I am unable to view, so I don't know whether it's an interview, video of him speaking, or what). Dagen is also an independent source, but the only reference to him is a caption on a photo. I am unable to search for sources in Malayalam, but none have been provided in the two weeks this AfD has been running. Nothing about what he does or has achieved gives him presumed notability under Wikipedia guidelines (that is, I see nothing that would meet WP:RELPEOPLE). However important he may be to the Catholic Church, or some part of it, he does not yet qualify for a Wikipedia article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Not much in the way of coverage WP:SIGCOV. The article is essentially the same as that of the linked convention, which also implies insufficient notability. As an aside, regardless of anything else, both articles need to have the 'upcoming events' removed WP:NOTDIR.
Delete notability questionable, but , even more important, the article is essentially advertising, complete with a list of future appearance. This should really have been removed via G11. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 18 May 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. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chamupa Unlimited

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

The grammar issues alone would suggest draftify or TNT, however the article subject is also not notable. An attempt to move to draft space by another editor was reverted but really I don't see notability from current sourcing and do not believe there is other sourcing to suggest notability under NMUSIC, NENT, or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Chamupa Unlimited. The editor has been moving the article to mainspace multiple times. I tried what I could to push it back to draft since there was the MFD going. If you want to have the discussion here that's fine, pinging Dan arndt, Robert McClenon, SmokeyJoe to discuss here. Also there is a duplicate at Chamupa Unlimited (Music Produer). Anyway:

Speedy delete and salt all locations Editor is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build a useful article about himself but a promotional one that in this state would fulfill WP:CSD G11 blatant advertising. Throughout the re-creating, he has done nothing to improve the notability, just resubs and pushes to mainspace. No new sources that show notability, just more pointing to his websites. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the MfD - I glanced at the draft only to see it looked the same and so ignored any sort of banners as typical AfC stuff. Given that the article does exist in mainspace I nominated it here. What that means, if anything, for the MfD I admit I don't know. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria (WP:MUSICBIO, WP:GNG) and feels promotional. Salting may be premature. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt all locations, this has been identified on multiple occasions as being self-promotional, referenced with user-generated and unreliable sources, direct conflict of interest, advertising etc. It has been moved back to draft to allow the creator/editor to improve the article and when it has been refused through the AfC process the editor has moved to the mainspace anyway. The main editor has repeatedly removed maintenance tags, the AfC outcomes, and MfD tags without making any changes apparently in an attempt to present the article has not having any identified issues. Clearly the article is not going to met notability standards and these multiple efforts by the editor to circumvent due process has been a complete waste of everybody's else's time. Dan arndt (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and delete all copies. This is blatant self promotion. The author blanks attempts to talk to him on his talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:33, 8 May 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) Smartyllama (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prakash Bhardwaj

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

Director who falls under too soon. Only 1 film directed (the other he produced) which does not even have a Wikipedia page it looks like! Wgolf (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Requires more sources to stand.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:DIRECTOR - all the references seem to be to the web show, not the filmmaking - Epinoia (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:UCS i was cheeked all references. zee news, and Hindustan times reference source is notable it meets WP:GNG.Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 20:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Definitely notable, I have googled him, Passes General Notability and does have all the WP:RS Reliable Sources]] WikiLover97 (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some more discussion of the sources and WP:DIRECTOR criteria is probably useful here
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Satisfies WP:DIRECTOR, WP:ANYBIO (The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work).--PATH SLOPU 13:07, 15 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Math Field Day

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

Fails to meet basic WP:N requirements. The cites given are only basic structure of the event, and almost the entire article from top to bottom is completely unreferenced. Appears to have been written by a WP:SPA who is no longer active. SanAnMan (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any independent sources for this event in particular. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 02:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GEOSCOPE: "Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group". Here the region is at most two counties. D.Lazard (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yeah, not seeing a way to save this one. XOR'easter (talk) 21:29, 13 May 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Posey

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

Fails WP:NBAND. Not able to find anything substantial that can help in demonstrating notability per WP:SIGCOV. Hitro talk 01:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found short reviews at huffpost thereviewsarein glidemagazine and AllMusic has nothing but a dabatase entry for their EP. No significant content. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:14, 10 May 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. A redirect can be created at editorial discretion, seeing as nobody seems to need the page history Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strand Home Video

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

This was previously deleted by consensus in 2009 as a a non-notable company, and then recreated six months later. Since then, notability has not improved, and it still only cites an unreliable source. Contested redirect. – bradv🍁 01:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough for a redirect, but might be mentioned in passing in the Thomas and Friends article. – John M Wolfson (talk | contribs) 01:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redirect to 2entertain though. --IanDBeacon (talk) 02:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree. One source, and not very reputable. NetrualEditor (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2_Entertain#Video_Collection_International as lacking notability but having a suitable AtD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above as does not seem to be independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete preferably or Redirect as above is more appropriate. Certainly this topic is not notable in its own right, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:06, 14 May 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] Noble, Edd Straw, Roberto Chinchero, Jonathan. "October compromise likely for 2021 F1 rules to help small teams". Autosport.com. Retrieved 2019-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[2] Kirsner, Scott. "Berklee students and grads create a noteworthy niche: music for video games". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[3] Francis, Bryant. "Gamasutra talks to Arena of Valor audio designer Richard Ludlow". www.gamasutra.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[4] ttps://www.gamecrate.com/interview-hexany-audio%E2%80%99s-richard-ludlow-challenges-making-video-game-sounds/20312. Retrieved 10 May 2019. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] "Hexany Audio, Berklee-Bred Business, Blasts Off | Berklee College of Music". www.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[6] "Audio profession sounds good to Fountain Valley High alum". Orange County Register. 12 September 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[7] "Fountain Valley Native to Speak at Europe's Largest Game Industry Even". Fountain Valley, CA Patch. 15 July 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[8] "Richard Ludlow | Berklee Music Network". network.online.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[9] "81: Follow the Three P's Principle When Choosing a Job with Richard Ludlow of Hexany Audio". GameDev.net. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

[10] ttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

[11] ttps://www.pravasishabdam.com/tag/fr-dominic-valanmanal/

[12] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/Ashvin-gets-to-be-himself-in-Peruchazhi/articleshow/33643277.cms

[13] ttps://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/malayalam/movies/news/Ashvin-Mathew-as-Minister/articleshow/42269822.cms

[14] ttp://iffk.in/ka-bodyscapes-2/

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]