Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 June	4 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Game show (disambiguation)

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

Unnecessary DAB page. First two entries are not titled Game show, they are a single word. Second two just start with "Game Show" and there is no evidence that they are referred to just as 'game show.' DAB pages are not meant to be a collection of articles which start with a phrase. As such, none of the entries are proper and the DAB pages is unneeded. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 17:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep, or possibly weak move to Gameshow (disambiguation)~~. Keep Your concerns about the final two entries are justified, but the first, inline, entry on game shows is legitimate, and there is no other disambiguation page for the first two bulleted, single word entries. There should probably be some page to disambiguate Gameshow (magazine), Gameshow (album), and the general concept of a Game show. I am only voting weak keep however, since it would also be acceptable to use these as hatnotes. MarginalCost (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to full keep after Clarityfiend's changes. MarginalCost (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've deleted one and added one. It's plausible for Game Show Network to be shortened to Game Show, and there are three other legit entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

er... where do you get the idea that it’s possible someone would shorten the game show network to game show? It doesn’t make any logical sense to do so. Further you don’t address why it wouldn’t make more sense to move the page to Gameshow ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The CW Television Network, shortened to The CW; Soul of the South Network, shortened to Soul of the South in this Variety article. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Per WP:DABLINK usage guidelines, it is '…Preferable not to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term.' The articles named here are distinct enough that they would not be confused. Two asides: First, if the page was necessary then it would be fine if it contained both 'game show' and 'gameshow' as per WP:DABCOMBINE which provides the example of 'eagle nest' and 'eaglenest' (and more); Second, the 'network' should be removed, per WP:PARTIAL. Otherwise, you'd need multiple DAB pages just for entries such as 'school' or 'book', but those pages are very limited. Finally, the general concept of 'game show' should be addressed on the 'game show' page, not a disambiguation page. ogenstein (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a useful page, and it is not unreasonable to disambiguate "Game show" and "Gameshow" together (especially when Gameshow redirects to Game show). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per what Shhhnotsoloud is saying. Davidgoodheart (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid dab page. Too many entries to cover using hatnotes. --Michig (talk) 07:39, 10 June 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. ~~Stating that you're planning to look for sources after the AfD closes isn't useful. More useful would have been to look for sources now and list them here at the AfD so people could evaluate them.~~ -- RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my comment; I mis-read User:Hugsyrup's argument and reacted to something he didn't say. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh McDermott (police officer)

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

No indication of meeting WP:Notability guidelines. Small town local police office that was involved in shoot out with a gangster. No significant coverage about him, only mentions in articles about the gangster. noq (talk) 16:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I contested the prod and added some additional info and slightly better sources. The problem is that the sources primarily fall into two types: high-quality reliable sources such as published books, but that cover McDermott only in passing, and only in the context of Pretty Boy Floyd. Or lower-quality sources (blogs, the online historical society, etc.) that cover him in considerably more depth and expand to his whole career. I'm just about inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt as worth keeping, and I'm planning to spend the time that this AFD is open trying to find better sources and improve the article, but I can certainly understand why it was nominated and wouldn't be particularly surprised by a delete result. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Hugsyrup. If sources can't be found, then mentioning some of the sourceable biographical details in the article on the gangster seems like it would be appropriate. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not sure what either of the previous two editors are seeing as notable. The story I see is small town police officer is roped in to help FBI search for suspect. I don;t see anything in that that is inherently notable. All the article says is he helped search for Floyd, he was not mentioned as being involved in the shoot out itself. The main sources would appear to be passing mentions and not significant coverage. What makes him stand out from all the other police officers involved in the seatch? noq (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 11 June 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) 08:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: At its best BLP1E, nothing besides the event and his resume. Viztor (talk) 00:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination & Viztor. Geoffroi (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nom and Viztor. Under WP:NOTINHERITED, notability is not inherited. The criminal he helped take down was notable, not this guy. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this is not a WP:BLP1E, because it is not a BLP. The subject has been dead for 66 years. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 25 June 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 a procedural close. The article has been moved to Draft space so there is nothing now to discuss. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha dishman

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

Per WP:N. No major wins in any significant paddler races. Notability established comes from a local news story about rescuing dog. Don't think there is enough here to establish notability for her own WP:BLP Comatmebro (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 3 June 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. Tone 20:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Liao

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no sources at all. Sheldybett (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 02:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR, the only thing I could find were pictures on Getty images. No WP:RS is talking/talked about her. Orville1974 (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails to reach the standard for WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 18:06, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I may have voted Delete too soon. Perhaps this article needs some ambitious editors.

Secondary coverage where the coverage was about the actress

Thank you for the additional sources, but these are still either announcements of a future role in an unreleased film, or of a minor role in a TV show. I think we're looking at a case of WP:TOOSOON still. Orville1974 (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just attempted to improve the page by incorporating those sources and some more, as well as fixing the formatting of the page. Starklinson (talk) 9:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Keep as has prominent roles in notable productions such as Fuller House and the Kicks, the article has been improved since nomination, passes WP:NACTOR, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails the WP:GNG and WP:NACTRESS. I am not seeing several significant roles. Sounds like a case of WP:TOOSOON. -- LACaliNYC ✉ 21:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the improvements since this was nominated, another week to discuss the new sources seems like a good idea.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she has had notable roles in several mainstream productions. I found some sources, and I see she easily passes WP:NACTOR. The article and sources have improved since nomination Lubbad85 (☎) 02:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources like this [1] and others found, proves she passes the general notability guideline as well as the subject specific guideline for actors. Dream Focus 04:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seem to be plenty of sources out there. Here's another one. Andrew D. (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I still don't see how WP:NACTOR is met. All of these refer to one role in a television show. The criteria for notability of an actor is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." (my emphasis added) Orville1974 (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter since WP:GNG is clearly met from the coverage found. As WP:NOTABILITY clearly states, you have to pass either the General Notability Guidelines OR one of the subject specific guidelines, not both. Dream Focus 16:38, 13 June 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. ST47 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Center

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

Proposing deletion. This was part of a mass delete effort in 2006 for dead malls, but some of those malls were notable so the overall group vote was to keep all of the pages without looking at each individual one. This page has not changed substantively since then and still this one is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericwg (talk • contribs) 20:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. So Why 16:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:Run-of-the-mill and for failing WP:NBUILDING. The article does not cite any sources or references. While the article asserts that the subject is important, that assertion cannot be attributed to reliable sources. Coverage is routine in nature and lacking in depth, and almost all that coverage comes from the local newspaper. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A mall of this size, with gross leasable area of 450,000 square feet (42,000 m²) has probably generated enough coverage by reliable sources over the years to demonstrate notability. ONce notable, always notable, even if the mall is dying. It doesn't help that the local daily newspaper has a paywall (the first three articles are free), but here's another reference: https://www.gazettextra.com/news/business/bon-ton-to-close-elder-beerman-store-in-beloit/article_e9e14d8b-0bb0-5d3f-82b0-d13d54e31df8.html Janesville, WI Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

rebuttal @Eastmain: The assertion that there must be sources because the subject is big fails without significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. I looked for sources and you looked for sources. The references added are mostly routine in nature. The Wayback Machine archives most of the newly added references before the paywalls went up. Paywalls would not be an issue if there was a diversity of sources. The new references cover the routine presence or turnover of anchors and tenants. By the numbers: 1. Beloit Daily News, article only mentions the mall in a caption; 2. GazetteXtra, local impact as chain closes stores; 3. Beloit Daily News again, another chain closes store article. Content about the mall is comes from a manager for the mall's owner; 4. Eclipse Center, primary source; 5. Beloit Daily News again, routine grand opening covered by the local paper. Notability does not expire only if it was there to begin with. Notability claims as a building come up short. As a commercial enterprise, it's not even close to satisfying WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were sources added in June that makes this article notable. Plus this mall rivals the size of malls throughout the world and is notable in of its self. • CryptoWriter (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:29, 17 June 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. Per Randykitty, and in application of WP:BLP, unsourced BLP articles cannot be retained. Sandstein 16:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kendré Berry

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

Non-notable actor. Natg 19 (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His coverage (press etc) is limited to some trivial podcasts. Deep significant secondary sources are lacking. But he has been in notable productions, so he seems to meet the first rule of WP:ENT. Seems to meet WP:CCSI#ACTOR. HM Wilburt (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure any of the reoccurring roles he has played in the cited notable productions (Six Feet Under, Girlfriends, Ned's Declassified School Survival Guide) have been important enough to meet WP:ENT "significant roles" criteria. On Girlfriends, for example, he appears in the last two seasons as the teenage child of a main character, but his presence in the show is intermittent. ShelbyMarion (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article hasn't any sources.--PATH SLOPU 03:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The single "keep" !vote sounds more like a delete rationale. The article is basically unsourced, if no in-depth sources establishing notability can be found, the article will be deleted
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As noted above, he has indeed appeared in many re-occuring roles on series TV, but none of them are important enough to meet the "significant" standard necessary for WP:ENT. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:01, 7 June 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) 01:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tribune Media

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Zero independent sources in the article, and I'm unable to find any independent Reliable Sources on Google. This "national media firm" is some guy who graduated from college and put up a pair of National Digital Newspapers (aka websites) in 2017. While his web and promotional skills are apparent, Notability can only be conferred by significant coverage of a topic by multiple independent reliable sources. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Alsee (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. 100% agreed on all counts. Furthermore, related articles Kathmandu Tribune, the digital paper output by the company, and Arun Budhathoki, the founder of both, all deserve deletion. I don't think there should be any controversy on any of them. This is obviously one guy trying his damndest to publicise himself via wikipedia. Arun Budhathoki should be deleted as per WP:PROMOTION. Arun Budhathoki cites a list of pages, that attribute authorship to the subject and none that discuss the subject itself. So, it fails WP:GNG miserably short of synthesis which would be WP:OR. I bring these up only because I have previously encountered a similar network of wiki articles and corresponding sources which as a whole would make the case quite clear and yet, it becomes harder than it should be when each article is taken one at a time. Because, well, we have "national media" like "Kathmandu Tribune" where friends can write puff pieces about each other and exchange favours writing wikipedia articles about each other citing these same "credible media sources", and so on. If editors would look in on all three of these articles, and provide their feedback, I/we could proceed with putting the other two up for discussion as well. Usedtobecool ^TALK

BTW, Kathmandu Tribune and Nepal Tribune Media were both created by User:Ozar77 and I haven't looked in detail into their contributions. But, Arun Budhathoki was written by User:Dansong22 which is signed 'ArunBudhathoki' on the userpage which seems to make the page an autobiography by a user with an undisclosed COI. Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Tribune Media is a registered company under Nepal Government Law and some random Nepali guy working against it against cyberlaw and not acceptable too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozar77 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if legal threats of this nature count as intimidation. Also, don't blank an AfD discussion page, again. It hinders your case more than anything else you can threaten me with. Usedtobecool ^TALK 06:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ozar77 a company is not entitled to a Wikipedia article merely because it exists. Wikipedia has an inclusion criteria. A topic must qualify under our Notability guideline. More specifically, companies are evaluated under the NCORP subject-specific guidelines. If you want to avoid deletion of this article, you need to present a valid argument and/or evidence that Nepal Tribune Media does qualify for inclusion in the encyclopedia under the NCORP guideline. Also, it is unclear what "random Nepali guy" you are referring to. I am the one who nominated the article for deletion, and I have never been within four thousand miles of Nepal. I am merely a random editor who works to ensure Wikipedia content complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and I came across this article pretty much at random. Alsee (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Huh? The company is registered? I think it works that way in most countries for any company. Fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not WP:YELLOWPAGES. Orville1974 (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added Nepal News Network International to the open AfD discussions. Orville1974 (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nepal Tribune Media is an independent media company in Nepal and I am sure administrators who respect press freedom, especially, in a communist country like Nepal would respect the need for a fair media. Editors are just abusing their rights to delete this page for no reason. No point in debating with so-called editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.68.251 (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You do realize that saying editors are abusing their rights is not going to help right?LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 14:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

27.34.68.251 You should see WP:COI and WP:Sockpuppet. Then, I ask you, do you have anything to declare? And stop pulling the Nepal card or the freedom card. See WP:What wikipedia is not.Usedtobecool ^TALK 15:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I couldn't find any coverage through either google or news searches. Even searching for the name in Nepalese generated no meaningful results. What is on the page is essentially WP:PROMO and there aren't any sources extant with which to make it otherwise. ogenstein (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article as it stands does not meet WP:GNG, lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. starship .paint (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:47, 8 June 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 content has been moved to Draft:Nishat Nawar Salwa. ansh 666 20:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nishat Nawar Salwa

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

Winner of Miss World Bangladesh is probably notable. Runner up is not. DGG ( talk ) 09:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note- Nishat Nawar Salwa is enough notable for staying in wikipedia & the article is written with enough and trusted news source.
- She has a large fan base.
- She has a significant cult following.
- The person has played a major role in creating a national film.
- The person has made a widely recognized (miss world bangladesh runner up title).
- There are many model and actress of bangladesh articles are staying in wikipedia whom are not received any awards or nominations.
- He has been writing enough in the newspaper.
- All the references to the article are written about her.
- She appears in now several television show.
- She is a actress before gotten miss world award 2018.
- She and Jannatul Ferdous Oishee were gone viral and trend in social media for a long time because of the Discussion-criticism of the arrangement of the program. Nahal (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, unless problems with sources. The deletion rational is unconvincing. This article has 19 sources. To show the WP:GNG notability guidelines are not met, one would have to argue the sources are trivial or unreliable. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The keep rationale seems to be "we have many that are as bad, or even worse". DGG ( talk ) 06:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the 19 references has the URL bracu.ac.bd/sites/default/files/registrar/exam_seat_plan/Summer-2018/ENG113.pdf - a PDF with one page about the seat plan of an English Poetry exam in 2018. Thirteen of the 19 references require fluency in the Bengali script and language. None of the 19 references offer a wikilink for the publisher. "Large fan base" and a "significant cult following" and "gone viral and trend in social media" would be compelling reasons for a delete, please suggest something else for a keep, how about a photo for the fashion queen, or is it TOOSOON? –84.46.53.249 (talk) 08:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep, she is a notable model from Bangladesh and a rising actress . She had coverage on bangladeshi printing media. So if we want, the trivial source problem could be solved. ferdous 04:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"a rising actress" has a definite meaning, it means "not yet notable as an actress."

It is claimed above she won Miss World. This is not the case. She did not win even Miss World Bangladesh. She was a runner-up. Only the winner is notable. Had she won, I would not have nominated the article for AfD.

and I agree with the i.p. editor above: "cult following" is a reason to be very careful before accepting notability. If I were closing an afd, I would completely discount any argument that includes this, because it shows no awareness of WP policy. Only policy based arguments count. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep Maffeth.opiana ( talk ) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC) — Maffeth.opiana (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep--Miss world Bangladesh 2018 1st runner up doesn't means enough for notable, but she is notable as an actress from Bangladesh and has no problem with her source Anupam (talk) 19:36, 02 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of the "keep" !votes so far gives a policy-based rationale, instead resorting to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSNOTABLE. Unless sufficient in-depth reliable sources van be unearthed, this most likely will be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - These citations are awful regardless of how many there are. Celebrity news churn isn't notability. These are trivial mentions, nothing more, e.g. she was named runner-up, she's in a movie yet to be made, she flew to the US (and incidentally, I searched on a NY Bangladesh news site and came up with nothing). Several of the articles merely repeat the same 'news'. The Daily Sun piece looks like it came from an OCR'd copy. [19][24][22] Using ten citations to state that she is getting a role in an upcoming movie doesn't make her a notable actress, nor does using three that mention she was the runner up in a pageant make her notable. First runner-up isn't an award. A seating plan?

WP:NACTOR specifies 'multiple notable films' when she doesn't have one yet. WP:BASIC states that coverage 'must be more than trivial'. WP:HITS specifies that undue weight should not be given to matters related to popular culture, 'popularity is not notability'. And that some subjects, "…May be on 700 pages and might still not be considered 'existing' enough to show any notability, for Wikipedia's purposes." WP:TOOSOON Two sentences is not a biography. Give her a chance to actually get her career underway before you try and write it. ogenstein (talk) 06:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- She is notable model and actress. She has also an award. Jubair Sayeed Linas (talk) 12:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a failed beauty queen, and not notable in anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – First of all, Johnpacklambert, that's a little too harsh of a thing to say about a WP:BLP. Let's remember the article subjects are innocent victims of our deletion discussions, they don't deserve to be trashed. Coming in second place in one pageant doesn't make a person a "failed beauty queen", anyway. But I agree with JPL here (as I often do) that the article should be deleted. The keep !votes above are highly unconvincing. The number of sources doesn't matter. That she is an actress, even a popular or famous one, also doesn't matter. "Cult following" isn't automatic notability, either. Many of the keep !votes have very low edit counts and perhaps do not fully understand Wikipedia's notability guidelines, which I hope the closer pays attention to. The article is WP:REFBOMBed, but going through the sources, including the foreign-language ones with Google Translate, I see not one single source that would count as significant coverage sufficient to meet WP:BASIC. They all seem to be passing mentions. Unless someone can demonstrate WP:THREE examples of sources that would meet BASIC, this article should be deleted. – Levivich 05:07, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I hear “runner-up” I hear “un-notable”. If you didn’t win, you didn’t win! Nothing to write about then. Trillfendi (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @DGG: I think the article was important enough, since WP:GNG has not passed. That's why I want to draft this page. This article may be deleted, but i hope after the next six months or a year, it will be re-registered any others Bangladeshi contributor again because she is known as actress form Bangladesh. when released of her two Bangladeshi films, I think this article will be acceptable for notable.--Nahal (talk) 15:07, 10 June 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. Based on the discussion and source analyses here, it appears that the sources presented have not convinced most participants that they are adequate, mostly due to substantiality concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Data Design Interactive

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

Unnotable defunct company commonly known for making bad games, thus making future coverage unlikely. The only real source directly concerning the studio refers to the opening of another unnotable office in the U.S.. An older discussion from 2010 opted to keep this revision for some reason, despite being almost entirely unsourced, and not at all about the article's topic. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lordtobi (✉) 07:29, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Younghusband, Paul (2001-02-01). "A One Stop Digital Shop: Data Design Interactive and Artworld UK". Animation World Network. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
"Worst Reviewed Nintendo Console Games". IGN. 2000-10-31. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-08-14). "Cheers & Tears: The Wii's Sports of Games". IGN. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-02-11). "Action Girlz Racing Review". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
Fox, Tanner (2018-08-20). "30 Crazy Bad Video Games With (Almost) 0% On Metacritic". The Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
Savino, Candace (2008-01-03). "Shovelware: A cause and effect". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.

Sources with quotes

Younghusband, Paul (2001-02-01). "A One Stop Digital Shop: Data Design Interactive and Artworld UK". Animation World Network. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:

For around 18 years Birmingham-based Data Design Interactive has been churning out top-notch games for some of the industry's most prestigious publishers. Working for Sony, Millennium, PSS, Psygnosis, Ocean and Infogrames on projects such as Pegasus Bridge, ROBOCOD, Rise of the Robots and Water World to name a few, Data Design has earned a reputation as one of the UK's top games developers. Their experience developing for the Spectrum, Amstrad, Amiga, Game Boy, PC, Sega Megadrive and, of course, the Playstation, put them in the perfect position to take advantage of the games industry's soaring popularity. But as we found out, the folks at Data Design have more than video games on their mind...
"Worst Reviewed Nintendo Console Games". IGN. 2000-10-31. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:

The Kidz Sports Series -- Kidz Sports: Basketball, Hockey, and International Soccer

Developer: Data Design Interactive
Publisher: Bold Games
Year: 2008
Score: 1.0

The sad thing about really terrible games is that, more often than not, they're marketed towards children. It adds insult to injury when the general consensus of the industry seems to be that children don't deserve good games. Developer Data Design Interactive made not one, but three horrendously bad sports games geared towards youngsters. The graphics looked 10 years old, the gameplay was slow, the AI acted like they didn't even know how to play the game. The motion controls were so glitchy that it was hard to actually perform any of the moves. And on top of everything, the three games were nearly identical, despite these three sports being very different.

Honorable Mention
The rest of Data Design Interactive's Library
Scores: 1.0-3.0

Okay, we don't mean this to be mean, but maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games. We've never seen a developer that spit out so many consistently awful titles in such a short time. Nearly every game we've reviewed under a 3.0 has come from this developer. That is just incredible.
Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-08-14). "Cheers & Tears: The Wii's Sports of Games". IGN. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:

Wrapping it up this week is, as expected, a representative from our good friends over at Data Design Interactive. You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is. For sports sims, look no further than the Kidz Sports series to find the lowest-rung, most bottom-of-the-barrel sports games possible on the Wii.
And, yes, I didn't mistype there -- it's a whole series. Basketball, Soccer. Hockey's just one of the whole big bunch. You're better off with any other hockey game ever created than this one, though, as it's just offensive with broken motion controls, dumbed-down mechanics and presentation that is literally cut-and-pasted from other Data Design products. If there are some kids in your life that you really can't stand, get them a Kidz Sports game on Wii. That'll teach 'em.
Thomas, Lucas M. (2009-02-11). "Action Girlz Racing Review". IGN. Archived from the original on 2013-01-03. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:

Action Girlz Racing was brought to us at the very beginning of 2008, too, almost a harbinger of the woes to follow -- it was released by Data Design Interactive and Conspiracy Entertainment in January of last year alongside a whole slew of other top-quality products like Rig Racer 2, Classic British Motor Racing and the sensational London Taxi: Rush Hour. And, in true Data Design style, it's essentially another copy of those same games.
See, Data Design's developers made the decision to go for quantity over quality with their racing titles on Wii, and so came up with just one design -- but then gave it a half-dozen different coats of paint, in order to release it over and over as a bunch of "different" games. If you boot up any one of them, you've seen them all. And, sure enough, Action Girlz has the same menu design, control scheme and overall setup as all the rest. Its closest counterpart has to be Myth Makers: Super Kart GP, yet another effort from the same developer, released just one month earlier, that also bends this same engine toward the kart-racing subgenre.
Fox, Tanner (2018-08-20). "30 Crazy Bad Video Games With (Almost) 0% On Metacritic". The Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The Gamer is owned by Valnet, a publisher that also owns Screen Rant and Comic Book Resources, among other websites. The Gamer has editorial oversight.
The article notes:

Anubis II was one of a slew of terrible budget Wii titles developed by the now-defunct UK-based Data Design Interactive. Infamous for copying level designs wholesale from their previous titles, slapping a new coat of paint on them, and declaring them to be entirely new games, the company eventually caved in 2012 due to insolvency. Anubis II would be a relatively inoffensive, basic platformer were it not a total reskin of Ninja Breadman, Rock n’ Roll Adventures, and Trixie in Toyland—all of which were also developed by Data Design. All of these games are, apart from some visual variations, exactly the same. The funniest thing about Anubis II, however, is that there never was an original Anubis game—not that anyone would have asked for one to be made.
Savino, Candace (2008-01-03). "Shovelware: A cause and effect". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2019-05-27. Retrieved 2019-05-27.
The article notes:

What you might not have noticed, though, is that a division of Destineer known as Bold Games was responsible for all six of the $20 Wii games released this week in North America.
When it comes to how and why this happened, it's a case of simple economics. Rinde was in Europe when he found out that Data Design Interactive was looking for a company to publish its games in America, a role that Destineer eventually filled. Rinde garnered interest for these games from retailers, and sure enough, six DDI games ended up on the shelf for the week of 12/31.
...
We can't say for a fact that all the Destineer games released for the Wii this week were absolute crap, but considering that DDI is the same company that developed Ninjabread Man, we don't have high hopes. Even if games like these are selling to the public, low-quality games only create consumer distrust for third parties, ultimately hurting sales for the good games out there.

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

Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, none of these are significant coverage of the subject and do not assert its notability, they just have side-mentions of them in articles about their games. Note that many of their games do have articles, but notability is still not inherited. Lordtobi (✉) 09:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."

My opinion is that the sources "addres[s] the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content".

Animation World Network says Data Design Interactive "has been churning out top-notch games for some of the industry's most prestigious publishers" and " has earned a reputation as one of the UK's top games developers". It notes that Data Design Interactive has worked for "Sony, Millennium, PSS, Psygnosis, Ocean and Infogrames on projects such as Pegasus Bridge, ROBOCOD, Rise of the Robots and Water World". It notes that Data Design Interactive has developed for "Spectrum, Amstrad, Amiga, Game Boy, PC, Sega Megadrive and, of course, the Playstation". This is significant coverage in reliable sources.

IGN notes about Data Design Interactive's The Kidz Sports Series: "Developer Data Design Interactive made not one, but three horrendously bad sports games geared towards youngsters". It then says about "The rest of Data Design Interactive's Library": "Okay, we don't mean this to be mean, but maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games. We've never seen a developer that spit out so many consistently awful titles in such a short time. Nearly every game we've reviewed under a 3.0 has come from this developer. That is just incredible."

A second IGN article notes "You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is." The article then provides an example about Data Design Interactive's hockey game: "it's just offensive with broken motion controls, dumbed-down mechanics and presentation that is literally cut-and-pasted from other Data Design products".

The Gamer noted that Data Design Interactive is "Infamous for copying level designs wholesale from their previous titles, slapping a new coat of paint on them, and declaring them to be entirely new games". It says Anubis II is "a total reskin of Ninja Breadman, Rock n’ Roll Adventures, and Trixie in Toyland", which were also created by Data Design Interactive. It notes that Data Design Interactive shuttered in 2012 because of insolvency.

There is enough material about Data Design Interactive's reputation and practices (positive material from Animation World Network and negative material from IGN, The Gamer, and Engadget) to allow it to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 09:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is bearly enough content for ten sentences, let alone an entire article. "Detail" is usually more than three sentences on a subject per source. Lordtobi (✉) 09:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Design Interactive participants: Heymid (talk · contribs), Hellknowz (talk · contribs), Nolelover (talk · contribs), TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs), and Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk · contribs).
Cunard (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... a ping about a relisted AFD from 9 years ago? Let me take a look... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and suggest the nominator reads WP notability guidelines. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Catfish Jim, I'm well aware of our notability guidelines, and it is clear that the sources mentioned above do not establish notability for this topic. Not only do most of these not exceed one single mention, none of them actually goes in detail with it. Per WP:GNG: "... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ..."
  - First IGN source mentions two games developed by the company, plus an opinion on that DDI was bad at making Wii games. That's one sentence.
  - Second and third IGN source each mention another game, and that they were copied from another game they made. One sentence total.
  - TheGamer (which is also not reliable) only mentions one other game by the studio, not worth a sentence as we already have a list.
  - Engadget only says that several games were published by Destineer. If you're generous, one more sentence.
  - The only high flyer here is AWN, which has ... 7 mentions. What does this source contain? Location, head of art department, sister studio, some more games they worked on, as well as some partners they worked with. Except for the games and parterns (where in "partner" means "they published a game"), give each one sentence. What are we left with? Six sentences, or in our terms, a bad stub. This does not make for a notable topic, I'm afraid. Lordtobi (✉) 12:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look for sources before you nominated this? It doesn't take much google-fu to find articles like this... "POPCORN ARCADE HITS 40% MARKET SHARE OF THE EUROPEAN VALUE-PRICED WII GAMES", IGN, 15 Sep 2008 or this... "Data Design Interactive Opens U.S. Office", Gamasutra, May 27, 2008 or this... "Data Design Interactive and Conspiracy Entertainment finalise Publishing Deal for North America and Asia for Wii titles…", Gamesindustry.biz, June 26, 2007 or this... "Data Design Interactive to offer Wii games in 2007", Videogamer, 27 Feb 2007 Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:45, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 and 3 and press releases, 2 is already in the article, ref 4 is the same as this, which is also already in the article. And yes, I've been looking for sources. I have been looking out for such since 2016, and the lack of in-depth sources makes the non-notability of this company pretty obvious. If you'd check the article for a second, you'll see that I already incorporated the above sources that apparently assert the topic's notability, and it is still a way-too-short stub. Lordtobi (✉) 15:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable video game developer/publisher failing WP:GNG with no multiple reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The sources provided are not in-depth, except perhaps AWM which would barely scrape the margin. They are reliable sources to provide supplementary information, but they are not sufficient for GNG purposes and the subject is not the central or primary topic of the articles. Coverage in contemporary magazines seems unlikely. Does not meet WP:NCORP and having developed notable video games is WP:NOTINHERITED. I agree with Lordtobi's summary of the sources above. (My original !vote was "keep", but the guidelines were more lax in 2010 and my argument wasn't really based on GNG anyway.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of Cunard's references meet the criteria. The selected quotation picked from the first one in the list from AWN looked promising until you read the article and it as a result of a visit to the company and relies almost entirely on quotations/interviews and fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage given is sufficient to prove notability. Also the number of blue links in the list of games they created that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article. A writer is notable for their books, a musician is notable for their songs, and a game company is notable for its games. Dream Focus 17:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, your reasoning directly contradicts WP:INHERIT. Shall mean, a company is not notable just because it made some notable games. If there is no information available except that it made X games, there is no reason in keeping what is basically a WP:DIRECTORY. Lordtobi (✉) 17:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should read that essay more closely. You don't get notability for being related to someone. It also reads: "That is not to say that this is always the case (four of the notability guidelines, for creative professions, books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances)". So while all the games they made aren't notable just because the company is, the company is notable for what it creates. Just as all the books a notable writer makes don't inherit notability, the author is judged by their notable works to determine their own notability. Dream Focus 17:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritence works both ways. Please take a look at the current state of the article, it is merely a few introductory sentences, and then a full-on WP:DIRECTORY. The introductory sentences are based on all the sources (excl. press releases and duplicates) that this AfD has come up with thus far or was already in the article. Given the company's unpopularity and death seven years ago, it is also unlikely to expand. Does it look like a notable topic to you? Lordtobi (✉) 17:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the company is notable for what it creates" What notability guideline are you basing this on? The closest exception to the WP:NOTINHERITED argument is WP:AUTHOR, which is for people and for significant influential works, not a few random video games. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lordtobi's analysis. There is no significant coverage of this company. The sources given here do not "address the topic directly and in detail". This article will never evolve beyond the sad depressing stub it is now. TarkusAB^talk 18:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP, per Hellknowz, HighKing, Lordtobi, et al. -- ferret (talk) 13:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that this would be a valid list article. List of games made by Data Design Interactive. 15 of the games have their own articles. How about a compromise for now where we just rename it to be a list article? Dream Focus 17:26, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Focus, the company made like 100 shovelware titles, being able to source 15 of them is a bad rate, so either it would be a woefully incomplete list article, or a mostly unsourced list article. I'd prefer to have neither. Besides, just like the developer's article, articles like Kawasaki Jet Ski and Kawasaki Snowmobiles should be deleted, as they only have one source and basically no content. An American Tail is just a redirect to the film of the same name, where there is literally just one sentence on the matter. Lordtobi (✉) 18:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will get into this matter soon detailed, but Dream Focus, I am looking at those blue-linked games, and I would be surprised if majority of those (so 8 of 14 alive) would stay as is if brought to AfD. Also I am willing to (ironically) not count IGN review considering they reviewed EACH and EVERY of those and regularly trashing them in the posts, which makes me think the publisher and IGN had a bad relationship and they "reviewed" to mock them for how bad they are, which wouldn't and shouldn't add to notability of these. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And to put my formal vote for th subject failing WP:NCORP. "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject", you say? Then let's analyze each reference put here (going numerically from Cunard to Catfish Jim ones):

1.This is a great source and by far the best of the bunch which would meet the criteria. However, majority of this significant coverage relates to developing a notable game Lego Rock Raiders (video game).

2."Data Design Interactive made horrible games" and "maybe it's time Data Design Interactive stopped making Wii games" does not constitute as WP:SIGCOV.

3."You've got to hand it to those guys -- they don't just suck in one genre. They spread the wealth around, ensuring that they've earned the lowest ratings possible in every single category of gaming there is." is not WP:SIGCOV.

4.Passing mention in another IGN's attack against Data Design Interactive.

5.Name drops in a paragraph about the game they developed is certainly not enough.

6."Rinde was in Europe when he found out that Data Design Interactive was looking for a company to publish its games in America, a role that Destineer eventually filled." Not WP:SIGCOV. Maybe in Wonderland.

Catfish 1. Press release as obvious by the way of writing.

Catfish 2. Another press release.

Catfish 3. Press release #3.

Catfish 4. Release in press...oh wait. It's not! But too bad, "Having secured developer status for Wii, Data Design Interactive has announced details of its titles heading to Nintendo's innovative console." along with a list of their games is not enough to be counted for WP:GNG, and absolutely not for WP:CORPDEPTH. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:55, 9 June 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) 02:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Currencies Direct

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

Reads like an advertisement. Has been tagged for notability for two years without improvement. Substantially written by promotional editors. Negligible sourcing. This has never been a good article, and shows no prospects for improvability. PROD removed with the sole comment WP:NOTCLEANUP - but the only source is a puff piece in a non-RS. There's no evidence of actual notability. Can anyone produce any? I'd be delighted to be shown wrong ... David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 15:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I deprodded this because the delete justification gave me no indication that a notability assessment had been performed. Prod is not a place for deleting crappy articles. ~Kvng (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So what does a quick WP:BEFORE tell you? - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It tells me that there are a lot of potentially WP:INDEPENDENT product review/comparison sources, e.g. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I don't have enough familiarity with this subject area to assess whether these are WP:RELIABLE. ~Kvng (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finder barely for editorial content, all the others not. It's unclear from the thing at the top how independent that page actually is - David Gerard (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, are you seriously suggesting that any of those are actual independent reliable sources? Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is nothing more than crufty business nonsense. There is almost nothing in the way of SIGCOV, everything I can find are press releases or otherwise not coverage in published, reliable sources (no, reviews on other business sites don't count anymore than a Yelp review would.) Praxidicae (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus exists that the article's sources establish notability. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual dark web

AfDs for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web

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

Best discuss this time. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual dark web has many "keep" votes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the term has proved its persistance and is not going away any time soon. We have for example this May 22, 2019 article in the The Chronicle of Higher Education.[8] and this April 4th article takes the IDW as its central focus examining its political makeup.[9], and couple more from April.[10][11] The number of articles mentioning the term has grown a lot since previous discussions. The merge solution is not very suitable as Weinstein is not the most promenent person associated with the movement. There is a lot of material which would be appropriate for a separate article but is not suitable for the Eric Weinstein article.

I also disagree quite strongly with User:Sandstein closure of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intellectual Dark Web. In it the large number of references are dismissed mearly as opinion pieces. But we have NYT article which had the entire weight of the paper thrown behind the article, there were interviews with the major player and photoshoots, it was much more than a simple think piece. And what are we trying to prove here the notability of the article, an opinion piece strenthens that claim. Sandstein set the bar much higher that is applied to most other articles. --Salix alba (talk): 16:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If op-eds were insufficient sources in 2018, they are insufficient in 2019. wumbolo ^^^ 21:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we have many sources in mainstream publications over a long period of time (more than a year) focused on the group including from the Chronicle of Higher Education, Politico, the Los Angeles Review of Books, The New York Times, The Washington Post... --RaphaelQS (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources look good enough and i've heard this movement be discussed in the news quite a lot. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may yet prove to be only a neologism, but at this point its usefulness continues, and neologisms often grow up to be real live boys.--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis a valid and useful reference point in the current discussion over free speech and censorship on the internet. --User:Jim Proser
Note. There is a !vote on the talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Salix alba. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage of this movement exists in reliable sources. See e.g. the sources given in the article currently, which are articles on this topic in respectable news publications. SJK (talk) 09:49, 11 June 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. And salted. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Supratim Akaash Paul

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

Not notable. The award is just enough to avoid A7 but does not confer anything like sufficient notability. Sources are articles in which he appears as a rent-a-quote, they are not about him and do not cover him in any depth whatsoever. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Paul maintains WP:GNG . Improving the article as per suggestion shared by User:Hugsyrup User:Davidwarner (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Supratim Akaash Paul is full protected due promotional creation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's a fully rewritten article. There is no match with the previous one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwarner (talk • contribs) 15:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt; no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and a possible violation of Terms of Use and COI guidelines. GSS (talk|c|em) 15:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and SALT This is the third time the article creator has published an article, each time deleted and each time with a different variation of Paul's name to avoid detection. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT Reads like spam. "is well known for his novel invention" Gah? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 10 June 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. The arguments made by Pirhayati (talk · contribs) convince me the bookshop is notable. I have added an {{Expand Persian}} template to the article accordingly. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toranjestan Soroush

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

Notability? Not here. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the article on enWiki is threadbare, the Farsi-language article linked to it has several sources that appear to discuss the subject in detail. Machine translations are very poor, however, so I'll defer to editors who can actually read the sources if they disagree. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I noticed the Farsi article, an ordinary store on the street is unlikely to pass notability unless there is certain notable events linked to it. I'm inclined to delete until someone could inform me as to how this store is unlike the rest. Viztor (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 06:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Toranjestan is notable because it is a pioneer in its models in bookselling. Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Pirhayati, would you care to elaborate? Viztor (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, the references say it is a successful model in bookselling in Iran, for example this and this. This is important because there is an economic crisis in book market in Iran and bookstores are getting closed one after another. Second, this bookstore simply has "independent reliable references with significant coverage" then it is notable according to GNG.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:42, 18 June 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. bd2412 T 03:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

L'albatros (poem)

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

move to wikisource. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you had properly followed WP:BEFORE, you would have noticed there is 1910 results on google scholar, including [12]. Comte0 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Les Fleurs du mal, which the poem is apparently a part of, unless standalone notability of this poem can be established. Also fine with it being added to Wikisource, as it appears to be public domain based on the age. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The French article has several secondary sources. It also has context and analysis sections, which must be translated and are obviously not suited for wikibooks. And that poem is studied in French high schools. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the page's current state it should be moved to Wikisource as it basicly just the poem itself, but I do believe an article can be created about this poem, so I would say Move to Wikisource, and then create a stub or translation of the French article. funplussmart (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it's already present twice on the french wikisource. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's no great shakes in its current state but its place in national French education curriculum alone suggests notability. This is only furthered by the sourcing present in the French article. This article could be expanded into meaningful and useful encyclopedic content and as such should not be moved to a sister project at the expense of an article here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis page as of now is obvious only suitable for Wikisource, if you think it should be kept, well, then rewrite it. If someone else is interested to write an actual introduction about the poem, they can still create it. Viztor (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom does not provide a single policy-based argument for why this article is brought to AFD. Sam Sailor 07:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia is not Wikisource, the current content is obviously more suitable for Wikisource. Viztor (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's still not a policy-based reason, it's mere opinion. Sam Sailor 10:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lead now re-written and referenced, there are virtually 100s of sources to pick from, including a full treatment by Antonio Prete [it]. The French article can readily by used for expansion. It is a waste of community time to skip WP:BEFORE. Sam Sailor 10:04, 10 June 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) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Gabrielle

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Only 25 games played in the AHL and 200 minimum is needed to pass criteria #2. No notable preeminent honours to pass #3 (I seriously doubt AIHL All-Star Game counts) since the Australian League isn't listed). Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another in a long list of non-notable hockey player articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meets none of the notability criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Coverage is typical sports reporting and is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 21:47, 9 June 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. There's clearly no consensus here to delete this outright, which is mostly what AfD is concerned about. Additional discussions about possibly merging or otherwise reorganizing this and related articles can continue on the talk pages. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Korean spelling alphabet

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

Not here. Viztor (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hangul. Not worthy of its own article per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but the info might be useful there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles like this, like Russian spelling alphabet, what's the difference, how is that one acceptable and this one not? Same kind of content. Teemeah ^{편지 (letter)} 14:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hangul. Just because Russian spelling alphabet does exist, doesn't mean it should exist. I would support redirecting that page to Russian language as well. Bensci54 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hangul. Not an independent topic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Not here" is not a reason for deletion in Wikipedia:deletion policy and is incoherent as a rationale. I also do not believe that anyone this far in the discussion has read the source cited. This is not some indiscriminate spelling alphabet being made up on the spot. This is, according to the source cited, the one mandated by Korean law for radio operators, which it seems perfectly valid for a encyclopaedia to document for readers. Ironically, this article, citing the regulations for radio operation on a government WWW site in its first edit, is better sourced than our SKATS article has been (sourced to a personal WWW site whose owner died) since 2006. For those now looking, you want Table 4 in Annex 1 of the cited regulations, as referenced by Article 4 of the regulations. Uncle G (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, somewhere. It's sourced, and it answers the question of what other languages do. This seems like reasonable encyclopedic information, not an indiscriminate collection. I don't think there's room to add it to Hangul. We do have a page for the NATO alphabet, plus a Greek-language one. We have extensive coverage of the evolution of spelling alphabets; again, the page would be overloaded to add the non-Roman alphabets there. I'm thinking either keep the status quo or make one page for non-Roman alphabets. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Romanization of Korean. This article and my proposed target are incredibly small. There simply isn't sufficient content to justify two separate articles. ℯxplicit 12:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a romanization, though. It's a spelling alphabet, and the words used for the letter spellings (e.g. 기러기) are Korean. Uncle G (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, article-worthy topic. None of the proposed merge targets are really appropriate (except I don't object to C.Fred's proposal of merging this to a page consolidating non-Roman spelling alphabets, but such a page doesn't exist yet.) SJK (talk) 09:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AceVPN

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

This is borderline when it comes to WP:NSOFT - few mentions in passing, and two decent reviews: [13] and [14]. On article's talk, User:Djm-leighpark expressed concerns about the quality of the second review, and all other sources are worse. I agree that it is probably on the wrong line of NSOFT unless better sources are found? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: As far as I can tell through dead links and spam attackers my good faith view is the links to Turkey are tenuous and likely overblown. As seems to be usual for VPNs this goto site seems to offer a comphrenesive [15] review. Similar precedents come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gom VPN; the former being retained after a significant rewrite improvement and the latter deleted. The are from eighty to over 400 VPN providers .... very unique differentiator(s) or a large number of servers (one thousand range) are probably needed for interest in notability. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't appear to be notable, or perhaps redirect to the VPN comparison page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources provided to demonstrate notability. SJK (talk) 09:46, 11 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nirali Kartik

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

Doesn't fit in WP:NARTIST, WP:GNG, few news articles with trivial mentions, but no signs of significant contribution to the field. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 07:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 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) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weedon Pinkney Priory

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

Very little information on page and lacking references Willbb234 (talk) 12:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Neither of nom's two statements are reasons for deletion, as notability is determined by what is in the world, not what's on Wikipedia. However, Weedon Pinkney priory has very substantial coverage at British History Online and there's more at the local council. Some of the history, with fine images which could be uploaded to Commons can be viewed at the King's College Cambridge website. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too short or no references are not reasons for deletion. If the topic fails the criteria under WP:GNG and WP:NGEO both, it might be deleted. It meets GNG with significant coverage from sources given above. --94rain ^Talk 13:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the article with a relevant and important article. I think, the article subject could remain in another Wikipedia article by merging.Forest90 (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per first two above. --Doncram (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it was also called Weedon Lois or Weedon Loys Priory, searching those terms gives a few results as well. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe we have articles on all English medieval monasteries. We may need redirects from the alternative names. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has references, so nominator's reasoning is fatally flawed. Needing improvement is not a reason to delete an article. Mjroots (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chiswick Chap, British History Online is a tertiary source and there is quite a bit about it. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 8 June 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) 19:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Opoku

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

This article was PRODed with the rationale "Unable to find any reliable sources that verify these claims. Links given are broken or do not mention him. There is another Eric Opoku who played with the national under-17 team but he does not have the nickname Diego. I suspect this is made up, like the author's other articles." The next day, the article's author removed the PROD and added more material. But the PROD rationale still stands - there are no sources in the article that even mention him, and I can find no evidence of him other than a Facebook account that might be him. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: As we can see from the first version, this article was initially copied from Eric Opoku. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under rationale of original proposed deletion. ... discospinster _talk 13:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because two reason, first it's not notable itself and second the lack of enough reliable sources that cover the subject.Forest90 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no idea what to do with this. There are a number of sources which actually do mention an Erick Opoku playing for Dynamos [16] [17] [18] [19] There's also a mention of the possible other Erick Opoku here [20]. Other references I've found, though not necessarily passing GNG, include [21] and [22], but I'm not sure if it's about the same footballer. Further complicating things is it appears "Eric Opoku" is also a soccer journalist and the regional minister of Brong-Ahafo region, but "Eric Opoku" clearly exists per Soccerway. I have no idea what to do with this, but I think we have to delete for now even though there's some level of verification with the Zimbabwe press reports. SportingFlyer T·C 21:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This one is like a puzzle, you have to analyze both possibilities: that Eric Opoku and Erick Opoku are one and the same, a single Ghanian footballer who played in the Ghana Premier League and the Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League in the 2010s, in which case, this article, Erick Opoku, should be deleted as a WP:FORK or duplicate of Eric Opoku (relevant content, once verified, can be merged), because we should only have one article about the subject. On the other hand, if Erick Opoku is a different Ghanian footballer, who played in Zimbabwe for the Dynamos while Eric Opoku was playing in Ghana, then the Erick Opoku article should be deleted because Zimbabwe Premier Soccer League isn't listed on WP:FPL and there's no evidence of the subject meeting WP:NFOOTY, and none of the sources in the article or in this AfD even come close to meeting WP:GNG. In sum, neither Eric nor Erick Opoku meet GNG, but Eric Opoku meets NFOOTY (via Soccerway and other refs put forward here), while Erick Opoku does not. – Levivich 05:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 06:14, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 07:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With the current refs this fails WP:V. I don't see how "Erick Opoku" meeets GNG. And we have an article on Eric. Icewhiz (talk) 12:57, 4 June 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. The article obviously needs work. I noted, for example, at least one double entrance in the (too long) list of publications. Randykitty (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Zamora

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

Seems to fail WP:PROF and WP:BIO by my reckoning. No prominent recognition by third-party sources that I can tell. jps (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self-published books, non-notable fringe theories. Obscure consultant with mostly self-references and a few old papers. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep I started the article on Dr Zamora, if you look at my contributions I have written and contributed on several historical computing topics. The fact that some articles are old does not make them any less significant; Zamoras contributions in the fields of chemical abstracts, automatic spelling correction and other work related to search engines (of which I consider myself an expert) is significant. I am a professional engineer (MIET) with one patent; Dr Zamora holds over a dozen patents that I am aware of, hardly an obscure person.

When I wrote the article I initially knew of his work on automatic spelling correction, see here for example

The SPEEDCOP project is rated "Highly Influential" on this site:

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Automatic-Spelling-Correction-in-Scientific-and-Pollock-Zamora/9267e23dcc108bfc21b949cd0ea95b7181a82570

I had also come across his work on improving the Paice-Husk stemming algorithm. Zamora is referenced in the article on C D Paice the inventor of that significant algorithm.

I believe your attention to this article has been triggered by the heavy handed way in which on the same day that one person voiced the opinion that Dr Zamora's work on the Carolina Bays was fringe, an administrator removed the whole section. I believe it would have been much fairer to have allowed the section to be edited to offer alternative viewpoints. The Wikipedia article on the Carolina Bays, mentions two main theories but gives the impression that one theory is watertight; this is completely false, and the reason why others, including Dr Zamora have tried to look for other explanations. His paper on the subject was published in a peer reviewed journal. The Carolina Bays article even references Zamora.

There are many references online to his work on Spelling correction alone: 14th Information Retrieval Colloquium: Proceedings of the BCS https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358048&dl=ACM&coll=DL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0306457381900443 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/asi.4630350206 http://www.ijcttjournal.org/Volume4/issue-3/IJCTT-V4I3P134.pdf

His self publishing, apart from his amusing science fiction book, cover his early work investigating the Carolina Bays in his retirement before he wrote the paper for the peer reviewed journal.

I am willing to expand on any of the other sections and put a more balanced section back on his Carolina Bays research, since he is a serious engineer and scientist with a peer reviewed article on that subject. Ray3055 (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and OrangeMike. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 12:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This looks like one of the cases where a rather elderly subject's recent work is so clearly non-notable (in this case, at least until the work receives a far higher level of recognition than it currently seems to have - or, indeed, may ever receive) that the far more likely claims to notability of their early-career work are being rather too readily discounted. GScholar shows the subject to have some highly cited publications from thirty to fifty years ago - with a strong possibility that these citation counts are themselves understated, as the areas in which the subject was working (most significantly, chemical information science and automated spelling correction) have developed so far since that work that was cutting-edge then is now just of historical significance. But notability is not temporary - if the subject's work was notable then, it is notable now. PWilkinson (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Mostly to give User:PWilkinson's comment greater visibility
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I have noted the previous Comment and I think that it sums it up accurately. He has several papers with citation counts of 100-300+ with a paper in 2010 citing his work on spelling correction from 30+ years ago. Because his papers were pre-internet it's hard to find the old CompuServe/IBM Forum mentions, but when I get time I will try to flesh the article out. I am going to try to address the original concerns raised which I understand are well founded. (1) I am going to edit the lead section further to more accurately describe the content. (2) I will also remove the Books section since these are all self-published and having a separate section gives undue emphasis to them. (3) I will include his recent work on the Carolina Bays, but append to the bottom of the career section rather than give it a separate section as previously, again to avoid undue emphasis. I will make it clear that the theory is not widely accepted and that many other theories have been proposed. (4) I will add citations to his paper and papers detailing other theories as well as a clear link to the main Carolina bays article. I will also put the books in the refs section, but without links to any site that might sell them. I hope that will make the page more acceptable to all. I have little time (the original article and several others were written in my winter holidays!) but will try to complete this in the next week. Ray3055 (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Based on previous comments in this thread – namely from PWilkinson – it seems like the subject is plausibly notable, but this alone doesn't mean a subject's article should be on the mainspace. If draftified, the article would have time to potentially be shored up to establish notability, perhaps through WP:PROF#C1. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There is some evidence of notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:23, 21 June 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) 02:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tmbax

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

Probably a candidate for A7 speedy, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt that there is some claim to significance buried in here. Nevertheless, clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because it's not notable itself and also clearly does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC, as your description say.Forest90 (talk) 13:56, 3 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual studio

AfDs for this article:

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

Suggest merging to another topic or deleting. There's no source added since 2010.

I can't find sources talking about the term "virtual studio." Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It took about 15 seconds to turn up an entire book on the subject, ISBN 9780240804255 published in 2000 and written by the person who was the head of engineering at the Israel Broadcasting Authority for several years. Xe also wrote an encyclopaedia of of television and radio terminology, published in 2015, which has an entry for this on page 170. And that was just the first minute of looking. A few moments more effort turns up a SIGGRAPH paper by Peter Wißkirchen from 1996, and papers such as doi:10.1109/93.664740 that then cite M. Wißkirchen. And that's not even yet looking at things like doi:10.1109/93.502291 or considering the alternative name virtual set.
Where on Earth did you look for sources? Whereever it was, it was not nearly enough. Uncle G (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google, Google News. And add the sources to the article? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 09:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- WP:Do it yourself, Atlantic306 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 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. No clear rationale for merging a list of non notable players into the club article when a link to the category is preferable in terms of maintaining balance in the article. Fenix down (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All-time K-W United FC roster

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

The parent article K–W United FC is barely notable itself and does not not need an all-time roster subpage. In particular, this list fails WP:LISTPEOPLE as the vast majority of names included do not meet the Wikipedia notability requirement. This topic is better suited for a category (Category:K-W United FC players) in my opinion. BLAIXX 11:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. BLAIXX 11:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 13:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Full of redlinks unlikely to ever be filled out. Plus we don't even give a presumption of notability for players at this level, I fail to see how a collection of these players is notable enough to necessitate this article. Jay eyem (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 06:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – WP:NOTADIRECTORY, fails WP:LISTN, and a WP:FORK of the "notable former players" section of the K-W United FC article (which is a proper list, limited to notable former players, and in the proper place). – Levivich 06:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable list of non-notable people. Giant Snowman 07:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to K–W United FC - If the team is deemed notable then a list of players is likely legitimate content for the encyclopedia. Whether this list is in K–W United FC, split out into this separate list or not included anywhere is a decision for the article editors, not AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to argue with your vote, but I want to record my strong disagreement with the principle that if a team is notable, a list of its players is therefore encyclopedic content, which I think is exactly what WP:NOTADIRECTORY is about. We wouldn't, for example, have a complete list of the employees, or even the executives, officers or directors, of a company, no matter how notable the company is. We wouldn't have a complete list of all the residents of a notable town. A complete roster is, in my opinion, the very opposite of encyclopedic content, which is about curation and summation, not exhaustively-complete documentation. That is one of the very key differences between an encyclopedia, on the one hand, and a directory or an almanac, on the other. </rant> – Levivich 23:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure but my point is that I see this as either being kept or merged or redirected to the club's article; I don't see a good case or need for outright deletion. Whenever matters like this can be handled with bold edits instead of deletion, we all come out ahead. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to K-W United FC - The main thing here is the fact that its already part of the K-W United article and it doesn't really need to be seperated into a seperate article. Also if we are going to delete this page, may I also add All-time Hamilton FC roster to this discussion as this is a redirect to the article in question. HawkAussie (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support considering redirect as a part of this AfD, seems uncontroversial and the outcome would presumably be the same. Jay eyem (talk) 02:27, 7 June 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. Consensus is that the subject currently fails notability guidelines. If anyone wants the article userfied so that they can work on it if/when more sources become available, let me know. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwafunmilayo Oni

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

Contested A7 speedy as makes some claim to significance. However, does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are weak and PR-heavy. Could be worthy of an article in the future but not yet. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — The Guardian, just as its Woman supplement is a reliable source. The style of writing used there is typical of the supplement and is not advertising - it also varies per country. That's very similar to how they do it when featuring individuals. YNaija is a RS news site that covers the country. Both sources cover the subject in detail and are not passing mentions. At the very least, the subject passes WP:BASIC.Tamsier (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there is no connection between The Guardian (Nigeria) and The Guardian, although I am sure both are equally reliable so that's probably beside the point. The question in my mind is not reliability but depth, volume, and significance of coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources cited are not passing mentions but an in-depth coverage of the subject which is a Wiki policy. Can you point me to any Wiki policy that specifically mentions the word "volume" for the purposes of AfD? I have heard of "multiple" and significant coverage, but not "volume". Multiple mean more than one (i.e. multiple sources, more than one source - which there is). Significant coverage mean an in-depth overage of the subject and not passing mentions - which there is. However, I have not read/seen any Wiki policy regarding AfD that mentions "volume". If there is, perhaps you can point me to the right policy. As per our policy, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.". Multiple, again, mean more than one, and for our purposes, not from the same source - which is what we have here. Therefore, can you tell me which policy you are referring to when you mentioned "volume"? As it currently stand, your other rationale for nominating this article goes contrary to our policy. I am therefore waiting for your rationale for "volume".Tamsier (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails notability guidelines. Anyone can get a reliable source to publish an item about them, what will be more difficult is to get MULTIPLE sources to give different perspectives on a subject, which I'm not seeing here. While Guardian is a top level source, let me point out that YNaija is a mid level source (in terms of its reliability). I'm just not convinced that the subject has been covered enough to have a Wikipedia article. She's doing something commendable, but that is not notability. HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete: while her work seems important but we will have to wait for her to have more press coverage.Viztor (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable, and promotional article. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep : The subject is a product of a campaign(Wiki loves women radio) initiated in Nigeria to bridge the information gap that exists about women on the English Wikipedia where amazing women are being invited for radio and then profiled on Wikipedia.. But still the subject passes WP:BASIC and was the center of a very reliable source The Guardian (Nigeria); it's a work in progress as a stub and will be work on more with other reliable sources. Deleting doesn't ascertain anything, it only worsen the narrative. Thanks. Kaizenify (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that this editor is the article's creator; while this doesn't invalidate their arguments, it does demonstrate an obvious bias in their vote that should be considered. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the prose from the The Guardian (Nigeria) article is Oni discussing herself. The first two paragraphs seem fine, but the entire rest of the article is, by definition, not independent. I'm also confused what is meant by: "Deleting doesn't ascertain anything, it only worsen the narrative." I haven't looked enough into it yet, but right now I'm leaning Delete, because all I'm seeing is two paragraphs from an online Nigerian newspaper. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Subject does not meet WP:SUSTAINED: Notable subjects have attracted attention over a significant period of time. While the Guardian Nigeria is a reliable source, the WP:GNG requires secondary sources, which this interview is not. Additionally, even were there more and better sources (by GNG definition) that would only create presumption of notability, as in presumably there is sufficient source material with which to write a biography — which does not exist yet. There is nothing that states that two articles means guaranteed notability, so it should not be read as 'multiple' means 'two and in'. This is turning the guideline on its head. WP:WHYN explains further why the current coverage of the subject is insufficient for notability. Others have made valid delete arguments which I won't repeat here. ogenstein (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A delete closure right now would be completely defensible, but out of deference to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Loves Women, I'm going to relist this to see if a clearer consensus emerges.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep> Clearly meets GNG, adequate coverage in neutral, reliable sources. Underrepresented topic, often a bit harder to find source material, but the sources provided here are high-quality and reliable. Montanabw^(talk) 19:39, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your "underrepresentation" argument. Neither the topical nor the geographical scope looks like areas where a notable subject wouldn't get sufficient references. Since the internet boom in 2010s, Nigeria is one of the most digitally active countries. And she's doing something that news portals will want to cover. The issue I see here is that she hasn't gotten enough impact to attract more significant coverage, which may come if she remains consistent in what she is doing. HandsomeBoy (talk) 06:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment; i clearly would have just skip commenting here and just wait for the consensus but with HandsomeBoy comment about "underrepresentation argument" will not make me. This is a Nigeria subject where the media don't care to cover your work even if meeting cogent needs and worthy of news portals until you make a move and this is one of the cogent areas as Nigeria Wikimedia community we are focusing for our Wiki Loves Women project campaign that the media should always do the needful and that's why we are in partnership with a lot of media houses now. There are lot of Nigeria women right now worthy of a Wikipedia article but cant be here as the Nigerian media isn't motivated to do a story on them until they make the move themselves and that's a real information gap; i clearly understand Wikipedia guidelines about notability but when HandsomeBoy who is a Nigerian and familiar with some of the challenges comment like this, then i have to react. Thanks Kaizenify (talk) 09:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't understand my point. Does gender bias exist on Wikipedia? Yes. Are African content less represented than western topics? Yes. But putting that into context in my assessment of this article. I don't believe that is what is coming to play here. Just because someone is a woman and she's doing something inspirational, does not mean automatic notability. To make myself clearer, example of scenarios where gender gap is very operational on Wikipedia is women in sports, etc. Most of my articles on Wikipedia are cinema-related, I can tell you that there is little disparity between both gender in that topic area. Men and women in films are covered almost equally in Nigeria. Same applies to musicians, however in terms of genres of music, there can be a convincing argument. Now coming to this article, I want you to ask yourself, if Olufunmilayo Oni was a man doing exactly what she is doing will that increase/reduce her coverage significantly? Again, if she was focused on removing the number of male school drop-outs, will that change anything? Speaking about coverage, There are a number of popular Nigerian news portals that generally support sensational topics that are not profit-oriented. If she continues to do this, she will get one of the numerous credible individual service award for her dedication to humanity which will make her pass N:BASIC. When I speak of topical scope, I mean what she's doing is something that people/government will love to read about, which is why she is even likely to get at least some coverage without even being notable.HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And when I speak of 2010s internet boom, what I mean is that the way I assess the coverage for a Nigerian musician who peaked in 1990s is different from another musician that rose in 2016 for example. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per my rationale above, the most I can find about this subject in the way of reliable coverage is two paragraphs in an interview from The Guardian. I exclude the rest of the references in the article because they are, in order: a podcast, a group blog, an article from UNICEF that has literally nothing to do with Oni, and a personal blog. Aside from that, I turned up nothing that isn't a blog or an interview. This article is pretty obviously WP:TOOSOON and should be removed until Oni receives more substantial, reliable, independent coverage. As of right now, fails WP:BASIC by a significant margin. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This pains me as the subjects like these need more space on Wikipedia, but she fails WP:BASIC here, since she fails the "they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." part. Besides The Guardian Nigeria one which is WP:SIGCOV, that is pretty much it (my searches brought a passing mention in a book). WP:TOOSOON. She may be notable in the future, but not right now. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and any notability guidelines as she lacks sustained WP:SIGCOV and notability is not inherited either per WP:NOTINHERITED. I will also add that the need for diversity on Wikipedia should not come at the expense of lowered notability standards for certain groups of people. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 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) 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlee Nyathi

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

Promotional article with dubious claims to fame. Some mentions of him and interviews but not notable and fails GNG Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all the sources appear to be using a single interview/ press release. No evidence of any notability. I PRODed it a few days ago to give the author an opportunity to improve the article, but no improvement is evident. Searches reveal nothing better. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Geoffroi (talk) 17:09, 7 June 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Milin Dokthian

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

The subject does not pass the notability criteria for entertainers and musicians. She has no personal work outside the band, the roles she has in films, tv shows, etc, are all minor, she has no significant contribution in any entertainment field, and thus she has no established notability that warrants a stand-alone article for her, unlike her fellow member Cherprang Areekul. So, her article is proposed to be deleted (or redirected to List of BNK48 members). Miwako Sato (talk) 09:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 09:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 3 June 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) 02:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Byrd (guitarist)

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

Non-notable guitarist that fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:ENT. Can't find any significant coverage about the subject, the only two sources in the article are a interview and Allmusic profile page. All content is promotional or drawn from promotional sources. Might be a case of WP:Promo. It was speedy deleted 10 years ago under the title James byrd musician Mysticair667537 (talk) 08:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 09:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suspect that someone will recommend redirecting to his old band Fifth Angel, but note that there are many other James Byrd's so redirecting this title somewhere would be a problem. For THIS James Byrd, he seems to be making an honest living as a journeyman musician and he has gotten some notice from gearheads, but his solo career simply hasn't gotten enough reliable media notice. I must concur that the article appears to be an attempted promotion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 7 June 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) 08:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leadstart Publishing Pvt Ltd

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

Fails WP:NORG. The only source (from the Business Standard newspaper) on closer inspection appears to be not actually written by Business Standard: its just a copy of a press release from the organization itself. A googling turned up only mentions of the company in comments on articles about books or publishing in India in general, or other copies of the same press release. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 08:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Couldn't find anything about the company except for the most trivial mentions, e.g. being identified as the publisher of a book. Routine notices such as the referenced funding are not significant or notable. ogenstein (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the page's purpose seems to be blatant WP:PROMO. ogenstein (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Dial911 (talk) 18:20, 7 June 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. Too much socking for a good discussion. Can be renominated. Sandstein 17:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sab Kichu Bhene Pare

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

~~The given references of the article are not worthy of it, they do not provide any strong information about the book. Shoikot H ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)~~ This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:BKCRIT #5. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete'. The page must be deleted, the book is not notable in Bangladesh at all. TBF 93 (talk) (contributions) 07:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC) This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note Both Shoikot H and TBF 93 are sock of Bishal Khan aka জঙ্গলবাসী and globally locked. ~ Nahid ^Talk 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete', lack of proper information, also the book is not notable. Saif Rasel (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC) This account has been globally locked for “long-term abuse”. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As some of the participants were identified as socks, relisting to get more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 07:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subject (book) is not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, three of the !voters have been globally locked for long-term abuse, which does normally include sockpuppetry and other shenanigans. I’ll strike out their !votes. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only !vote left after removal of votes by globally locked accounts is a WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE vote. As such, requesting more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable, because it's clearly stated here: WP:BKCRIT #6 The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study. @MrClog: You must know that the deletion process is not voting, so why you wait for others vote as well? ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 06:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This book does not meet any of the WP:BKCRIT criteria. Hasn't been reviewed in multiple reliable sources (in fact, the sourcing in the article all seems unreliable, and I was only able to find passing mentions in articles about the author), hasn't won literary awards, and certainly wasn't historically significant like the creator of the article argues it to be without any reason or proof. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 19 June 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 16:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denice Klarskov

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

Extrabladet is a tabloid and not an RS. Everything else is very short coverage of a porn performer presenting a radio show for one week. In no way does this pass GNG or ENT Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep - It's like you didn't even look at the article during WP:BEFORE with sources like Berlingske [23] and Dagbladet Information [24]. You also cannot simply dismiss the reliability of a newspaper simply because of its tabloid size format i.e. the New York Post & New York Daily News.[25][26] With Danish sources from Google News like Se og Hør, Ekstra Bladet, B.T., TV2 consistently covering her, she is clearly a popular celebrity in her country passing WP:ENT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EB is a tabloid not just in size but also in terms of being yellow press. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You know this how? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lived in Denmark for 4 years. Was able to read enough of the press to know what was news and what was scandle/gossip rag. @Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. PORNBIO has been deprecated & there's nothing better. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Few sources, but meets WP:BASIC.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What sources do you think pass gng and why do you think they pass? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources exist - search for them. Especially if the nominator knows the Danish language, one example hereBerlingske "jeg-naar-aldrig-at-taenke-paa-det-som-sex", and they call her "Danmarks mest benyttede pornomodel" (Denmark's most widely used porn model)[27] Christian75 (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Most of the references are fairly trite, and as previously pointed out, tabloid fare. Searches through news come up with these and similar results. A couple of them used the exact same verbiage. She probably isn't completely typical of others in her industry in that she has her own company, and has appeared in some other types of shows but do these things make her notable? We still have the problem of not being able to have a meaningful biography despite these myriad sources. ogenstein (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles comes up far short of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:BASIC/WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The WP:THREE are [28] [29] [30], and if you don't like EB as an WP:RS, there's BT, and if you don't like BT as an WP:RS, there's the TV2 documentary, and there are yet more out there (here's one about whether her Wikipedia article lists her correct weight or not, LOL, I think they have a point: why was weight in the article? Is she like a boxer that has to meet a certain weight class?). – Levivich 04:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that she doesn't exist, just that the type of coverage she receives does not support her having a standalone page. I see some comments as to her meeting WP:BASIC but when I consider those linked pages, I'm not convinced. The EB piece about her wiki page is trivial. Getting blocked on FB for a month? Less than trivial. TV2 is promoting their product. The three other referenced pieces (6,7,8) all fall under primary accounts and BASIC explicitly states that primary sources can support content but do not contribute to notability. ogenstein (talk) 09:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notability factor is clearly not there no matter how far people try to stretch. Trillfendi (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – She is the protagonist of a Danish documentary, already cited above by Levivich, on the world of porn in Los Angeles. This one has been broadcasted several times in Italy by Cielo TV under the title Naked. Westmanurbe (talk) 21:33, 9 June 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) 01:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Spectroscopic Ellipsometry

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

no evidence of notability for this conference series. It belongs on wikidata. Wikidata, despite my initial skepticism, does seem to be good for some things, after all, like listings that are just listings. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources related to the subject. Reywas92^Talk 21:12, 3 June 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 10:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driving to Geronimo's Grave and Other Stories

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

Lonsdale is of course notable. Some of his novels are. Possibly some individual short stories are. But not this particular collection of works, all of which are adequately covered in Joe E. Lonsdale Bibliography--and so is this collection itself. DGG ( talk ) 05:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG, article has now been improved with multiple reviews cited (some are "trade" reviews but are okay for notability). Coolabahapple (talk) 04:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there still is not enough for notability of a specific collection. The reviews are pure routine. The analogy here is the notability of a mixtape. The repackaging of previously published material does not make for separate notability . DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder. "Lansdale brings his East Texas noir style to another dynamite collection of short stories that show off his humor, his range, and his creativity. Although some of these tropes will be familiar to longtime Lansdale readers, every story still feels electric and fresh, bringing something new to the table. And getting Lansdale’s insights into each story after reading it is just icing on the cake. This is marvelous stuff all around." --- doesn't sound like "pure routine" to me. San Francisco Book Review, a proper review conducted with attention and respect. BTW it's Joe R. Lansdale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's the stories that may even be individually notable. They have all been published previously. This is just a reprinted collection of them. Are you saying that Lonsdales's individual comments about his own stories are separately notable, for each group of stories that gets reprinted? DGG ( talk )

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - This is a limited run collection and really shouldn't have its own page. The reviews are all perfunctory, and that's not an inherently bad thing — after all, these stories have all been published already. Why would there be a serious review. Given the small print run, it's not like it would really be worth the effort. The verbiage from the SFBR 'review' could be applied to any similar collection. I don't believe anyone read the book (which would apply to any of the several reviews I read). Even had the site done so, I don't see how it would be considered a reliable source given their stated purpose (reviews in bulk). As an aside, on the bibliography page, shouldn't it be characterised as a collection of shorts rather than novellas? ogenstein (talk) 20:32, 3 June 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 Bangor, County Down#Education. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ballyholme Primary School

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

~~Unsourced article rife with original research on a typical primary school, no significant coverage beyond the expected local sources and passing mentions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing nomination, preference is now to speedy redirect. – Teratix ₵ 02:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 05:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect, no need for an AfD~~ - Per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#N - "Non-notable school articles are generally blanked and redirected to the school district's article (USA) or to an appropriate section on the article about its locality (rest of the world) and merging any appropriate content. The R from school template should be placed on the redirect page, which then also automatically populates the related category. This is an uncontroversial operation and avoids unnecessary use of PROD, CSD or WP:AfD and is governed by policy at WP:ATD-R." Orville1974 (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is OK I guess. – Teratix ₵ 23:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect - Admin, per nominator's agreement to redirect and WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG guidance, please blank the page (but save the history) and redirect to Bangor, County Down adding the R from school template to the redirect page. Thank you! Orville1974 (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IndiMusic TV

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

Reads like blatant advertising. Of its 3 sources, 2 are not independent reliable sources (ascap.com and prnewswire.com) and 1 is a book which I do not have access to. Contains inline external links to sources that do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH: a general listings page (alexa.com), an interview on Facebook, a patent, and to the subject itself. Searching the web, I cannot find independent reliable sources; I can find perfunctory business bios / listings and regular business announcements (they do not satisfy WP:NCORP either).

Created in 2009 by a user whose name is the same as that of the founder of the subject of the article, and whose only contributions to Wikipedia were to write this article, add very promotional content to another article in support of this article, and to add wikilinks to a third article for an identical name to that of the user in question. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sometimes better references can be found for an article with weak references. This one might help: Boyle, Christopher (March 3, 2015). "CEO, Founder Chris Pati's Independent Streaming Music Video Network; IndiMusic TV, It's All About the Music". Long Island Exchange. I added that one and a few others. As well, press releases (including those distributed by PR Newswire) aren't reliable sources themselves, but they can sometimes add useful context. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interview in a local paper is just another weak reference that does not satisfy WP:NCORP. As for press releases adding context, this AfD is about notability and press releases do not contribute toward that. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. The article was also created by a WP:SPA with an obvious financial interest in this page, so this article should be swiftly uprooted to remove such corruption from Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:40, 19 June 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) 06:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael van Holst

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

Local councillor of medium-sized city, running for federal office. Not notable as either as per NPOL. Page only cites local news sources. FUNgus guy (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:NPOL requirements, article can be re-created if van Holst wins a seat in the upcoming Federal election. PK T(alk) 14:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. London, Ontario is not a global city for the purposes of getting its city councillors over WP:NPOL #2, and people do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in federal elections they have not yet won. To get an article for being a city councillor, he would have to be sourceable to much more than just local coverage as being much more nationally notable than most other city councillors in Canada, and to get an article out of the federal election, he would have to win the seat on election day. So no prejudice against recreation on or after October 20 if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he would already be eligible for an article today. Bearcat (talk) 12:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Bearcat mentioned, they would not meet municipal politician notability. Candidates for office do not meet WP:NPOL just for being candidates. If someone creates an article for Conservative Party of Canada candidates, 2019 Canadian federal election with a list of candidates, perhaps we can redirect. If van Holst wins in London--Fanshawe, we can re-visit the article. Bkissin (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete London Ontario city council members are not inherently notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 5 June 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. Seems like the consensus is that GNG is not met - the keep arguments on that point are vague - so NACTOR is the only guideline that could justify the inclusion (under WP:N a topic can meet either to allow for inclusion). It seems like there is reasoned disagreement about whether the NACTOR guideline is met, as they have starred in several notable works but they are not necessarily well covered. I don't see a policy-based reason for preferring one side of that argument over the other, so this is a no consensus. With respect to Wikipedia:Too soon, that's an essay, so it would not necessarily override NACTOR based arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandile Mahlangu

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

WP:TOOSOON Coverage does not meet WP:GNG. I searched his name in DuckDuckGo and Google, and found nothing of substance. I don't think the filmography claimed in the article meets WP:NACTOR.

Evaluation of the sources provided:

[31] is an interview on a local news site.
[32] is an ok amount of coverage, but the source is unreliable per the disclosure on the source's terms and conditions page saying thebar makes no representations or warranties, whether express, implied in law or residual, as to the accuracy, completeness and/or reliability of any information, data and/or content contained on the website.

The rest of the sources are mere mentions _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: subject has played significant lead roles on two television series that air on notable TV channels [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], view and has played lead on a film alongside Vuyo Dabula, Deon Lotz, and Anriette Van Rooyen [38]. Has been featured on a radio show Touch HD. Passes WP:NACTOR #1 Ceethekreator (talk) 09:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ceethekreator (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Ceethekreator, that guideline says multiple notable films, television shows.... From my count, you've mentioned two TV series and one movie, which means that even if each of them were notable (which does not appear to be the case) we'd be barely scraping the guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill What makes a TV show/Film notable?. Please see WP:PW/NTV/WP:NTV. The Television shows are clearly notable per the WP:PW/NTV /WP:NTV guidelines. All the TV shows mentioned air on national television channels, SABC 1, Mzansi Magic and e.tv. Ceethekreator (talk)

Notability is demonstrated first and foremost by coverage in reliable sources. At any rate, looking at the article, I see three roles that at a glance look significant, one of which hasn't been released yet. This is a case of TOOSOON. If Mahlangu stars in an additional film or two, then I think NACTOR #1 will be more clearly satisfied. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Entertainer #1 is satisfied for "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions", apart from the Television shows and film. The subject has also been featured in several major TV commercials. (KFC, Debonairs Pizza, Halls, Sunbet International, Cell C and Stimorol). Ceethekreator (talk) 15:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject is a well-known actor in South Africa, playing on major television channels. A quick Google search did reveal several credible news sources discussing the subject and his roles. Ash Glover (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hashmanza, could you share some examples? I have no intention of arguing for deletion if there's RS coverage lying around, but I genuinely could not find any when I searched online. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator. I checked out the sources and they unfortunately are mostly passing mentions and/or local or puff pieces and nothing shows that he meets WP:NACTOR yet. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON I feel. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I checked out the sources are unreliable, I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON- --MA Javadi (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Meets WP:SK#1: Withdrawn by nominator, no other delete arguments (non-admin closure) CThomas³ (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ReMarkable

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

Company fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Its product, the tablet, may be notable, and the article is actually a confusing mix of the two topics, but frankly outside infobox it's close to a WP:TNT mess. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-sourced stub. The in depth sources now include: Business Insider, Laptop Magazine, Digital Trends, Popular Mechanics, Gizmodo, and others. Very, very clearly meets and exceeds WP:GNG. The article includes both content on the company and on its namesake products. Could separation/detail between either be improved, sure!, all articles have room for improvement. But deletion is not rewrite, so keep it! XavierItzm (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @XavierItzm: You are still missing the point - their tablet may be notable, but the company is not. The sources you mention review the tablet, not the company. If you or anyone else wants to rewrite it as a tablet article, I'll likely withdraw this. But the article, currently, is about the company (with tablet info thrown in), and the company fails at notability. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, unfortunately, it is you who is misunderstanding policy. Deletion is not improvement. You could have moved the article or you could have re-structured the article, which, granted, like all Wikipedia entries, has room for improvement. Yet you insist on deleting an article which clearly passes the WP:GNG, based on massive WP:DEPTH coverage by numerous WP:RS. Not cool. XavierItzm (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have little love lost for spam. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did quick and dirty rewrite changing article subject from the company to its product. The article seems to be still somewhat promotional, but notability should not be an issue now (eg. I found this review in the German ct magazine: [39] and another quite big review on golem.de [40]). Pavlor (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn. Rewrite by Pavlor addresses the issue. Thank you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose that the result ought to be:

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator withdrew the nomination, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted or redirected.

cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Groundswell Effect (Business)

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

Roundabout way of attempting to publicize the non-notable Charlene Li & Josh Bernoff, and their P.O.S.T Framework concept Orange Mike | Talk 01:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Groundswell (book). The concept is cited by others, but not much. Two line mention with citation in reliable source here. Another one, seemingly more in-depth, here. Overall, rather borderline for notability. Next to nothing on regular google. I couldn't find a single review on Google Scholar for "Groundswell. Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies" BUT the book has 5 reviews in Lib Genesis ([41]) which I recently found to be a much better search engine for book reviews :) Which lead me to conclude the book is notable, and then I noticed we already have Groundswell (book). So how about merging this concept, of unclear standalone notability, there? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PROMO. This article is just a way to advertise a business concept the creator of the article desires be promoted and the article even links to his own user sandbox, which is a mirror copy of this article. Wikipedia is citing Wikipedia as a source here. It's clear there is some COI going on with this article. The article should be swiftly uprooted so as not to reward corruption on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Grant (political expert)

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

Fails WP:BIO, as no significant coverage in independent sources. BilCat (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she has done less than expected.

Her biggest appearance this year for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ8BDF_gTK0

Hcobb (talk) 03:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's plausible she passes AUTHOR or one of the NPROF guidelines (some of her pieces do have not insignificant citation counts - however the common name makes things difficult here). Icewhiz (talk) 15:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can just google for "Rebecca Grant airpower" or USAF or F-35 and all the results will be for this one specific Dr. Grant. Hcobb (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR as she lacks sufficient sustained WP:SIGCOV to meet these notability bars. A WP:BEFORE search I did turned up nothing substantial. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:55, 19 June 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) 06:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clown world

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

An anonymous buddy on WP:Discord had concerns about this article. Its own references include Paul Joseph Watson, another YouTube video, and Big League Politics. The prod was contested, but there still is no claim in the article to any sort of relevance, notability, or lack of POV. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We are not Know Your Meme. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Lacks notability and we are indeed not Know Your Meme. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNP. No evidence that there has been any significant impact of this meme. If something happens to propel it into the mainstream in the way Pepe the Frog or NPC have been it should be reconsidered but at this point I don't see how this is notable. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 06:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is claim to notability such as it is, that the concept is being used as a yardstick (for lack of a better word) by multiple authors with large audiences, and is being characterised politically. Those arguing for deletion, please link to relevant wikipedia rules at all times. Some of us are not as well versed as others.Asgrrr (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Asgrrr: Hey there! There are a few rules with this type of thing, but the most relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability. You may also like to read the deletion policy which has the most important, top-level, information concerning article deletion on Wikipedia. In reference to your exact concern, WP:NOTINHERITED would be a good start (whereas a notable person might discuss a variety of topics, but those topics as themselves are not inherently notable). There are several alternatives to deletion you may also want to consider in response to the concerns brought up here. I hope this helps!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Coverage in reliable sources is lacking and the sourcing in the article are of questionable reliability. Disclosure: referred to her on Discord. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nowhere close to being notable. X-Editor (talk) 16:03, 8 June 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) 06:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Price (Canadian Politician)

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

Autobiography with no sources that show this person meets the notability guidelines. Good faith google search coming up with primary sources and something that reads a lot like a press release. PROD was contested without explanation by IP user without addressing the issues, so here we are. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to failing WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, the article appears to also be an WP:AUTOBIO. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is clearly an WP:AUTOBIO, that was created by Evan himself. Kevinhanit (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - To paraphrase Winston Wolfe, just because the subject would like to be a politician doesn't mean that he is a politician. WP:NPOL explicitly states that an 'unelected candidate for political office' has no guarantee of notability. And all of the news results were for other people. Even removing the bracketed words and then adding the riding name did not provide a single result pointing to him. No 'newspaper' results at all. As an aside, his party does not have a strong track record in that riding. Not sure of the significance here but creating his own page (which is what appears to have happened), doesn't make for a good look. ogenstein (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in future elections — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for campaign literature. To get a Wikipedia article because politics, he would have to win the seat on October 20, and thereby hold the office of MP — and short of that, he has to be demonstrated as already having preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him an article anyway. So he can be recreated on or after election day if he wins, but nothing here is a reason why he's already eligible to have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Placeholder article for someone who fails WP:NPOL. Could theoretically be a G11 if it could be proven to be PROMO. Bkissin (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for office are rarely notable. Wikipedia is not a platform for distributing campaign literature.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 5 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tabou (film)

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

Short film with not much notability to be found. It apparently was at some award show that I can't find info for though. Still not much else to say. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ibo, o sangue do silêncio (another similar case) Wgolf (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:49, 3 June 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) 01:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hel (film)

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

Another short film of questionable notability. Though unlike some of the others-this at least is on the IMDB and has a Youtube link (which is more then I can say about others. Still I can't find any notability.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no sign of significant coverage in reliable sources as, for example, there are no external reviews at IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes Atlantic306 (talk) 17:18, 5 June 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 JoJo Siwa. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The JoJo & BowBow Show Show

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

This is a Web series of YouTube shorts without notability (it fails Wikipedia's rule called WP:WEB). There is no significant coverage beyond a mention, and the only sources come from the press announcements. Houtakar (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the creator of the page removed a notability tag and in the edit description, said that it was notable because JoJo Siwa was involved with the Web shorts. This goes against the Wikipedia:Notability (web)#No inherited notability: "Web content is not notable merely because a notable person, business, or event was associated with it." Houtakar (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please no. Not another article requested for deletion. My creation feed is going down! I can’t deal with this! HappyINC (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JoJo Siwa. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JoJo Siwa, as per John M. Wolfson, no independent notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:52, 3 June 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 Camilo de Sousa. Randykitty (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ibo, o sangue do silêncio

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

Another short film I can't find that much notability for-nor can I find any sources (heck even the IMDB does not even have a page for this, which is pretty telling). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agaïssa, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warda (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Season Between Heaven and Hell for similar cases Wgolf (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It has entries in Les cinémas d'Afrique: dictionnaire and Le clap but I can't tell from snippet view how in-depth these are. There is also a match in the dissertation Film and politics in the Lusophone world (1960s-1970s) according to ProQuest, but again, I don't have access to the full document. SpinningSpark 17:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think we have to be realistic about applying the notability criteria here. Hardly any films at all were made in Mozambique in this period, so we might presume this one notable for that reason alone. It's likely that the film attracted independent coverage in the national press at the time -- but these sources are unlikely to have been digitised and made available to general Internet searches. At the moment, this entry is the fullest summary of the film available on the Net, and valuable for that reason. It's a stub, but hopefully someone with access to the archives can one day improve it. Alarichall (talk) 18:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've now made an entry for the director, Camilo de Sousa, so I suggest that at worst we merge the summary here to that entry. Alarichall (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM due to lacking sustained WP:SIGCOV. That independent WP:SIGCOV might exist elsewhere and be located at some distant point is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL and should not be used as justification to keep this article. We are evaluating this article on its merits today and it clearly fails notability standards today. It can be recreated at a later point if WP:SIGCOV sources are located and can be added to a new article. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camilo de Sousa seems like a good resolution, per Alarichall's good work. bd2412 T 20:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camilo de Sousa - per Alarichall.--Goldsztajn (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Camilo de Sousa as this stub doesn't have enough secondary reliable sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Masum Reza^📞 00:31, 27 June 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) 00:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Campanella

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

Actress of questionable notability. She has only been in 3 films, which only 2 even have Wikipedia articles. And based off where she appears on the credits in either one of them, neither look like that important of roles. One thing that was making me question if I should put this up or not is how this actually has quite a few foreign wiki pages up. Oddly though-there isn't one in Italian. Wgolf (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we are way past the point where all articles sourced only to IMDb should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as does not pass WP:NACTOR with only a few minor roles in notable films, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert and Atlantic306 - fails WP:NACTOR. Geoffroi (talk) 17:03, 7 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets of Investigation

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

Russian television series. The article has no awards and reviews. Sources - the official website of the TV channel and the social network VKontakte. Part of the article is written in Russian.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the references at ru:Тайны_следствия Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This looks like a subject that is likely to be notable, as it lasted 19 years on the air. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- suggesting that a show should be deleted because it hasn't won any awards is...not a criteria as far as I'm aware for TV programs. The article should be tagged for improvement, but a series airing on Russia-1 would be notable. matt91486 (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable long-running program, though the article needs improvement.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:08, 6 June 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. That sources have not been added to the article is not a valid reason for relisting. That they exist is enough. SpinningSpark 16:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

West Mersea Yacht Club

AfDs for this article:

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

Local sailing and social organization, can't find substantive independent sources to pass WP:NORG Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Historic institution covered in Salty Shore and Yacht and Rowing Club Buttons. Andrew D. (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founded in 1899 plenty of coverage in earlier years. Doesnt have to be online.Rathfelder (talk) 07:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:OLDSUBJECT? Having made a button that's in a book doesn't make it notable. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not comfortable with this being closed as a keep yet, as we're 2 to 1 in favor of keeping the article, however, none of the suggested references have been added to the article to improve it or satisfy any of the concerns of the nominator. Maybe another week around the AFD track can illicit some more input and either help the article be improved or gain a more solid consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 00:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Existence of sources has been established, and the AFD should be closed. wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. --Doncram (talk) 06:59, 3 June 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.