Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscernible Unsorted

< 16 June	18 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 redirect to NMB48. ST47 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rei Jōnishi

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

A member of the idol girl group NMB48, the subject does not meet WP:GNG and does not appear to be independently notable of the group, which means that the article should be redirected to NMB48 per WP:MUSICBIO. I had previously converted the article to a redirect, but this was reverted without the addition of more sources. I'm not fluent in Japanese so I may have missed something in my search, but nothing significant appeared when I searched for the subject's Japanese name on DuckDuckGo and Google. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I don't think she's independently notable. The Japanese coverage I found was related to her work in the group. Mcampany (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kira Bertrand, please stop attempting to blank this page, and do not move the article to draft space while this discussion is underway. If you think moving to draft space is appropriate, you can make an argument for that in this discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G5. Praxidicae (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to group as not independently notable Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Masum Reza^📞 03:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NMB48. Capt. Milokan (talk) 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, no independent notability. Viztor (talk) 20:09, 24 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. ST47 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia Zeta

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

The main reason for notability cited in the article (streaking at a football match) is sourced to Blogspot. WTF? Also fails GNG, ENT and N, but stikk , WTF?.Blogspot????? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete the article because it's not notable really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest90 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking non-trivial coverage by reliable secondary sources, this performer fails both WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Sex worker gets a brief news mention for a morals incident/publicity stunt falls under WP:DOGBITESMAN. The article lacks good sources, and a GNews search yields two-sentence mentions of this person in relation to the flashing incident. • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you want an alternative source, there is TPS 2009 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFTPS2009 (help). That said, I don't see how an accurate and complete biography can be constructed here, given DÁVALOS 2016 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDÁVALOS2016 (help). Apparently Wikipedia has been wrong for quite a number of years, the person is a private individual, and (as is so often the case) this was yet another fake identity with another fake name. Uncle G (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- JamieD (2009-05-05). "PORN STAR NATALIA ZETA FLASHES SOCCER FANS ATTENDING 'EL CLASICO'". TotalProSports.com.
- DÁVALOS, CARLOS (2016-04-04). "Carabanchel, capital de la salsa". El Pais (in Spanish). Antes era actriz porno y me hacía llamar Natalia Zeta, pero cuando nació mi hija lo dejé.
Delete does not pass WP:ENT and any rs coverage is WP:BLP1E thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT Westmanurbe (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Masum Reza^📞 10:39, 24 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. ST47 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

W Medical Strategy Group

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

Article that doesn't exactly meet our notability guidelines for inclusion. Upon search nothing comes up on GNEWS or GBOOKS. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:RS. I previously tagged under G11 but was recreated. Korean language refs are passing mentions. Lapablo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 18:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lapablo. I understand your reason for nominating this article for deletion. I would like to address, however, that the company is likely not appearing from GNEWS or GBOOKS because it is mostly covered in Korean news outlets. If you see my references, they're mostly in Korean. They are also legitimate, which you can affirm yourself. To my knowledge, this is permitted as long as the articles can be translated via Google Translate. Could you also share in detail as to how this does not meet notability for companies and organizations? Thanks. User6045 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)User6045[reply]

Comment. The references you provided are not sufficient for a page to meet WP:NCORP because from what i can see in Korean language, there are just passing mentions of the subject. Please read WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response. I wouldn't attest to them being just passing mentions as W Medical is the main topic of the source materials I've cited. User6045 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)User6045[reply]
Delete It should be noted (see here) that User6045 (talk · contribs) works for the W Medical Strategy Group and was already kindly asked to refrain from creating the article himself. Add that to the notability concerns, and I believe deletion is the correct option. It is listed at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies/T-Z so if it's notable enough, it will be recreated by a neutral editor somewhere in the future. Pichpich (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response. While it is recommended to not write an article regarding a topic an editor is affiliated with, there is no rule that states one is simply not allowed for that reason alone. I understand that my article will be under more scrutiny, but it is insufficient to make an argument that this alone is a reason for deletion. Touching upon an earlier comment regarding notability, the articles cited discuss W Medial Strategy and/or its business units as their main topics. They are not passing mentions of the company. User6045 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC) User6045[reply]
- That's disingenuous. First, let's be clear on that point Wikipedia:Conflict of interest states unequivocally that COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia. It undermines public confidence and risks causing public embarrassment to the individuals and companies being promoted.. Moreover, you were instructed not to start the article and did so nonetheless. Pichpich (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The key word is discouraged. I want to ask: who or what instructed me to definitively NOT to start the article? Again, this reason alone is not enough for deletion. Please do not argue that my defense is disingenuous. The decision as to whether or not this article should be deleted should be based on the article itself - the text - NOT on the fact that I am affiliated with the company. I'm not saying this shouldn't be a consideration, but you are arguing this is sufficient enough to prompt deletion. User6045 (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)User6045[reply]
Delete Whole sections are sourced to the companies websites see 'New York Health Forum.' EWG is not a reliable source, it is an advocacy group. I do not see any in depth coverage. Another option may be to userfy the article and have it submitted for review. But I think Delete is the way to go.VViking_TalkEdits 13:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Viewmont Viking (talk · contribs) May I ask how I can userfy the article and submit it for review? User6045 (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)User6045[reply]
Update I have removed the sections on New York Health Forum and Publication (World Asian Medical Journal) due to the lack of credible third-party sources. Would the article as of now be qualified to remain published on Wikipedia? Other recommendations/edits are welcome. User6045 (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)User6045[reply]
Comment. I think the references are not sufficient to meet WP:NCORP. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:20, 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 keep. ST47 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajax Motor Vehicle Company

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one more example of why I should stop wasting my time creating pages at all. I won't waste any defending it. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The print-only references appear to be valid and sufficient for a company that operated more than a century ago. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How many references are you expecting for such an obscure topic, so long ago? It's in the obvious directories, where it might be an issue to not be listed. This is also a very new article and there's plenty of scope for expansion. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trekphiler has been vexed quite enough for one day. Ajax is notable and found in good histories of the era such as https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Fot_DwAAQBAJ --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and lets have an end to the nomination of historical articles. The question is not whether there are online references. Rathfelder (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Early automotive history. Don't delete history. --SVTCobra (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is encyclopedic, Alex-h (talk) 12:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Andy Dingley. As this company is very old finding reliable sources is very hard. Masum Reza^📞 10:46, 24 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Research Parasite Award

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

This is not a notable award, there is no coverage I can find in newspapers, magazines, books or journals.Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is from one of the two pre-eminent science journals:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3830

This is from the other: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6277/1005

It was started via an editorial in the pre-eminent medical journal: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMe1516564

Are here are a bunch of press releases or other topics, that are just coming from a quick skim of the results of a google search for "research parasite". I didn't take the time to figure out which are associated with recipients:

https://academic.oup.com/gigascience/article/7/11/giy129/5160134 https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/06/research-parasite-award-data-analysis/

In addition, NSF, NIH, DOE, and other funding agencies are going to great lengths to promote data, sharing, research parasitism, and data reuse. Would you like links on those too? This also links to a plethora of existing Wikipedia pages on the topic.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment links above aren't about the award, just the term "research parasite", similarly ISCB's comment on the NEJM editorial. IMO, "research parasite" might be worth an article, but not (yet) this award. Amkilpatrick (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Giving references bolstering any claims of notability that are not behind paywalls would be helpful. Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There might be an article from all these sources on "Research parasites" or "Data sharing" but the award itself is non-notable. None of the cited references go into depth on the award and, actually, the award is not mentioned at all in any of the references that I was able to check. Shearonink (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

The first article listed above, from one of the top science journals in the world, describes the awarding of the first awards and the names of the recipients://www.nature.com/articles/ng.3830.

And this is a press release on that paper, and the awards: https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/06/research-parasite-award-data-analysis/

Again, this is just the first page of results from google. There are many more.

If I specifically search the news page of google with "research parasite award", I can also get: https://www.statnews.com/2017/05/05/dirt-award-cleaning-scientific-literature/

With respect to paywalls--that would be great--but even most newspapers are behind paywalls these days. But you can find a public version of the Nature one at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5710834/, with all the nuances intricacies of what PubMedCentral does and does not house related to journal copyright.ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADP85xzVcQD Press releases are absolutely worthless for establishing notability, they are not independent or coverage of a subject as required. STAT doesn't provide much coverage either and it's questionable as far as notability goes with regard to this subject. Praxidicae (talk) 19:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)ADP85xzVcQD I am assuming your removal of my Delete post above was inadvertent. Please do not remove other editors' comments on this page, it goes against WP:TPO which states "do not alter others' comments," etc.

Press releases are not considered to be reliable sources. Shearonink (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't think I deleted it. I saw your comment, started making edits, couldn't save my edits because someone else was editing, so I copied my edits, closed everything, opened it again, your comment was gone, and I pasted my edits at a blinking cursor. That said, this is a horrible interface, so who knows, and I apologize if I was the cause.

As for notability, you can argue about the press releases, but ultimately, I gave you a paper in one of the world's top science journals discussing the award and its recipients, and I provided an open access version of the journal article. Let's focus. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article in a magazine about the award: https://www.the-scientist.com/careers/the-open-data-explosion-65248. You may have to register to see it, but I think everyone can register "for free". ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one from STAT news is not a press release (nor is the one above, for clarity) https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/05/incentives-science/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F470:6:4003:95AC:B9E9:A9E2:7E17 (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're providing a bunch of sources but failing to understand that it needs to be in depth coverage of the awards, not the term, as Shareonink stated above, the term is likely notable but the awards are not. Lastly, for the final time, please sign your edits, as you've been repeatedly warned. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The edit above this with the article from StatNews on 2016/05/05 was my first edit. How does one sign the edits? Four tildes? Did you read the article at https://www.statnews.com/2016/05/05/incentives-science/. It's primarily about the award.2607:F470:6:4003:95AC:B9E9:A9E2:7E17 (talk) 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientist article passes muster. The May 2016 Stat News also looks reliable. The NCBI opinion column/article seems like it might ok (is it mainly an opinion piece? - I'll need to re-read it when I have time)... Just an aside but have either of the interested editors thought about giving the Data sharing article some heavy editing? It's had an "improvements needed" Notice on it since 2016... Shearonink (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shearonink, I was looking at the data sharing page, and was considering edit it. The one on secondary data does not have a banner but also needs significant improvements. However, I am currently reluctant to even visit Wikipedia again when this is done. While I have edited pages for over a decade anonymously, my experiences on Wikipedia over the past year with non-anonymous changes have almost solely been negative (for instance, an editor who rolled back every change I made today without the courtesy of a single comment on any rollback or my page, or the editor who literally insulted me less than a week ago. And that is just this week. There are many times the same has happened in the past. I will fully admit they leave me feeling harassed and often in tears, not what a grown woman with an advanced degree, young children, and a profession needs from this "hobby". The culture on Wikipedia of late seems to be to warn and threaten first and it really makes it unbearable. Much of my response isn't related to the intended content on this page, but it is important for you to understand my answer and the veracity of that answer. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit - that is its salvation and its curse. You run into nice folks and come across jerks, kind of like going to the mail and trying to park your car...there might be a jerk who cuts you off and maybe someone who is nice and maybe someone who is yelling a couple of spaces over. But you don't let them stop you, you get in to the stores and you buy what you came for, the items you need and want. The other thing is that we can't hear people's tone of voice online - sometimes typed words or actions can seem harsh but - and maybe I am being a Pollyanna about this - I think that is rarely their actual intent around here. For anyone who has been around for a while (let's say a couple years) the sheer onslaught of vandalism, the Point of view/Conflict of interest/spamming, the numerous trolls whose only reason to exist is to tear down the content...it gets wearing and sometimes long-timers might think a bad thing about a good person. That doesn't make it right but maintaining an assume good faith attitude can be tremendously difficult. I hope you stick around - if I can make it here anyone (seriously anyone) can. I started out editing a little article that was full of errors and needed serious improvements. Usually editing an existing article that one knows something about is a good way to start out. Good luck. I am swamped this week, don't have the time or frankly the inclination to even see if it is possible to fully/completely ascertain its notability but I've changed my opinion on Deletion to "Neutral". Shearonink (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I try to maintain your perspective on "good faith"; it is the fourth pillar if I remember correctly. But your analogy doesn't hold because when I go to the mall parking lot, almost everyone I meet doesn't threaten to take my car away, or delete me. Most people just don't care that I'm at the mall, and some are even happy to see me spending money--helping them keep their job and contributing to services by paying taxes. If I said the things that get said to me on Wikipedia, I wouldn't have a job and I would have been worried about a harassment lawsuit. My experience is that the first response from editors always seems to be to threaten something--delete the page, delete me--or revert, deleting hours of work with a single word and no real explanation. And often I can't argue with them, because they give me nothing. And it feels like, even if it isn't the case, that they have crony that has their back who follows up with yet another threat. Something like the following has been said to me too many time: "if you spent this much time on it, it must be a COI". Really? Isn't the whole goal to have people spend time? Particularly folks who know the content well? I have yet to see the first instinct be fine tuned editing, or "thanks!". And it won't improve if existing folks don't require it, because no one will want to be an editor, or maybe already no one wants to be an editor. Ultimately, if it doesn't change, Wikipedia will die, it is just a matter of time. And my God, in this day and age, forgive me but I don't sign anything. So yelling at me because I don't sign my posts is just mean. Really, the interface just needs to be updated and brought into this decade before it is over. But I digressed, again... Thanks for lending an ear Shearonink, I do appreciate it. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 00:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about your experience/s. Content that is removed from public view is always salvageable. You can usually always go into the edit history and at least cut&paste/save all your work to your personal sandbox. Shearonink (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

• It seem verifiable given the Nature Genetics article ^[1] in a premier scientific journal, the article in science magazine “The Scientist” ^[2], and at least two author-signed articles written on a statnews web page^[3]^[4]. All these links have been added to the main article; none of these links are press releases. As an aside, all the content is verifiable because the primary source is the award's own web page. I don't understand why a secondary source would be preferred over a primary source; usually the opposite is true when writing content. It seems that as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is itself a secondary source, and really should be relying on primary sources of data to every extent possible.

It seems there is some sort of voting; unfortunately none of the links supplied describe how to do that. But I clear vote to keep it. I don't see how it could rightfully be deleted given the stated criteria. ADP85xzVcQD (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment I have downgraded this subsection because it would affect the log. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Greene, Casey S; Garmire, Lana X; Gilbert, Jack A; Ritchie, Marylyn D; Hunter, Lawrence E (2017). "Celebrating parasites". Nature Genetics. 49 (4): 483–484. doi:10.1038/ng.3830. ISSN 1061-4036.
^ Viviane Callier. "The Open Data Explosion". Retrieved 17 June 2019.
^ Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. "Congratulations, you're a parasite!". Retrieved 17 June 2019.
^ Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. "Incentives Science". Retrieved 17 June 2019.

Keep The reporting in The Scientist and STAT is enough to establish notability. The content could potentially be merged somewhere, and the prose needs a bit more going-over than I have time for today, but that's for ordinary editing to resolve, not a deletion discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Letters to the Editor emphatically do not rank with research articles or mainstream article coverage. However, in the aggregate the sources noted above are just about sufficient, I think. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment I have noticed some coverage on the University of Pennsylvania Health System [1] which should be reliable but it is WP:PRIMARY since the subject's creator is a professor there. Besides that, I was not able to find much that wasn't mentioned here (there is a thing on RealScientist, but that seems like an unreliable website). The STAT's coverage is nice and there is a bit in The Scientist, but I think it's not really enough to keep this afloat. Most of the references offered here are mentioning a completely different subject (which seems very well notable). This? Not so much. In my opinion, this should be merged with Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing, but seeing XOR'easter and Elmidae's votes, it's highly unlikely that will happen, at least in this AfD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:11, 2 July 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.

Comment scotted400 There have been additional articles about the awards in GigaScience, and I've just added a reference to an announcement about the award in the journal Biocomputing (Biocomputing 2017, pp. vii (2017) https://doi.org/10.1142/9789813207813_fmatter). With the stat news and Nature Genetics coverage is that enough "appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources" to resolve this? 04:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARLA Propertymark

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

No secondary sources. Wp:promo Hydromania (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cumbriangirl created 6 pages. Three have since been deleted as failing GNG as well as clearly created for advertising. I've nominated this one as well as ARMA for deletion. the only remaining article is John Sykes (British entrepreneur) which seems notable enough, but needs some cleanup. Hydromania (talk) 19:20, 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. Not notable. WP:DELREV is available if more sources can be located. ST47 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T. Ramu (voice actor)

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

I can't find any evidence this guy has been in any of the claimed films/television shows. It appears to just be a minor dubbing artist/voice actor. I cannot find anything under the native name nor his full or nickname. Praxidicae (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You see Ramu's interview in Youtube channnel and searching put the key word as Ramu dubbing artist. His full name Ramu Thiruvengadam also known as Ramu. i give reference to him. You not see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarlettDeepa94 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not contesting the fact that he exists, but none of that establishes notability. Praxidicae (talk) 15:57, 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 delete. ST47 (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT rights activists in Sydney

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

Overly narrowcasted list of mostly non-notable people. Each individual city on earth does not need a Wikipedia list of its own local LGBT rights activists as a separate topic from national or international lists, especially when nearly all of the names in the list are unlinked because they don't have Wikipedia articles to link to — and Sydney's activists are not some special notability case who would need special treatment that London's and New York's and San Francisco's and Toronto's activists aren't getting. And furthermore, most of the names listed here are not referenced at all, and even the ones that are referenced are mostly citing primary sources, such as photographs and local organizational newsletters and their own self-published websites about themselves, rather than reliable source coverage that would establish their notability. This is WP:LISTCRUFT, not a page that satisfies our WP:SALAT criteria for the creation of lists — Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a free webhost for just any page you think the internet needs, and something like this would belong on a WordPress or Blogspot site rather than Wikipedia.Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR/WP:LISTN. Almost every entry fails WP:BLP or WP:ORG. Also this is a considerable effort of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Ajf773. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A list at the country level makes more sense than for individual cities in Australia, given how manageable the volume at Category:LGBT rights activists from Australia would seem. Developing that national list first and then splitting off into subsections if necessary seems the way to go. I would also not be surprised if an article could be justified for LGBT activism in Sydney, and examples of activists noted in the prose where justified, but attempting a list of nonnotable activists in Sydney still wouldn't necessarily make sense. postdlf (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it could be argued that there is a degree of notability as historically Sydney was the lead city in LGBT rights in Australia, this list fails to address WP:BLP issues with solid references for every individual named and does nothing to contribute to the story. Gnan garra 03:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - although Postdlf is closer to a better understanding, strongly suggest this is salted into user space before what seems to be inevitable deletion, and developing into a different title, and format and would avoid the issues all mentioned in detail above... JarrahTree 02:31, 24 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) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlin Bennett

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

The subject of this article does not have widespread coverage outside one event. The event was not that important, and appears to fail WP:BLP1E. No sources appear to exist to establish WP:GNG. Some of the sources are articles that she wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Awaful does not equal not notable. She has been written about over an extended period of time. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eastmain, I never said "awful", I said BLP1E and a lack of significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While she definitely came onto the scene because of the initial event. Coverage has followed her since that event. I do agree with Muboshgu that it's pretty poorly sourced but a further search brought up enough sources from different events over the past year, including the New York Post, Yahoo, The Cincinnati Enquirer, and Newsweek. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep clearly meets the GNG as per Newsweek, NY Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, Salon. She has multiple sources about several topics over an extended period of time so keep!Ndołkah (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, she has ben covered in a scant few news articles because of the AR-10 stunt, and then she sought more attention by performing a couple of other stunts like drinking milk and trying to ambush Chasten Buttigieg by asking a bizarre question. The article is classic WP:BIO1E. There is no evidence that her attention seeking will have any lasting effect, and there doesn't seem to anything else of biographical value available around which to write a proper biography.- Mr X 🖋 02:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google news search shows coverage is not scant!Ndołkah (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unfortunately. I may disagree with Mrs. Bennett's politics, and her personal stunts, but (contrary to popular belief) Wikipedia is not a venue for the airing of such grievances. She easily meets GNG and will likely continue to do so, given her affiliation with the inflammatory Infowars and penchant for media-savvy political stunts. We have to be fair and equal. --Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:39, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Firman

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

Fails to meet WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. I'm unable to find independent sourcing for any of the content. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This source is now in the article and does provide the kind of coverage we need, but we still need more than just this to demonstrate notability and I am not able to find anything. SmartSE (talk) 22:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be reworked. The subject is notable. Some non-trivial coverage here, and score work in Hollywood productions. An article should be developed. Tonereport (☎)(My Work) 19:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tonereport: On what basis have you concluded The subject is notable? The coverage you link to is already mentioned in the nomination, but we require multiple sources like that, not just one. IMDB is a user-generated source so not suitable for determining notability. I have searched for more sources containing The Dark Crystal (1982), The Green Butchers (2003) and Allegro (2005) which are mentioned at IMDB but have not found anything suitable. SmartSE (talk) 12:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft move to draft as it does have potential with one good source but more are needed for mainspace. Having completed a long search I couldn't find any similarly good coverage, only passing mentions in reviews in reliable sources such as The Guardian and The Independent, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draft for now - worthy individual who looks likely to become notable at some future point. However, the coverage is not there yet to meet WP:BIO nor achievements to meet WP:NCREATIVE. Whilst I am sympathetic to a Draftify, for that to be worthwhile we need a willing volunteer to develop the page. The article is not inspiring, being little more than a laundry list of the sort of routine jobs that we would expect of someone in his business. I would be prepared to userfy if someone, who is prepared to take the job on, has found more sources. Just Chilling (talk) 20:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable conductor with reviews of a series of West End musicals where he conducted the orchestra when the musical opened in the West End visible in news archive search going back to the 90s. He has led a great many orchestras in special performances, and I can see so many articles about his conduction the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra that I presume he has some sort of ongoing contract with that orchestra. I do see the argument for moving it to draft, But I see no valid argument for deletion - there are just too many reviews of his work in the British and German and Canadian press.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: there are just too many reviews of his work in the British and German and Canadian press This and this are presumably what you are referring to, but those are extremely brief mentions and to me, do not demonstrate either BIO or CREATIVE are met. Many mentions do not add up to notability. SmartSE (talk) 00:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few of the reviews visible in a news archive search:

Review: Theatre: Good Thing Going Cadogan Hall, London 4/5

Billington, Michael. The Guardian; London (UK) [London (UK)]08 Aug 2007: 34. " In this concert celebration of the composer-lyricist (Sondheim), devised by David Firman...

THEATRE: Enter the Guardsman With David Benedict. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]23 Aug 1997: 20. "credit for the lush, sweeping sound, however, goes to the conductor and expert orchestrator David Firman. "
MUSIC REVIEWS Mahir, Ali. Weekend Australian; Canberra, A.C.T. [Canberra, A.C.T]18 Apr 2009: 22."David Firman's elegant soft jazz arrangement of this Stephen Foster classic makes it a highlight, "
Mickey Mouse job on a musical is no mean feat Bruce, Keith. The Herald; Glasgow (UK) [Glasgow (UK)]24 Dec 2013: 15. " Conductor David Firman has the sort of CV that brings him into contact with people that most conductors do not reach. The original West End productions of Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita, Cats and Chicago have all fallen under his baton. As a session keyboard player he has served Hollywood composers John Williams, Jerry Goldsmith, and Marvin Hamlisch. He gets calls to MD for Victoria Wood, Bryn Terfel, Micahel Ball and Lesley Garrett.

This week he is on the road with Mickey Mouse, recreating a live musical experience of Disney's Fantasia that was a triumph at London's Royal Albert Hall in modern arenas in Manchester, Brimingham and kicking off on Friday at Glasgow's new SSE Hydro. The show has been produced by Jonathan Heely, who has worked with Disney since 1981 when he helped recreate the score for the original classical animated film for a digital recording, a process he has continued through much of the classic Disney canon. The Fantasia show screens scenes from the 1940 Fantasia and its millennial revisitation, Fantasia 2000, with the music played live by the Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra. Its a process that demands much of Firman, but he is man who is absolutely across all the technology that keeping a big band synchronised with moving images requires. Firman points out that Walt Disney did not ask Leopold Stokowski to perform the same trick. When Fantasia was made, the music was recorded first and the animators made Mickey move to the beat. "There are times when I just look at the picture, and there is a click track from time to time, but more important are the 'punches' and 'streamers' that I can see on my screen, bursts of light and vertical lines that help me guage when a certain action or 'sync point' is going to arrive." Firman illustrates what he means vocally over the phone, with the opening bars of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. It is perfectly clear to me at the time, but the English language lacks the vocabulary to pass that intelligence on, so you will just have to take my word for it. Firman's form in this discipline is bang up to date. He works a lot in Denmark, where he is Principal Guest Conductor with the Danish Radio Sinfonietta, and has performed the score of Pirates of the Caribbean there and in London with a screening of the film, a process he is about to repeat with the second film in the series, which has even better music, he says. "And gosh, isn't Keira Knightley gorgeous in that one?" he adds, suggesting that the images are not entirely ignored. "There's a lot more straightforward click track with that, because it is more modern music. Really with classical repertoire, it is counter-intuitive to stick so slavishly to the beat. You want to go faster or slower - tempi are so inate. But I think I enjoy it because of my history as a session player: I understand what the music is supposed to do." The Fantasia live show restores some music, like Debussy's Claire de Lune, that failed to make the final cut of the film, and combines it with an edited version of the full film, which Stokowski, the celebrity conductor of his day, saw very much as an "art" project, working closely with the stories the animators illustrated. Firman thinks that although there were already many serious composers at work in Hollywood, Fantasia helped give credibility to the music they were writing and introduced a new audience to the symphony orchestra. When the original film was released, Disney created a fancy new sound system for its screening, a sort of percursor of Dolby surround that Pirates of the Caribbean was written to make the most of, adding all those electronic effects and samples." Working on such proven hits is a very different experience than working in the West End, says Firman, who was off to see Andrew Lloyd Webber's new Profumo musical, Stephen Ward, on the day we spoke. "In musical theatre you can have no idea what will be a success or a failure. It is impossible to predict what will work. That is a story about a noble man with a great flaw and time of political revolution that threw up interesting characters. But do people still remember it?" By contrast, the successful Pirates is "very effective and tuneful, but not a work of genius". "It is a swashbuckling silly movie that leaves people time to take in the performance of the band too. Because people like seeing people doing live things." As well as looking at Keira Knightley - and Mickey Mouse. Caption: ON THE ROAD: Conductor David Firman is taking his live version of Disney's Fantasia to a wider audience."

This Hansel And Gretel is simply wicked!: Classical Mellor, David. Mail on Sunday; London (UK) [London (UK)]21 Dec 2008: 18. "Special appreciation must go to conductor David Firman, whose pacing is impeccable. "
That is usst a sampling of what exists. And There are also pre-reviews, like this"
WATCH: Kaiser Chiefs' Ricky Wilson scrubs up his acting skills Thistlethwaite, Felicity. Express (Online); London (UK) [London (UK)]10 June 2015. "The Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra will be unmissable at Sounds in the Grounds. Conducted by impeccable music sculptor and West End legend David Firman, teamed with the idyllic historical setting, there will be no better location to experience this iconic performance."E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that passing WP:CREATIVE does not require coverage of his life, but of his work as a conductor, composer, and orchestrator with a role in creating notable films, West End musicals, and symphonic performances. We have pages on many authors and composers about whose lives little is known, even anonymous ones. Our guidelines judge CREATIVE types by the coverage garnered by the work, not the man.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal coverage in gBooks search [2] on "David Firman" + music.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: Thanks, but again there only seems to be significant coverage in one source (The Herald) which is already included in the article and linked in the nomination. Obviously CREATIVE doesn't require biographical information to exist, but we do need substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources, which I still think is lacking. Nothing on google books seems to provide this either. SmartSE (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The books substantiate his role as a significant member of several teams (producer, director, writer, orchestrator, etc.) that created West End musicals, Films and other productions. As do the listings in IMDb, not itself a good source, but googling the credits found there leads to reliable sources for his creative work on notable films and TV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:CREATIVE as having created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work that have been reviewed, E.M.Gregory lists a sample of that work above. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, E.M.Gregory has found a wide range of reviews in reliable sources from England, Scotland and Australia, some of which have been added to the article as quotes and references, and the others could be. He clearly meets WP:CREATIVE #3. There are probably also sources in Danish, given that he conducted the Danish Sinfonietta over 24 years. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:02, 9 July 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. Seems like after the nomination the article was seriously improved, including evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Debra McGrath

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

Contested PROD. This lady has enough credits that I think we should get input before deleting. Can we hear from Canadians what they think? Richard Cavell (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Richard Cavell (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is WP:ENT but doesn't seem notable. I can't find any deep RS coverage online. HM Wilburt (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why you would remove a PROD just to bring an article to AfD. Why not find and add sources? There certainly appear to be many sources over many years on Newspapers.com, and I am sure she would meet WP:NACTOR. I will try to add sources (and info - one of her shows, My Talk Show (1990) isn't even mentioned in the article). RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this really passes WP:NACTOR and she fails WP:GNG, since she is not really the subject of articles in significant reliable sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have so far searched only under one form of her name, Debra McGrath, although she has also been credited as Deb McGrath and Debbie McGrath. It's clear that she meets WP:NACTOR #1, "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." She has starred or had major roles in The Second City, Termini Station, My Talk Show, Getting Along Famously, Seven Little Monsters, Little Mosque on the Prairie, Single White Spenny and Women Fully Clothed . She had a major role in a film which does not yet have a Wikipedia article, Expecting (made in Canada in 2002), for which she won Best Performance in a Feature (Female) at the 2004 Canadian Comedy Awards. She has been nominated for other awards, which I will try to find sources for. I have added many references and more information to the article - more can be done, but this is a definite Keep. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article certainly needed improvement at the time of nomination — it was a poorly written "actor who has been in stuff, the end" stub with just one source, which was definitely failing to properly demonstrate that she passes WP:NACTOR. But in its current state, RebeccaGreen has beefed and sourced it up a lot, so it now very clearly gets over the bar...exactly as any Canadian could have told you she would, if we'd seen it before Rebecca did. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am the original PROD nominator. I actually never wanted this to go to AFD. In it's original state, the article did not show only notability. However, I couldn't be sure because if she was actually notable she's done most of her work in Canada and I'm in America.I figured that if she was actually notable, someone would either remove my PROD before it got deleted or gotten it undeleted, and then hopefully improved the quality of the article to show notability. And that is exactly what happened. The current state of the article clearly shows notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY the article has been significantly improved including the addition of multiple reliable sources references showing the subject passes WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:41, 22 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. ST47 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shalimar Road

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

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article history has been fairly poor, from explaining to us what ″academy stuff″ is through shopping to traffic reports. The irony of that last is that one would not know it from reading Wikipedia but that is the Shalimar Interchange, a ₨3340 million (originally planned to cost ₨2000 million) construction project in Lahore that was going on when Wikipedia was telling the world about ″a new bridge″. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added 4 new references to the unreferenced article. Irrelevant info like "academy stuff" mentioned above has been removed. It's only a one-liner article now with focus on the street called 'Shalimar Road'. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

None of your cited sources are reliable. It should be redirected to List of roads in Lahore. Störm (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the references appear to be actual references for the purposes of Wikipedia, but rather the road used as an address and links to maps. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 02:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No WP:SIGCOV. 1 reference is the street being used as an address, 2 references are mentions of the road on city maps and one reference is an entry in a database of Pakistani roads. --MrClog (talk) 16:15, 24 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) 15:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

English Word-Formation

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

Is a single review in a specialist journal enough to confer notability? There is nothing in the article to suggest why this book is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the single review all that there is? Did you did anything to find out? If so, what? An AFD nomination request is not a question requesting other people to do the work to see whether something is notable. It's an explanation of what you did to determine how deletion policy applies, and justification for an administrator pressing the delete button.
Personally, I think that Pavol Štekauer spends more time talking about Bauer's theses than the actual book (which I would use for discussion of Bauer's work in Laurie Bauer and of course in various linguistics articles where appropriate), and J.R.Hartford might be a little too shallow given that it is contemporary with the book's publication. But do you even know why I am mentioning these names? Where did you look for sources? What did you find? Answering those is how to do this properly.
Uncle G (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:NBOOK. The book was subject to multiple reviews and critiques in its time, and it made a significant contribution to scholarship. I listed a few additional sources on the article's talk page. (The book has probably also been taught in university and post-graduate programs, but I don't have syllabuses to support that assumption.) Cnilep (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a notable professor writing a book published by a university press in 1983. I was confident it was notable before I even started looking and sure enough I fairly easily found a source like this and this which calls it a classic in the first sentence. This isn't even close to borderline for me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Laurie Bauer - this is not a long article, in fact it is only a sentence long, and could be merged with the article on the book's author without too much difficulty. Vorbee (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a classic linguistics book and it will be expanded in the future.Ali Pirhayati (talk) 08:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding quite a bit out there about this book, but a lot of it is hidden behind paywalls that I can't access. While Google Scholar has its obvious shortcomings, I want to note that the book is shown to be cited over 3,000 times - something that gives off the impression that there's enough out there to justify its own article. Since the book was released in the 80s it's a little tough finding sourcing, but it's definitely mentioned in books like this and this. What this needs is someone who has access to these materials and is familiar with the book to come and flesh it out. I'll try to do what I can, but my ability will be fairly limited. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for help from the linguistics WP to see if someone there is familiar with the book and can build upon what I've added to the article. (Not to vote in the AfD, just to expand the article since I think that notability has pretty much been established.) I've done about what I can with what I can find in paywall previews and the like. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:52, 23 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lopifalko (talk) 20:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penrhiw Priory

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

Non-notable business. Having cleared out its primary sources, the two left are very generic. I have looked for more sources but could not find anything with more than a one line glancing mention (here), not enough to count. Doesn't satisfy WP:COMPANY, / WP:ORGCRIT. The same user has created (Draft:Twr y Felin, Tyddewi) or edited (Roch Castle) articles on this business's other 2 premises. Lopifalko (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It makes things a little easier once one realizes that the history books mainly call this a vicarage, with a few calling it a rectory, not a priory. You are looking for the wrong name. You'll know when you've hit the right seam of sources when you turn up things such as what happened in World War 2. Uncle G (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Listed building so see WP:GEOFEAT. Seems to be pretty large and significant. Street view. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- We cannot have an article for every listed building; there are just too many, but this is not a run-of-the mill case. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 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. ST47 (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarmal Kshatriya Rajput Clan

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

An article about an Indian caste. I've sampled about half of the dozen or so sources and none of them mentions the Sarmal at all (or at least there are no results when searching for the term within the book on google books). I'm having trouble locating any other sources online, apart from passing mentions like this. A previous incarnation of this article was deleted last year after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarmal Rajput Clan. – Uanfala (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants from the previous AfD: Sitush, Icewhiz. – Uanfala (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 12:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (pinged). I am convinced by the sources in the article - and I stand by my prior BEFORE in the last AfD as well as a search now that doesn't up with much of anything. Icewhiz (talk) 12:35, 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. Consensus that he fails to meet notability standards. Just Chilling (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Raut

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

The only claim to notability is having directed a few movies. No coverage in RS other than that. Filmmakers aren't automatically notable, are they? Usedtobecool ^TALK 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 11:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals apply to film directors, I think. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:26, 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 11:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article because it's not notable itself. I think the Article could consider as WP:GNG, too.Forest90 (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he's up and coming, but isn't quite notable yet. Subject to more information. Bearian (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC) P.S., see WP:TOOSOON. Bearian (talk) 13:35, 2 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nisha Rajagopal

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

Not notable enough worthy of an encyclopaedia article. Nisha Rajagopal is a carnatic music vocalist. There are thousands of such vocalists in India who just recites centuries old works in Carnatic music. There is no original contribution, nor any noteworthy work which received significant attention. The awards won are not significant either. Bobgali (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a strange nomination. The nominator says the artist just performs old classics and does not do anything new. That is not a reason for deletion, unless we plan to remove articles on classical performers everywhere. Far from being non-notable she has been covered in mainstream Indian press and has achieved sufficient international renown to be invited to perform at the Salzburg Festival. Mccapra (talk) 19:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like there is enough news coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. She is also the first recipent of the Saregama M.S. Subbulakshmi Award (in 2011) - there is enough online to indicate that the award is notable as well. Netherzone (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in reliable sources such as The Hindu and coverage (dead linked but AGF) in Sruti arts magazine so the article deserves to be kept as passing WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:27, 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. ST47 (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Reynolds (television presenter)

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio with no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable TV presenter. Geoffroi (talk) 10:15, 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) 00:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janine Machin

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio with no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page inadequate, but regionally well known. Some demand: average of 21 views a day over last 90 days.Bmcln1 (talk) 10:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All the while there are no reliable sources the page is likely to be deleted. A lot of presenters are known "regionally" but this doesn't mean they are automatically entitled to an article. This article currently fails WP:GNG but can meet the requirements if more RS can be found. The current sources aren't about the subject herself, just a passing comment. - Funky Snack (Talk) 13:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is built around reliable sources, not some general seense of regional knowledge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the nominator here (my searches bring up BBC website bits mostly with occasional mere mentions), all the sourcing here is purely in passing (#1 is a WP:PRIMARY interview of 20 short questions, #2 is a name drop: "Janine Machin welled up following the story of Jane Windle" and same for #3: "Janine Machin, pictured, will front the programme covering the west of the region"), and does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. The makes her fail WP:BIO, which requires "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" It also has to be said that Bmcln1's pageviews argument does not stand per WP:POPULARPAGE and should be discounted ("just because an article is popular does not mean it is within the project scope"). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as previously argued . I do not know why it was relisted--it seems clear enough. DGG ( talk ) 08:47, 6 July 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) 19:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Louisa Preston

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio with no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:22, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources to verify anything. Trillfendi (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination - non-notable person. Geoffroi (talk) 22:34, 29 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. ST47 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Riz Lateef

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - not enough sourcing. Störm (talk) 09:15, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ST47 (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Donovan

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

Non-notable TV presenter. Article based on employers bio with no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:28, 24 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Taylor (meterologist)

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

Although a well known weather forecaster and meteorologist, there are no links or reliable sources to support this article. There is definitely potential, but not as it stands. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the nominator says, he is a well known weather forecaster. Vorbee (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, on the afternoon after I typed these words, the next weather forecaster I heard on BBC Radio 4 was Matt Taylor. Is this an example of what Jung called synchronicity? Vorbee (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the nominator hasn't really given a reason for deletion, just suggesting that the article needs improvement. I don't think AfD is an appropriate place to take articles needing improvement. matt91486 (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Rillington (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. This article has been lacking information for sometime with no additional information or citations being added. If more information can be provided, there is scope for the article to remain. At the moment, the article fails WP:GNG. There is an ongoing discussion re a few meteorologists at the moment with the argument that they warrant an article "due to their job". This isn't the case, as with all articles, the information must be there if the article is to remain. I'm sure Bearcat would be happy to explain this better than me. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for weather presenters is not just the ability to verify that they exist, by virtue of a staff profile on their employer's website or your sworn affidavit that you've personally just heard them doing their job with your own earholes: just like people in any other occupation, the notability test is always still the ability to get them over WP:GNG as the subject of significant and substantive reliable source coverage about them, in media that don't sign their paycheques. The notability test for people is never just the ability to use their own primary source web presence as technical verification that he exists: it always requires journalists to be writing and publishing content about him and his work. On a Google search, however, all I can find is a one-day blip of WP:BLP1E coverage about two months ago when he caught a lighting rig that was about to fall on him live on the air — but that's not enough, because what we need is ongoing coverage of a variety of aspects of his career, not just 10,000 reprints of the same story about a single viral moment. And he's not exempted from having to get over GNG just because you've heard him on the radio, either: not everybody on earth lives in the UK, so many more people have not heard him on the radio than have. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the nominator says, he is a well known weather forecaster and there is no issue with this article not passing WP:GNG but the article does need more independent sources. Rillington (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question. Matt Taylor has done the five-day weather forecast on the BBC One series Countryfile. Does this make him notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia? Vorbee (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It underlines his notability as he has presented the weather on the BBC for many years. Rillington (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we're all missing the point here. Just because he is on TV doesn't mean he is automatically entitled to an article. The article fails WP:GNG and this is not OK, despite saying there is no issue. More RS need to be provided for this article to remain. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funky Snack, I'd like to respectfully suggest that rather than simply nominating articles for deletion which you feel do not comply with Wikipedia rules, that you instead try to address the issues that you have, for example with this article by trying to find additional references as I did with several of the previous articles that you nominated for deletion. Rillington (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is clearly a lot wrong with this article. It has remained minimal for sometime and was given a number of chances to have stuff added, but this didn't happen. You seem to have created quite a few articles which you seem to be upset that are being nominated for deletion. Articles must meet WP:GNG, and this article clearly doesn't. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So why don't you attempt to improve this, or any other article, when you think it isn't up to scratch rather than merely nominating it for deletion? Rillington (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not fair to say it clearly doesn't. In just a glancing search, it's clear that he's gotten coverage in various sources [3] [4]. I don't say that this is definitive one way or another, but it's clear that sources not affiliated with the BBC do talk about him and his work -- indicating that it's at worst a debatable case. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those sources. I have incorporated them into the article. Rillington (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you seem to be missing the point. This article has remained "bare" since its creation, and in 2016 was asked for more information to be added. This hasn't happened and remains very minimal. I'm not withdrawing the nomination, as the issue remains. There are no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to withdraw this article, which now contains two new independent references. Instead I am respectfully challenging you to consider changing your approach to articles which you feel are not currently following guidelines by asking you to try to improve these articles rather than merely nominating them for deletion. Rillington (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply following Wikipedia guidelines. If an article has no reliable sources or anything to support the need for an article, it gets nominated for deletion. See WP:AFDEQ. Like I said, this article was given a chance in 2016 for more to be added, and it didn't happen. To be honest, I'm very surprised the article has lasted as long as it has with nothing proving as a reliable source. May I request that you let the AfD discussion continue and to let editors nominate articles for deletion which don't meet the Wikipedia requirements. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that "the article was given a chance in 2016". I genuinely don't know what this means. It seems to imply that there was some sort of AfD debate about it at that time, which if there was, was not linked to in the nomination. If you just mean it was tagged, articles are tagged all the time, but this hardly means "giving it a chance". And as far as I'm aware, duration of time with a tag is not a reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article was created as an unsourced stub in july 2006, it remained uncited for almost 10 years when the refimprove tag (actually should have been a no ref tag) was added, had one source added in March 2017 (that did nothing for notability). it has taken this afd, over 2 years later to have any more sources added (again not supporting wikinotability), so yes, there has been plenty of time and opportunity for improvements to be made. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, although having a successful career with the met office and the BBC, Taylor does not appear to have made achievements that tick any wikinotable boxes. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-known national weather presenter and a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society ([5]). If it doesn't satisfy the GNG then that suggests that the GNG isn't fit for purpose as an overriding criterion for inclusion (which it clearly isn't). --Michig (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to go by on this article and it has been given a chance to be improved but it doesn't look like it has. 132.185.160.131 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. a weatherman who is a national figure. [https://books.google.com/books?id=4RZSDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT133&dq=%22Matt+Taylor%22++weather&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb8cqflpnjAhVsh-AKHcY3DCUQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Matt%20Taylor%22%20%20&f=false And Now, The Weather...: A celebration of our national obsession Random House 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a case of WP:NEXIST notable subject on national/international broadcast. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 3 July 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) 03:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Manuel González (racing driver)

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

This was previously deleted at AFD, and has then subsequently been recreated and speedied G4. I am bringing it back to AFD on this occasion rather than going for another CSD G4 because the creator has stated 'This should have an article now because he raced at Iowa today', so I guess that is a claim that the facts have changed and should be reconsidered.

In my view, the subject fails WP:GNG as not the subject of any reliable, independent, substantial coverage. The claim would, I think, therefore have to be passing WP:NMOTORSPORT criteria #1 or #3.

I am no NASCAR expert, however he competes in the NASCAR Gander Outdoors Truck Series which appears to be a third-tier racing series with low prize money. In the recent race, he DNFd.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge of NASCAR can explain if he squeezes a WP:NMOTORSPORT on a technicality, but my view is he is not ready for an article.

If the community agrees, I'd also ask for a salt on this for the time being, given the prolific recreation attempts. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm torn on this one. The rationale is under WP:NMOTORSPORT No. 1, as while NASCAR stopped releasing purse money a few years ago, the caliber of operation required to make an entry into the series qualifies it as professional. That being said, I nominated it for AfD the last time when he only had an attempt and a DNQ, not an actual start. On the flip side, the creator of the page has a long talk page for numerous creations that did not meet notability guidelines, etc. and both myself and another editor has offered to help said editor build better pages. Instead, creations keep being one sentence, even after multiple warnings/offers to help. So technically while Gonzalez meets NMOTORSPORT, I have a very hard time finding significant coverage that's not press releases to satisfy WP:GNG. If the page were to be deleted, I would be in favor of a salt and maybe restrictions on this user creating pages. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought and my vote will be a weak keep at the present. He does meet WP:NMOTORSPORT, and he could make an appearance later on this season. Plus, after some research I found that he also competes in a couple of different Mexican series, so there may be some Spanish coverage on him that can be translated and put to use, especially since he has won contests in what seem like semi-prominent divisions of Mexican racing. Either way, if the page stays I'll put it on my to-do list. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are more refs for this article. 99721829Max (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NMOTORSPORTS. Several NASCAR Truck series starts makes him considered a professional driver. Thanks for working on the article, Willsome! (The previous 2 commenters and myself are members of WikiProject NASCAR.) Royal broil 23:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just worth noting that meeting WP:NMOTORSPORTS is not necessarily enough on its own. Per Q2 at the very top of that page, the subject of an article still needs to meet WP:GNG. I'm not seeing any evidence that this is the case here.Hugsyrup (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. already deleted. (non-admin closure) Viztor (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Reitz

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

Fails WP:JUDGE ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:52, 17 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? 09:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:53, 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 no consensus. Minimal, mixed feedback after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PrisXtra

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

Small retail chain, 5 stores, no indication of significant impact or coverage, all I see with GTranslate to help are few mentions in passing and rewritten press releases about business as usual. Fails WP:NORG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a well known store brand in Sweden. the article needs some expansion and work of course but clearly meets WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSFAMOUS is right there on the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Axfood. I don't think there are any stores left in this chain at this pont, and it did not have a long history before being absorbed into Axfood's other brands. --Hegvald (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put any relevant information into the Axfood article. This topic fails to meet the criteria for notability so a redirect isn't particularly relevant. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a store brand. The sources confirms it is a store brand. I have seen no rationale for deletion except POV.BabbaQ (talk) 07:56, 7 July 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. Randykitty (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Healthera

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

lots of pr, but not yet notable according to WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 09:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. Coverage is either in-depth or in form of rewritten press releses about business-as-usual/invest-in-us. Some refs are broken, [6] claims to be from Business Weakly but takes us to a broken 404 page at some is a commercial business networking organisation, which I guess means spam-distributor, and I guess they didn't pay their fee to have their spam sources up? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To address the concerns of broken links, they have been updated (since the links were originally accessed months ago, and website URLs have apparently moved around since then), specifically link 1 as you mentioned above. Furthermore, I contend for the notability of Healthera as the sources articles show a large amount of coverage involving speculation about the company's plans, direction, and technological outlook. A source has also been added talking about recent controversies about Healthera in its working with the NHS. Piotrus, please try not to use such a patronizing tone as I don't believe it helps in any sort of discussion. Sliu.3110 (talk) 10:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ref 1is a notice of funding

ref 2 is to its listing on an apps site

ref 3 is a notice of funding

ref 4 is an announcement with quotes from the founder,written as pr

ref 5 is a notice of funding

ref 6 is an announcement from the firm sponsoring the system

ref 7 is a notice of funding

ref 8 is a notice of funding

ref 9 is anannouncement it won a contract, with quotes from the founder , written as pr

ref 10 is a listing on a very nonselective "companies to watch"

ref 11, however, is an actual news item . It was added after I nominated the article.

one RS is not enough for an article. And from the history of the article, a draft for it it was properly rejected at AfC, and the contributor then made the same item outside AfC, The pattern is typical of a coi editor trying to evade the system provided for coi editors DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, the guidelines state that multiple references are required to meet the criteria for establishing notability (unless we're talking about an obscure topic - the example provided for only one reference in WP:NCORP is a Bangladeshi women's rights organization from the 1960s). HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, right, though I interpret this as depending on the source as well as the subject. As a particularly clear example, a NYT full obit by itself has almost always been acepted as proving notability--so would one official source demonstrating a major national prize, or participation in the recognized presumptive notability levels of athletics, or for many geographical features. For companies, it would be very rare, just as you say. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. The volume of references, however, does suggest significant interest on the company. Calling refs 1, 3, 5, 7, 8 merely all notices of funding is an understatement, especially as they provide significant depth and insight towards the company beyond funding, especially references 1 and 3, though it is true that some of the other references are less in depth and do focus on funding, which is again not on its own a disqualification of a source as independent, significant, and thorough coverage. Sliu.3110 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to re-read WP:NCORP: From section 2. 2 Significant coverage: "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant" and from section 2.2.1: Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: ...of the expansions, acquisitions, mergers, sale, or closure of the business,; of a capital transaction, such as raised capital; ....inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists," DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources are rather 'trivial' in the sense that there is no journalistic coverage and they focus on funding, or the "best of"/"top 100" lists you mentioned. These sources alone do not qualify an article for notability, however these are not the only sources provided. The inclusion of these sources do not therefore disqualify an article for notability. Please direct your attention to the four significant articles below:

Source [7] is titled "Healthera set for further growth after £3m Series A", thus talking about the company's plans after the funding round. It discusses Healthera's impact on the platform partnering with NHS clinical commissioning groups: "As of September 3, the new approach by Healthera and DGS CCG will replace traditional methods of ordering through the pharmacy or GP... Together Healthera and the DGS CCG aim to help the NHS reduce medicine wastage, eliminate congestion in the prescriptions hotline, and empower community pharmacies to play a more active role in the patient’s healthcare while reducing manual workload." This whole section is discussing a shift in the healthcare industry, and is not related to funding at all.

Source [8] is not a funding article, as the title "Healthera in £1 million digital healthcare coup" refers to a partnership linking traditional Health IT and the growing Digital Health sector. For example, the article discusses Healthera's patent-pending "Prescription Processing Engine" in depth, and how it will be used in conjunction with pharmacy IT services.

Source [9] is a blog post by a former NHS official, Associate Director of Medicines Optimisation Diar Fattah, talking about Healthera's likely impact in their locality. Fattah is a known authority in his own industry, so his blog post on an official NHS website confers legitimacy and reliability of the information provided.

Source [10], which you have already mentioned briefly, is an article talking about the controversy brought by Healthera's introduction into the Dartford, Gravesham, and Swanley CCG's ordering system. Sliu.3110 (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I acknowledge the careful analysis of both DGG and Sliu.3110 here and thank both for their work, but I am more persuaded by the latter. For example, DGG describes reference 2 as "listing on an apps site", but the NHS Apps library (so far) is highly selective and listing achieved only after a complex review process. Likewise, I agree with Sliu.3310 that the nhsconfed.org post, while called a blog, constitutes significant coverage that will have been through an editorial process. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability. The Chemist and Druggist reference is not in-depth and there is no evidence of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject as is required as per WP:ORGIND. The reasoning provided by Siliu.3310 and supported by Bondegezou is not based on policies or guidelines and, in fact, is contrary to WP:NCORP guidelines. References that are based on company announcements (such as funding announcements) may be used to support facts or information within the article (so long as they are from reliable sources, etc) but are not counted towards meeting the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:ORGIND. Blog posts are not considered reliable sources and shouldn't be used for any reason. A listing on an apps site does not provide any in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The criteria for notability is fairly strict for companies/organizations. This topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ As per WP:ORGIND, there are "two types of independence to consider when evaluating sources: Independence of the author… [and] independence of the content…" The author of the Chemist and Druggist reference is clearly independent of the source. For the independence of content, the content is not produced by interested parties. There is original and independent investigation and fact-checking, as demonstrated by the in-depth and journalistic interviews conducted on Mike Keen and Luke Tate, two separate sources, both unrelated to Healthera. The author makes an analysis through balancing facts and opinions from multiple parties using direct quotes from the previously mentioned impartial interview sources, to maintain journalistic integrity and for the publisher to maintain a neutral stance on the issue.

HighKing mentions that “References that are based on company announcements (such as funding announcements) may be used to support facts or information within the article,” which is true and something that has already been addressed. HighKing ignores the fact that the articles used to establish notability, such as the Business Weekly reference only mention funding as a part of an overall journalistic report on the company, which are also not from company announcements (i.e. they have obtained sources about the funding of their own accord). These articles also have significant amounts of their own input and analysis involved.

According to WP:NEWSBLOG, [blogs] may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process. If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer (e.g. "Jane Smith wrote...")” The writer in question, Diar Fattah, is a professional, and the information is attributed to the writer in the article. It’s worth mentioning that the blog is sourced from NHS Confederation which is curated and authoritative, not a freestyle blog. Feel free to read more about the source here: NHS Confederation

Regarding the listing on the NHS apps site, that was never a central argument key to proving the notability of Healthera, but rather a supporting source confirming the verifiability and legitimacy of its app. As mentioned previously by Bondegezou, the NHS apps library does have a strict vetting process. Sliu.3110 (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: duplicate !vote struck. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Response I agree with Sliu.3110 that the Chemist and Druggist reference has been written by independent journalists but that's as far as it goes. I disagree that there is any original and independent investigation or fact checking about the company - which is key for considering sources for the purposes of establishing notability since is the company that is the topic of this article. This article is simply a short report on a disagreement between the NHS's decision to allow clients to use the Healthera app and the CEO of Kent LPC. For that matter, the reference also fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

The article in Business Weekly has not been "ignored" by me. These types of articles are commonplace after a company announces funding (yes, that article is based on a company announcement) and WP:NCORP classifies these types of "articles" as "dependent coverage" and they are not sufficient to establish notability. For example, here are several others, all dated around the same date, using similar company descriptions, quotations, even the same photo, etc, as the Business Weekly article. The subsequent company post is a permanent dead link. Does not count towards establishing notability.

The Blog on the nhsconfed site is a great example of why blog posts should always be treated with the utmost suspicion and should only be acceptable for the purposes of establishing notability in the rarest of cases (almost never). In this case, the NHS and Diar Fattah has a vested interest in Healthera and neither are a neutral third party. In effect, they are customers/clients of the company with a vested interest in the success of the company. The blog post is nothing more than marketing for the "first ever app-based POD scheme in the UK" launched using the Healthera app. Similarly, the listing on the NHS apps site does nothing to establish the notability of the company - it is simply to promote the POD (Prescription Ordering Direct) service of which the NHS are partners. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response It is wrong of you to suggest the Chemist and Druggist, a very respected source in British healthcare, does not have systems in place to prevent poor reporting and faulty journalism. Being published on this site is a sign that an article has been thoroughly researched and considered.

The original article by Business Weekly appears to be the original, as the other sources you posted are apparently shorter and probably taken from the source material of Business Weekly, Again, there is nothing that clearly shows it as a “press release” type of publication. Also, not sure why you are even mentioning the company blog post, as a self-publication is clearly irrelevant to notability.

The NHS is the government-organized health service in the United Kingdom. The NHS is simply not a business, thus it would have no interest in promoting any sort of company for economic motivations. Furthermore, the POD is not working in partnership with the NHS, rather the POD is a service offered by the NHS, for which Healthera is used as a tool of operations. Therefore, the blog was not promoting the product, but rather an innovation in operating healthcare, i.e. the POD system, with Healthera simply being one of the tools they would be deploying.Sliu.3110 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Response Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say or suggest that Chemist and Druggist does not have systems in place to prevent poor reporting and faulty journalism. I note you didn't respond to my point about the article lacking any original and independent investigation or fact checking about the company. I also note you didn't respond to the point that the article has no in-depth reporting on the company. These are required for references that may be used to establish notability as per the guidelines. Your point about the Business Weekly being the "original" and therefore all the other articles being copied from that source is a real stretch and just sounds desperate. Not only is it tantamount to saying that all of those other publications are not reliable sources because they rip off other publications without crediting the original but the fact is, it appears this article was published at 08:28, a good 44 minutes before the Business Weekly article. Finally, your point about the NHS and the POD system doesn't take away from the fact that it shows they are not neutral third parties but are client/customers/partners in delivering a service which the blog post was promoting. If you can locate any other references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability, please post them here and we will provide our comments and perhaps change our mind but until that happens, the references to date fail the criteria and the topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:17, 1 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Ahmed Al-Ansari

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

Article primarily written by an account associated with the individual. The article draws heavily from primary sources and uses secondary sources that only briefly mention the subject. Article fails to satisfy WP:GNG—working at a law firm, writing an article, and running workshops at a college are not enough to merit an article. Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖ 05:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article claims the subject was a former national football player. There is a Goalkeeper called Salman Ahmed Al-Ansari who played for Qatar but his Date of Birth is 13 June 1983 and not 1 January 1981 as mentioned in the article .As per this and This he passes WP:NFOOTY if it refers to the Goalkeeper.I went through his profile on his company website but it does not mention he played for Qatar as per this.Hence not sure if it refers to the Goalkeeper or is erroneously mentioned.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have raised the question about this person on WT:FOOTY a few months ago (here) but sadly didn't have time to follow up. Basically, it looks like it was an article about a football player who passes on WP:NFOOTY grounds that was baldly rewritten about a lawyer person with the same name. This needs to be undone. --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes subject specific guidelines WP:FOOTBALL. Source added. Clearly about the Qatari international footballer but re-written by a close source to make it more about the lawyering. Added ref to show 2002/2003 international appearances. Needs a good copy edit, which I started but don't have time to complete. Not sure how much of his lawyering is notable but cursory search did show he is -or was- president of the Qatar Professional Players Association and is on some committee or other to do with the World Cup bid. ClubOranje^T 12:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From reading the diff and the name of the account that added this, and applying some simple arithmetic, it seems that the more likely explanation is that this is the same person, who came to Wikipedia to update an article about xyrself to explain that xe is a lawyer now and correct xyr own date of birth, and here is a load of autobiography from the site of xyr law firm to prove it. It has, after all, been some 13 years since the football career.
According to the potted blurb in the byline for سلمان أحمد الأنصاري in Al-Jazeera, this person is President of the Qatari Players' Association, Vice President of the Qatar Foundation for Sports Arbitration and member of the FIFA Appeal Committee. The QFSA post may well be the case. It's worth checking out that maybe this person does have the career claimed after playing football in xyr early 20s.
You thought to look in Arabic, right?
Uncle G (talk) 12:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CLubOranje. Giant Snowman 13:03, 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 keep. ST47 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Twisted (software)

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

A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals. Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability. Please see the plain-language summary of our notability guidelines. Clnreee (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Clnreee (talk) 05:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NSOFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems a notable article to me, with more than 3.3K stars in github.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianQuilo (talk • contribs)
Keep Although I've never used it personally, as a developer who sometimes writes Python code professionally, I've heard of this, and I think most Python developers have heard of it too. And, entire books have been written about it, see:

Mark Williams; Cory Benfield; Brian Warner; Moshe Zadka; Dustin Mitchell; Kevin Samuel; Pierre Tardy (7 December 2018). Expert Twisted: Event-Driven and Asynchronous Programming with Python. Apress. ISBN 978-1-4842-3742-7.
Abe Fettig; Glyph Lefkowitz (20 October 2005). Twisted Network Programming Essentials. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". ISBN 978-0-596-10032-2.

The second book is not entirely independent, since the original developer of Twisted is one of its coauthors. Still, O'Reilly is a respected publisher in the field, and even if not entirely independent, having a book on the topic published by O'Reilly is a definite sign of notability. Also, see these books which discuss it extensively:

Alex Martelli (14 July 2006). Python in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference. "O'Reilly Media, Inc.". p. 540. ISBN 978-1-4493-7910-0.
John Goerzen; Brandon Rhodes (21 December 2010). Foundations of Python Network Programming: The comprehensive guide to building network applications with Python. Apress. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4302-3003-8.
Sai Yamanoor; Srihari Yamanoor (26 February 2015). Raspberry Pi Mechatronics Projects HOTSHOT. Packt Publishing Ltd. p. 173. ISBN 978-1-84969-623-4.
Mark Vasilkov (29 January 2015). Kivy Blueprints. Packt Publishing Ltd. pp. 92–. ISBN 978-1-78398-785-6.

@Clnreee: I know you say you did WP:BEFORE, but did you not find any of the above in Google Books? I found these just by searching for "twisted" and "python" as search terms. (And, a Google Scholar search for the same search terms finds several papers mentioning Twisted, although I haven't looked in detail to see if those are extensive coverage or passing mentions, but at least a few of the hits appear to be the former rather than the later.) I can also point to extensive coverage by LWN.net:

Edge, Jake (2 June 2016). "Twisted and Python 3". LWN.net. Retrieved 2019-06-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)
Edge, Jake (22 June 2016). "Twisted in an asyncio world". LWN.net. Retrieved 2019-06-20. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url= (help)

SJK (talk) 13:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SJK. I agree with SJK that the O'Reilly book contributes toward notability; they are a high quality, selective publisher with independent technical reviewers, leading to a substantial reliable source that provides evidence of the impact the software has made on the field that few third-party libraries attain. In addition to the LWN coverage, there have been articles in reliable sources, such as the Linux Journal:
- Kinder, Ken. "Event-Driven Programming with Twisted and Python | Linux Journal". www.linuxjournal.com. Linux Journal.

All the above evidence shows the topic is notable per WP:GNG. The article itself does not have any insurmountable problems. Hence, keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Residential Managing Agents

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

No sources. Stub created nine years ago, doesn't seem to be notable. Hydromania (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Hydromania (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NORG. I did a quick check in Books and Scholar and I don't see any in-depth coverage, just few mentions in passing. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:40, 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. ST47 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uptowncharlybrown

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

Does not meet notability criteria at WP:NHORSERACING. The horse's noted win was in the Pasco Stakes, which is not a Grade I stakes race, and no indication of meeting other listed criteria. General coverage of the horse does not appear to be significant for WP:GNG.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Horse racing-related deletion discussions. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the ESPN article in the article is significant coverage and the press coverage is sufficient for WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:NHORSERACING fail. The press coverage is not sufficient for WP:GNG in my opinion, because the coverage is largely in the context of the Belmont Stakes and appears routine and not anything more than the average Belmont contender. I would point to WP:NOTWHOSWHO here. Aspening (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article for two reason. First, it's not notable itself and second, the article weak sources and coverage categorized it under WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 12:18, 24 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 Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drey Jameson

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

College baseball player at a minor college, so his stats, even if they are impressive, may not be indication of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks WP:TOOSOON. Can be covered via inclusion at Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players if and when warranted by minor league accomplishments. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge First round notable draft pick. Can be redirected to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players when he signs which will be soon. Malmmf (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Not enough yet in terms of coverage to merit an independent article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Leaving a redirect will help anyone looking for his article.----Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Spanneraol (talk) 03:10, 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 merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Randykitty (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Walston

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

Possibly notable for a high school baseball player, but the statements about college or professional baseball have no indication of notability. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks WP:TOOSOON. Can be covered via inclusion at Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players if and when warranted by minor league accomplishments. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This one is a bit early to be included here.. i wish you would stop posting all these articles when they can be merged. If he signs with the Diamondbacks he should be merged to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players and if he doesn't sign he should be redirected to List of Arizona Diamondbacks first-round draft picks. The results should be known soon. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only noticed them because their birthdates were added to the appropriate year article, which I have on watch. If headers on these articles were added so that people wouldn't do that, I would appreciate it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per non-trivial coverage. MLB First round draft pick with multi-million dollar contract passes GNG. User:Lightburst 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft delete as it's clearly too soon. Refund in the future when there is a career to speak of. Trillfendi (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Malmmf (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - MLB First round draft pick. Unless you're saying the way the diamondbacks play they're not notable anymore either I guess :) . Cheerio042 (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC) Striking blocked sock Britishfinance (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"First round draft pick" is not sufficient for notability. Never has, never will. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon, play in the major league first. Reywas92^Talk 21:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge definitely no delete, merge as per usual with first round picks that are not yet notable.-- Yankees10 21:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge doesn't need to be deleted as he has plenty of WP:RS. He has more notability than most baseball players similar to him. Ayepaolo (talk) 17:43, 10 July 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 Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Those advocating for keeping the article haven't made their argument effectively. Merge content selectively, as needed to the target page. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Carroll

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

Only one statement in the article which might be notable, his .540 batting average in high school. The article doesn't even say he signed with MLB, only that he was drafted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks WP:TOOSOON. Can be covered via inclusion at Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players if and when warranted by minor league accomplishments. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. First round picks are notable and he should have an article. Malmmf (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a bit early to be included here.. i wish you would stop posting all these articles when they can be merged. ~~If he signs with the Diamondbacks he should be~~ merged to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players ~~and if he doesn't sign he should be redirected to List of Arizona Diamondbacks first-round draft picks. The results should be known soon.~~ Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC) He signed today so should be merged. Spanneraol (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only noticed them because their birthdates were added to the appropriate year article, which I have on watch. If headers on these articles were added so that people wouldn't do that, I would appreciate it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable player. He passes WP:GNG for being a MLB first round draft pick and for receiving a multi-million dollar contract. Also has notable achievements as a HS player. The sourcing is there to improve this rather stubby article. An editor needs to put the references in correct format and develop the articleTonereport (☎)(My Work) 00:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a 1st round pick and signing doesnt pass GNG.. baseball draft picks often flame out without making the majors. Spanneraol (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge He doesn't meet any criteria of WP:NBASEBALL and his coverage is exactly what you'd expect for a player drafted by Arizona and playing in the Arizona Rookie League. Fails to meet WP:GNG but redirects are cheap. WP:TOOSOON to claim he merits an individual article at this time. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 6 July 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 Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Sandstein 16:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brennan Malone

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

Minor baseball player, no statement in the article which would be notable, even if accurately sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks WP:TOOSOON. Can be covered via inclusion at Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players if and when warranted by minor league accomplishments. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - might be WP:TOOSOON, but currently doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBASEBALL.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players.. as the team's first round pick he should be included somewhere as people will be searching for him. This is the best place to put him for now as he doesn't have enough for his own article. Spanneraol (talk) 12:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Not enough yet in terms of coverage to merit an independent article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spanneraol.-- Yankees10 22:43, 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 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Article looks like the best option. I watched the Article and have also rod the other user comment. I think the Article could merge with Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players as other user said.Forest90 (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes GNG based on non-trivial coverage (ESPN, Charlotte Observer etc.) Subject is notable per WP:NEXIST. Subject does not have to pass WP:NBASEBALL and WP:GNG. Only one or the other:

Major League Baseball first round draft pick
Multi-million dollar contract
Non-trivial secondary references Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 14:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added references, and will continue. Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 14:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a first round draft pick and signing a contract are not relevant in this discussion.. baseball draft picks dont get the wide coverage that football and basketball ones do and sourcing looks pretty much routine to me. Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG based on significant non-trivial coverage. No pretended compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Spanneraol. Malmmf (talk) 24:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree this article passes WP:GNG. Dream Focus 13:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Nominator statement) Merge. Still fails WP:GNG. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I don't see anything that shows he meets any WP notability criteria. Coverage is typical sports reporting, but a merge seems reasonable to me. Papaursa (talk) 23:49, 26 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 Finders Keepers (American game show). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Conklin

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

WP:N, no sources listed. The entirety of the article is two lines of his career. Patsfan1112 (talk) 19:21, 31 May 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's gone nearly a decade without anything being added or sourced. I would consider a redirect to Finders Keepers but the page doesn't mention him barely at all. An outside search gives little to nothing in terms of significant coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 22:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finders Keepers (American game show) where the subject is mentioned. 1,635 page views in the last month is enough to suggest some people are looking for info on him. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:42, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HK Plutorious

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

Originally I was going to do a BLP prod-but since Youtube is listed as a inline citation despite the fact that isn't a ref (who knows what could happen to those-they can be removed or whatever), so I am just oing here-unotable artist, it claims on the infobox he started in 2002 (when he was 10), but there is no indication the artist was around then. For now it looks like actually a too soon and not notable. Wgolf (talk) 02:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:48, 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 redirect to Rustan's. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shopwise

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

Proposing a deletion and then redirect as my first attempt was contested. Shopwise is not independently notable and should be redirected to it's parent company. Praxidicae (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to parent article. primary sources do not advance WP:notability. There is no need to branch out a title using primary sources just to have a separate title. Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rustan's. The brand seems to be not notable enough to stand on its own. The article also looks like it violates WP:DIRECTORY --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. (And yes, by all means a redirect can then be created.) The article has no independent sources at all, nor is there any evidence anywhere that this brand is notable independently of its parent company. There is no point in merging, as the bare facts of the brand's existence, its launch date, etc are already in the article about the parent company, and other than that the Shopwise article consists almost entirely of a table listing all it branches, which is excessive listing and not needed. (As Lenticel rightly said above, a violation of WP:DIRECTORY.) JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be the sensible solution. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:34, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thoudang

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

No evidence of any notability. One source is simply a gallery post and the other is a 404 error. Searches reveal nothing of note. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A photo array showing people attending a cinema is far from sufficient to support an article and my searches are not finding any reliable sources to support the article text and demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, however, support the text that the citation is cross-linked to. There is text beneath the photographs. Uncle G (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, at the moment, article doesn't show meeting of WP:NFILM, ie. needs 2 full length reviews, or shown at a festival at least 5 years after release not 2, so more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing over Imphal Free Press or The Sangai Express. Can anybody check The People's Chronicle? ∯WBG^converse 14:26, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asenso Manileño

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

See prior discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 May 19#Asenso Manileño. This is a procedural nomination following the RfD discussion that resulted in this article's restoration. feminist (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging JalenFolf and Onel5969, who previously redirected the article. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad-Ali Abdollahi

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Note subject is an associate Professor as a far I can see not a Professor.H-index is too low. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably it's the language barrier but we have no evidence of notability nor basis for even writing anything about him. Without evidence, the default must be to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An article about a university professor who authored some books, but no evidence of notability.Charmk (talk) 03:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability (WP:PROF or WP:GNG). --Tataral (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete No evidence of meeting the GNG or WP:NPROF. Search of Google Scholar fails to find support for a claim of notability.Sandals1 (talk) 16:24, 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 keep. ST47 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hu Xingdou

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

No real showing of notability. The two links given in the article are now both dead links. And article was written by a now banned user (Arilang1234 (talk · contribs)). Unless notability shown, delete. --Nlu (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Chinese article, while not without problems of its own, suggests notability ( cf. [11]). He's also quoted in western media, from the BBC to the New York Post. I am not sure whether this adds up to WP notability, but he appears to be a well-known academic and opinion-maker in China. 188.216.192.206 (talk) 06:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he does seem to have a bit of coverage in Western media, such as this article on The Irish Times about him winning a lawsuit against a Chinese internet company which tried to censor his website. Seems to be borderline notable, but this could go either way. -Zanhe (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:42, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do see there are plenty reliable sources quoting him. Viztor (talk) 05:02, 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 delete. The "keep" side does not actually name and discuss the reliability of the sources that supposedly confer notability. Viztor, who is not an admin, should not have relisted this discussion. Please do not manage AfD discussions until you have considerably more experience. Sandstein 07:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naum Koen

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

The personal coverage here consists of one puff interview [12] one promo item taken straight from Facebook [13], and one promo piece that is positively cloying in its obsequiousness [14]. Everything else is passing mentions or, more frequently, no personal mention at all, within coverage of the company (and three of these are in-house press releases press releases). I don't see WP:NBIO fulfilled here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Shemtovca has unearthed several more sources that do shore up notability somewhat. Still rather on the promo-interview and/or passing mention side for my taste, but IMO a better case could be made now. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I accepted this draft submission because i found that it does rise to the level of notability and WP:NBIO. The second source you mentioned [15] is from an online publication that is a valid source for Ukrainian news. Here is an article covering his visit to Azerbaijan in the local news media. Here is an article in Arabic news. There is many more i found in my Google news search. The many articles that talk about the his company almost in every case mention him personally because the company is how he conducts his business. Shemtovca (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The correct link for the Arabic new : [16] published by Arabian_BusinessCharmk (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also as per WP:BEFORE C2 & C3 its preferable to add a {{notability}} tag for example instead of starting an AFD, specially in a case of an article that was recently created. Shemtovca (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're a few articles on the subject but its just not enough for WP:SIGCOV. Defintely WP:TOOSOON . Lapablo (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it easily passes GNG. Some of the refs are articles or interviews dealing specifically with this person. Promotional tone and grammar issues do need to be addressed. Hydromania (talk) 05:31, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but rewrite relying less heavily on promo sources): taking Shemtovca's characterization of the added sources in good faith, meets GNG. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 02:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither he nor his business is really notable, at least based on the current sources, and the article was and is still quite promotional. ("multiple companies in different industries") with some rather absurd name dropping, such a meeting a distinguished person after a conference., The interviews are totally unusable for notability as they are the sort that allow the interviewee to say whatever they please--you do not need to read Russian to tell that's the case with https://natali.ua/life-style/67757/ and http://dengi.ua/business/307134-Luchshe-ne-budet-nigde--chem-v-rodnoj-strane---no-snachala-LUChShE-nado-sdelat--absoljutno-vse (deliberately not linked) . The identical titles of some of the other references show their origins as press releases.

As for the added sources, the Arabic publication mentioned above says on its face,in English, that it's a press release. The second source, mentioned above [4], may be from a reputable publication, but the article itself is a press release; "" [4] "The NY Koen Group holding, under the leadership of the founder and the world-famous Ukrainian businessman NY Koen Group, ... seeks to introduce all the latest and most progressive management methods, combining them with the classical management fundamentals that ensure stability and reliable investment. ...

Thanks to the success of its subsidiaries, NY Koen Group has a well-deserved recognition and trust of customers and partners...One of the partners of the NY Group -... - is the Indian holding company Sobha Group, ... and is known for its grandiose projects and impeccable quality of work. the whole world. Sobha Group offers consumers excellent results on time, which exceeds all expectations. The best specialists are involved in the implementation of projects, in the process of construction strict engineering control is carried out, great attention is paid to environmental protection, water resources and the highest safety." I apologize for the length of the quote. We shouldn't need to take the content of non-English references on faith. DGG ( talk ) 21:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

response to points raised by User:DGG:

I totally agree that the page is promotional in tone, and some parts require rewriting. However the tone of the article is not the reason for the AFD, WP:GNG is, and the WP:GNG is clearly met, the WP:GNG states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. - multiple sources meet this criteria.
According to Wikipedia:Interviews#Notability - "An independent interviewer represents the "world at large" giving attention to the subject, and as such, interviews as a whole contribute to the basic concept of notability." - so unless you are questioning the integrity and independence of all these reporters. Having all these interviews does add to notability.
totally Agree regarding Kutchma, and have deleted it.
I am not sure what you mean by (deliberately not linked). Some citations were added by the original contributor, others were added by me after this AFD was opened as mentioned above, but i just double checked, and this interview is cited! So i have no idea what is your issue here.
You are claiming that the: The second source, mentioned above [4], may be from a reputable publication, but the article itself is a press release - you decided that it's a press release how? if it's a reputable publication wouldn't they disclose that this is a press release? Is the reason because this article can be found also on other websites? Most of their articles are cross-syndicated to other sites.

- Shemtovca (talk) 00:33, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most generally, the combination of borderline or even weak notability with clear promotionalism , is an excellent reason for deletion at AfD, and each year, thousands of articles are so deleted. If there's something clearly notable, and not too outrageously promotional, it's worth rewriting or draftifying; if it's hopelessly non-notable, or really outrageously promotional, it's appropriate for speedy. If there's something borderline on both, it's not worth the work it would take tomake it acceptable. AfD, which can delete on any good reason that has consensus, is the place to make those judgments.

Having all those interviews, means he has an effective press agent. Having real interviews with reporters who don't simply reprint what he says, that is what leads to notability. An interview clearly arranged by the pressagent and used by the subject for publicity, is not an independent interview, no matter what news source is misguided enough to publish it. The way to tell if is a PR-pseudo-interview, is to look at the contents, and we are qualified to judge that. The way I tell is to look at the very short questions, which are lead-ins, followed by the the very extensive answers--and then if it is a language I can read or get a decent translation for, I look at what is said in the answers. And yes, I do indeed question the judgement of any reporter would would lend his name to such stuff. The amount of pseudo-journalism in the world is enormous, and some subject areas are especially notorious for it. We can't raise their standards, at least not directly, but we can keep it off WP. It is not possible to write decent articles, when all the sources are unreliable.

by "deliberately not linked", I mean I consider those sources of so abysmally low quality that I do not want to put the links into WP. I just put them in in plaintext so people would know what I am referring to. I see they got linked anyway. Next time, I'll know to use an unlinkable format. DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having all those interviews, means he has an effective press agent. Having real interviews with reporters who don't simply reprint what he says, that can lead to notability

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:BASIC The coverage of the subject is all trivial. The majority of the references are really brief PR interviews or press releases for a business project. Where is the 10000 word article on him? Notability requires in-depth coverage. In many, his name is mentioned in passing. Not a single referenced article possesses depth. Many trivial mentions do not constitute notability. They are all basically… 'This is what the project is.' WP:WHYN This is reflected by the lack of depth in this article, which is essentially, 'He runs the company that has these lines of business and is working on this project.' That isn't a biography. ogenstein (talk) 05:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I’m just not seeing where the notability is. Trillfendi (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add: Since this conversation has been going on for three weeks just wanted to update that few more links have been added and the article has been streamlined and duplicate info has been merged. Shemtovca (talk) 20:59, 7 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) 08:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable and promotional. One of the first things I look at with a supposed biography, particularly a WP:BLP, is if the article is about the person. In many cases the article is presented as a pseudo biography with more on the company. If the company is notable that should be the article. Sometimes it seems it is all about money. When money is involved we naturally get PR reps and PR companies that get paid to do their job. If a person is a billionaire there will be a list (a lot of the times by Forbes) and that seems to be an indication some think we "must" have an article. We have categories for the lists of billionaires in various countries. Lists that don't have blue links will be red linked for a future article. See: List of Southeast Asian people by net worth, List of Germans by net worth, and others. Many times the lists themselves are not notable being sourced by just Forbes like List of Indonesians by net worth. Some are worse (Theo Müller) than others but when the sources are promotional that is what we end up with. A problem with Interviews is that they are RARELY actually neutral and are most of the times biased and leans towards promotion. This leads to less consideration of reliability in general and almost always in particular is proven as fact that they are less reliable. There seems to be a continued misunderstanding about sources. A source can be excellent for article content but not advance notability. Our guidelines separate the two but many times we seem to fail to grasp this. A company source with just the name of an individual, owner, or CEO, is not about that person and may have just passing mention on the individual. Being ultra rich is not a good single criterion for having an article from an encyclopedic point of view but from a monetary, self-worth, or pinnacle of stature point of view, it makes sense. If I had 3 BILLION dollars (estimated 2,153 billionaires in the world) I would probably want a Wikipedia article also. I would likely have a PR team that would work to make this happen even if I didn't toss 50 grand or more at one in attempts to make sure it happens. The point is that the person may not actually be as notable as the multi-billion dollar companies they run so why not start with the company? In this case look at what sources are available. Without considering the reliability or specific criteria on advancing notability, the sources are mainly about the company or companies over the individual. Otr500 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otr500 and others. While the sourcing has improved since the original nomination, the fact remains that most of the coverage doesn't meet RS. (In that it is mainly reprints of interviews/press-releases/etc, and hence represent questionable/promotional sources. And also seems to be about the subject's company, rather than about the subject directly.) While an argument could be made that contributors to this EN project might be better swayed by RS coverage in English, it would seem reasonable that, if the subject is well-known to UK and RU speakers, then perhaps we'd (organically) have expected to see an article about the subject on the UK and RU WP projects first. Which brings me to my final point. Namely that the PAID/PROMO overtones here are concerning. And while the more glaring promo issues are largely addressed, the promotional undertones remain. (And, frankly, if they are removed, I'm not sure what is left.) In short, delete as NN (with a side order or NOTPROMO). Guliolopez (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

response to points raised by Otr500 & Guliolopez

Regarding the interviews: the point has been addressed above. Plus multiple reliable, independent non-interview sources have been added. So at this point i believe there is enough non questionable/promotional sources thats would pass WP:RS
Regarding starting with a company page first: i wasn't the one who started this page so i can't answer for someone else's intent and priorities. But IMHO when a company is a private corporation, that belongs to a single individual and almost every article about the company mentioned the owner and in many instances talks as much about him as about the company, in such a case i believe the corporation is just a trade-name under which the individual does his business activities, and the individual is more notable than the company.
Regarding why there is no article in Russian / Ukrainian Wikipedia: While i speak fluently in Russian, i never did any major work in the Russian Wikipedia project space so i can't answer why it doesn't exist there but one thing to note is that English WP has close to 6 million articles, Russian WP has 1.5 million and Ukrainian has less than 1 million articles. So i am not surprised it doesn't exist there, since over the years i have found many articles regarding Russia / Ukraine will either not a have a Russian equivalent or it's going to be of much lower quality.
As you and others have acknowledged majority of the promotional content has been removed, and the article sourcing has improved. In which case i am not sure what you are suggesting with your last comment that "the promotional undertones remain. (And, frankly, if they are removed, I'm not sure what is left.)". If this type of logic would be applied we basically be saying that unless a successful individual has done something bad like committing some sort of major crime we shouldn't create a WP page for them since even though their success and philanthropy is covered the article looks too positive and has "promotional undertones".

Shemtovca (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The first reference is an interview and the title translates to Naum Cohen. I dreamed of becoming a big man. When I read about the "NY Group Trade Center Kyiv" I would prefer it be from an independent source where it might be expected to see a pro and con aspect. There WILL BE NOTHING from the subject giving any negative sides. The second references titled "Dubai opens its heart to you" (translated) starts out "NY Group, under the leadership of the founder and world-famous Ukrainian businessman Koen Naum Yakubovich..." and the title and wording doesn't appear to me to have any chance at being neutral. The third reference also translated is titled "We want everything that we do to go beyond the ordinary and never cease to amaze" and is also an interview and is obviously not neutral. The fourth reference is also an interview titled "It will not be better anywhere else than in your own country, but first you have to do absolutely everything BETTER" (also translated), and again one need only read the interview to see an obvious lack of neutrality. The fifth reference title translates as "Jewelry House Jeni Coin makes your dreams come true". This reference is advertising and can be reflected by the end of the article, "And the most important thing is that for her every client is already a star, which with Jeni Coin can shine brighter!". Several references are press releases and those are not reliable as they are almost always initiated by the company or a PR team. I didn't comment of the amber mosque reference because references can be acceptable for content but not advance notability. What I see is still a lack of notability as provided by sources. Otr500 (talk) 22:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also reply.

The suggestion that I am arguing that "successful philanthropists are only notable if they are also criminals" is one of the most glorious strawman that I have ever seen :) Normally I just quietly salute strawmen from the roadside. And move along. Without engaging them. But this example is so glorious that I have to acknowledge it :) Hurrah and three cheers to the most fantastic strawman I have seen in many a winter - Hurrah!

Massive dose of sarcasm aside, I am (OBVIOUSLY) not arguing that "unless a successful individual has committed a major crime we shouldn't create a WP page for them". No reasonable person would. Despite how my contributions seem to have been characterised. That being said, if I take this strawman down from his pole, and knock him about a bit, he also seems to suggest something about notability also potentially deriving from "success and philanthropy". Which, of course, it can. But, in the case of philanthropy for example, we might expect to see some sort of recognition or significant coverage of that philanthropy. Like an award maybe. Internationally the Balzan and Nobel prizes spring to mind. Even nationally, Ukraine has at least three orders of merit that recognise citizens for humanitarian and charity work. Has our subject received any of those? Not that I can see. Has our subject's philanthropy received a lot of coverage? Not that I can see. (A handful of quasi-promotional articles all covering the same recent charitable act would seem to confirm the subject's philanthropy, but do not confirm the subject's notability.)

Anyway, I'm sticking this glorious strawman back on his pole. He's too fantastic not to let others enjoy him too. ("You are basically saying that a successful individual must have done something bad in order to warrant a WP page". That's just brilliant. Best ever!) Thanks for the LOLs :) Guliolopez (talk) 00:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Otr500: Alternative sources for Trade Center Kyiv News:

https://retailers.ua/news/partneryi/8777-v-smi-poyavilas-informatsiya-o-nachale-stroitelstva-pod-kievom-torgovo-vyistovochnogo-tsentra-ne-stroitsya---developer-razrabatyivaet-proekt (this one actually mentioned two negative things 1) the construction didn't start yet 2) The financing is not finalized yet.)
https://znaj.ua/capital/177834-pid-kiyevom-pobuduyut-odin-z-naybilshih-trc-v-yevropi-de-i-koli (the source discusses other unrelated projects and does mention some of them in negative light as well so clearly not a press release)

https://kp.ua/life/639506-ukrayntsam-besplatno-predostaviat-100-tysiach-vaktsyn-ot-kory for example clearly shows notability

Reply to Guliolopez: I am happy you find it funny and amusing, but some time the best way to prove a point is to take it to extreme AKA Reductio ad absurdum.

Regarding your point of where is his award?: Ukraine is now in a situation of Civil War and a war with one of the super powers (Russia). Ukraine has one of the most corrupt systems in the world built up and reinforced over the last 28 years. Under the previous president (the new one just got elected and is trying to win a parliamentary support now in upcoming parliamentary elections) only Anti-Russia pro war actions could have merited someone an award or recognition of some sort. Naum's donation embarrasses the political establishment incapable to deliver basic medical needs, hence awards are out of question. Shemtovca (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that if there isn't 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject' then wikipedia doesn't treat a subject as notable (WP:GNG). WP isn't an advocacy site (WP:ADVOCACY) especially for the purpose of promoting a person and his business. WP should not engage in original research (WP:NOR). This page is a mess in that there is no independent coverage and there's confusion over the person versus the company (WP:ORGIND). This whole discussion of them being one and the same is just attempting to confuse the situation further. Some of the 'supporting' documents are essentially press releases for the company (WP:NOTADVERTISING). All of these interviews are primary sources which do not display subject notability (WP:BASIC). The complete absence of any neutral perspective means that all that remains is the fawning descriptions from these 'interviews' (WP:SPIP). It is just a soapbox for the subject (WP:SOAPBOX). WP:WPBIO requires that for a biography, the subject must have 'received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.' None of that exists today and no amount of tweaking will change that. Unfortunately, there are numerous reasons that the subject should not have a standalone page. ogenstein (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:WHYN "We require the existence of at least one secondary source so that the article can comply with Wikipedia:No original research's requirement that all articles be based on secondary sources." While you might disagree regarding some of the older articles kp.ua article definitely WP:SECONDARY, not an interview or a press release so no WP:NOR is required.
WP:ADVOCACY is defined as "Advocacy is the use of Wikipedia to promote personal beliefs or agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view." Are you saying that the reason i support this article is because we are both from Ukraine? If not i fail to see how WP:ADVOCACY applies here.
Another WP:SECONDARY source that you have ignored is retailers.ua (it actually mentioned two negative things 1) the construction didn't start yet 2) The financing is not finalized yet.)
Including these above mentioned sources also negates WP:SPIP & WP:ORGIND
Also please note i have found older news coverage about him keeping a lion at his home near Kiev and added it under a new section.

Shemtovca (talk) 04:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I misinterpreted your comments at 01:20, then my apologies.

I looked at the KP article and it has the same issues. While it is true that the paper did not interview him directly, it instead spoke with his partners who laud him for his qualities, and then what may as well be a press release follows. This is not significant coverage, it is not independent, it is not a secondary source; guidelines are clear on this. The Retailers piece looks independent but most of the article consists of material given to the press or primary reporting but regardless of that, the article is about the project, not the subject. It is also routine business news — essentially anything that is along the lines of, 'financing completed' or 'workers broke ground'. And if an article can be described as 'mentions' then it doesn't contribute to notability.

After reviewing the additional material that you have found, I still do not see that any of WHYN, SPIP, or ORGIND have been addressed.
I think this gets confused a lot but: "A WP:SECONDARY source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." As long as the interviews with the subject follow the existing model, there is nothing for a secondary source to analyse or evaluate — hence there is an absence of significant secondary coverage. I should add that these sources have issues with WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER as well. ogenstein (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason i brought up the conflict in Ukraine was to paint the context of why expecting an award for offering measles vaccine to a country in Europe with highest measles incidents count is not a reasonable expectation in the current political climate.
Regarding judging if KP is a secondary / independent source you are saying that "guidelines are clear on this". WP:SECONDARY states "They rely on primary sources for their material". That is definition of secondary sources. Also the article clearly "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources."
Regarding the Retailers article: The primary sources are not trusted because they are not verified if a secondary source reprints them, without preface that this info wasn't verified we can trust them at this point. Furthermore the fact that they fact-checked the news as reported by other sources that the construction has begun, and reported otherwise, shows that they do the research required for reporting. And the story differently doesn't just "mention" the subject and his business. Shemtovca (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Then I misinterpreted your earlier comment and was mistaken in bringing up advocacy. Separately, I quoted 'mentions' because you described some of the sources this way and such a reference is by definition, trivial.

The KP article is simply printing the information provided by the partners of the subject and is promotional. It offers none of the requirements of SECONDARY and fails NOTNEWSPAPER. This applies to the majority of these sources but to clarify: Primary sources cannot demonstrate notability.
Whether construction has begun or not is routine business news and would not be indicative of a company's notability and is especially irrelevant when it comes to a BLP. It also fails NOTNEWSPAPER.
Despite considerable effort on your part to seek out a wide range of sources, the meaningful part of the biography could be written with a single sentence. There has not been 'analysis, evaluation, etc…' and this is clear from what can be written about the subject. Without good secondary sources it is not possible to write a full biography nor a balanced one, and that is really what the policies and guidelines try to provide for. ogenstein (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What this article need is a notice for more reliable citations as the person is notable by the Wikipedia notability guidelines but in my opinion the selection of references is not good and the text of the article must be improved(instead of deletion).I propose to improve the article by leaving a few notices on top of it. I found more relevant information regarding the businessman on the Internet and his company as it is quite active in the post Soviet Union area. The mere fact that most of the links are in Russian don't make the person less notable.I'll be looking for more reliable sources to demonstrate it. RossK 19:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nike (rocket stage). Consensus is to merge, however, there isn't sufficient content in this two sentence article about a specific rocket configuration to merge anywhere, so I'm going to save the extra step of speedying this later by simply deleting it now. @Tyw7:, I see that there were a number of other AfDs related to some of the articles that are presently listed on Template:Nike_rockets, which were closed as Merge but which haven't been merged yet. Once the merger is complete, please replace the old articles with redirects to Nike (rocket stage). Also, if there's anything else that you want to have merged there, but which hasn't been through AfD, I think you're safe to WP:BOLDly perform the merge yourself, if you don't anticipate anyone opposing the merge. ST47 (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nike T40 T55

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

~~Rocket does not have third party source and thus fails WP:GNG.~~Suggest to merge all Nike rockets to a single article as there is not enough source to sustain individual articles for all of them. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 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) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: There is a severe lack of notability here. Most of these "similar" articles use one source, the Encyclopedia Astronautica. Some confusion is that most of these "rockets" have been named but this one appears to be two individual rocket stages. We don't need individual dictionary entries on every type rocket that has been launched as that would seem to be a large number. There are around 4,987 satellites in orbit and there is a big listing but I don't think we need an article on each or on every rocket. Otr500 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Otr500, what do you suggest doing then? There's a ton of stub articles on the Nike rocket family. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to look at them. If you care to find a suitable place, maybe a relevant article talk page, and ping me we can look at them. I ran across something similar with (I believe) jet engines that seemed to be a large indiscriminate individual listing of engines. It was in passing and I was otherwise busy so didn't look closely. Otr500 (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other like rocket stubs. Otr500 (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranald MacDonald Award

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

I haven't got access to one of the sources (the book) so I can't comment on that, but none of the other sources currently in the article give the award significant coverage. I looked for better sourcing online, but found nothing that was independent and significant. Even if the book does give the award significant coverage, this would need more sources to pass WP:GNG. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dear girth,

i obliged, when writing the lemma... four of the five winners are to be found in the english wikipedia... in two of their entries the ranald macdonald award is mentioned... so i decided after three years to publish a lemma on the award...

as for the book cited in the entry, that is simply the source of the citation...

for the rest of the references, i aimed at informing the reader about works and names, not known in the english wikipedia... which, apparently, was a mistake...

as for my new references, i copied a reference from the page about zia haider rahman, to which i did not contribute, and formulated the new ones exactly as that old one...

well, that is what i can do...

if ever the entry on the ranald macdonald award is 'off side' and will be removed, i will be the last to oppose the decision... as i already said, i obliged...

sincerely,

fred dijs

ps... i do not do hiding... when you read fred dijs, it is fred dijs...

Fred Dijs (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Dijs (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fred Dijs - in nominating this page for deletion, I did not mean to imply any bad faith on your part, I'm sure that you created this page with the best of intentions. When reviewing new pages, one of the things we consider is whether the subject has been written about in sufficient reliable sources to be considered notable enough to warrant a separate article. I have no problem with the award being mentioned on the pages of recipients who are themselves notable, but I'm just not confident that there are enough sources about the award itself for it to pass the general notability guideline. I hope that makes sense. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

dear girth,

once again, i only wrote this entry to enable users of the ENGLISH wikipedia to get an answer to the question 'ranald macdonald award?' or, in other words, to make the ENGLISH encyclopedia more coherent...

in other languages, including dutch, the question will not arise because the awarded works and/or makers do not figure in those encyclopedias...

as for the changes i made, you will notice that users are now able to verify the book citation at google books and do not have to look for mentions of the award...

i kept the references to PINC for frederik van oudenhoven and to Stockholm University for jamila haider for the user to have a 'one click' introduction to those two persons, not figuring in the english wikipedia...

i introduced the column 'Type' in the table...

this is the best i can do, so i will wait for the english wikipedia community, including you, to decide on the proposed deletion...

i appreciate, by the way, our discussion, because i am an avid user of the english wikipedia, which is in my eyes, by far, the best, and now i experience personally that its content is well protected...

sincerely,

fred dijs

Fred Dijs (talk) 10:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find WP:SIGCOV. Notable book prizes, not just the Pulitzer, but the Russell Prize or Ribalow Prize generate coverage every year when they are awarded. Feel free to ping me if someone finds coverage of thei prize, I am always willing to be persuaded by solid sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:41, 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 delete. I am not draftifying at this stage since there is no indication of any reliable sources. If anyone wants to provide any, I can undelete the article to be worked on in good faith. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kshitij Tarey

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

Fails WP:RS and Article looks like promotional and written with WP:COI as the information written is nowhere available in cited sources. Siddharth 📨 15:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 15:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Siddharth 📨 15:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Speedy Keep~~ This request is WP:UGLY. ~~The article passes WP:SINGER.~~ Masum Reza^📞 18:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question for nominator. Why did you find it promotional? Masum Reza^📞 19:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
did you find that information in google? or in those cited articles? then point them out here. the information I read is not referenced and looks like promotional I never said it's promotional. and sources aren't reliable. thats why Nominated. yes he passes Singer. and GNG. --Siddharth 📨 19:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SidPedian: I advise you to take a look at WP:AFD. The question is whether he is notable or not. We don't nominate articles for deletion for reason like that. Tag the article with maintenance tags. Masum Reza^📞 08:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much accomplishment in the musical industry. An award is mentioned in the article but no reliable source to prove its true. I recommend to dratify the article as it appears to be WP:TOOSOON. Also thanks to Winged Blades of Godric for pointing out my mistakes. Masum Reza^📞 01:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TOO SOON Each of the refs (other than the interview) is a mention of a song he released. Nothing here is a reliable source about him. No evidence of a significant career. Perhaps the creator of the article can find better refs, but if not, DELETE. P.S. Not the job of volunteers at Teahouse to improve weakly written articles. David notMD (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the article's claimed award Tarey sang only one of the ten songs on the album. David notMD (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he clearly meets WP:SINGER and also have a National Award Global Indian Music Academy Awards for best devotional album of the year on his name , since the article is listed for AfD i have been editing it and have added reference from reliable sources, thus i request you to kindly check it, and i am also editing it on WP:YESPOV. Shringhringshring (talk) 08:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shringhringshring indefinitely blocked: Promotion / advertising-only account: meatpuppetry and covert advertising[17] Should not be accepted as a reliable !voter to keep content. Alsee (talk) 08:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The 2016 GIMAA award was for the album. As I already pointed out, KT sang only one song on the album. David notMD (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: More refs added, but mostly press releases for individual songs. I still consider this WP:TOO SOON David notMD (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSINGER comfortably.
TOI can't be assumed to be RS in this domain, per multiple RSN threads and current AfD practices. See User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric/Indian_Media#Times_of_India for details. N

The Quint and Midday are republishing Press Releases. N

Radioandmusic fail WP:RS. N

Vernacular sources (APN news) are strongly discouraged to be used in these areas, much less for the evaluation of notability, at the first place. See User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric/Indian_Media#Vernacular_language_media for details. N

The reddiff interview fails to secure a notability-pass, in light of WP:INTERVIEW.

GIMA awards are one of the many backscratching awards, prevalent in this industry and not notable enough to default-propel one to encyclopedic notability. ∯WBG^converse 14:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be right about these sources but your own opinion is not enough, for example the TOI has not been ruled unreliable at RSN, in fact the opposite opinion has been reached Atlantic306 (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, singer yes, worthy of an article, not yet. TOOSOON. Usedtobecool ^TALK 18:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: disputed sources (RS, or not?) needs futher vetting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are a number of sources, but per ∯WBG the sources are abysmal. Some of them (particularly mid-day and Quint) are word-for-word identical bearing an explicit disclaimer of Reliability. Note on the GIMA award: This is an annually televised award, and for a while it was seriously tempting me towards a keep. However then I caught that it's an album award and Kshitij Tarey was only on one track. Maybe he has a rising career, but if so it's TOOSOON. Alsee (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the second relisting, I'd like to compile the current state of responses:
- Two users indefinitely blocked, both !votes should presumably disregarded for cause. One delete by nominator blocked as a sock, and one keep blocked as an advertising-only account. (Siddharth and Shringhringshring.)
- Two !votes with minimal rationale. One delete and one keep, each lacking any clear indication of how or why the article satisfies or fails to satisfy Notability guidelines. (Masum Reza and Usedtobecool.)
- Three !votes to delete, each clearly demonstrating a detailed examination of the sourcing and all reaching the same conclusion. (David notMD, WBG, and Alsee.) Alsee (talk) 05:30, 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 keep. Claims the topic meets GNG through discussion in multiple reliable sources have not been refuted, after a re-list. Discussed article tagging is a separate issue. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Night (2009 film)

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

Seems to be a fairly unknown movie, it says to have won three international awards, but all of them are just regional awards. We all know what count as the "world awards" in movies. it doesn't matter if the festival brand it as one, it just isn't. Viztor (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor I gather "fairly unknown movie" is not a reason to delete an article about a short film, or there would be virtually no articles on short films whatsoever. Your suggestion that "we all know" what is and isn't a "world award" leaves me somewhat confused, and I suspect I won't be alone. I'm curious as to know how you define "world awards" and why only that and "fairly unknown" are your criteria for notability/deletion. Whether or not any film won an award or not is not a reason to delete any film's article. Notability for a film is that it played at film festivals, and this one played at, among others, Gimli and the Montreal World Film Festival (definitely a "world" FF), where it was reviewed in the Montreal Gazette, a notable publication. I'm not seeing the issue you have with the article based on your arguments as presented. Why is something coming from a "region" a disqualification? The Gimli Film Festival is the most important film festival in Manitoba, and one of the most important in Western Canada; it was a suitable venue for the director of this film, Shelagh Carter, to be awarded a Directors Guild of Canada award for one of her later features. While I could not work it into the article for lack of sources at the time I wrote it, One Night comes across as a stalking horse or dry run for her later feature Before Anything You Say. Leaving that to one side, the film is also notable for its origins (i.e., Carter's project was selected by the national body and funded at a level which in and of itself is probably half or a quarter that of a typical Canadian feature film, never mind a short) and, perhaps, for the connections Carter made at the Director's Lab (her regular cinemtographer and the film lead, with whom she planned a feature that came out only late last year, Into Invisible Light). (Edited multiple times) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you invited the other editors who have worked on the article to participate in this debate? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just realized that the first award in the list is from the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival. I think this debate is over.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is just impossible to find the film. And the problem is there are way too many awards in the industry, we're not IMDB and we're not going to write an article on every single one of them when there is just too little to write about. Viztor (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not arguing for writing about "every single one when there is just too little to write about", but you have not explained how that statement applies here. Be specific: how little is too little, according to policy. The article I created was assessed independently as Start-class from the beginning, not a Stub. That means there's more there than Stub articles and those are not deleted simply for having not very much in the article. The length of the article has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Likewise, your statement that it's "impossible to find" is blatantly false and irrelevant. I don't even know what you really mean: you mean you can't find a DVD on Amazon? What? f you can't actually refute any of the arguments I've made above, and just keep repeating yourself ("not well known") you're not going to convince anyone. But we'll see if anyone else feels as strong as you do. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - won a few very minor awards. Not enough to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. On another note, I was canvassed to come to this discussion by the article's creator, ZarhanFastfire. Please be aware that "inviting" people to join a discussion is not something you should generally do.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel Per WP:NFILM "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." The director, Shelagh Carter, is a notable person and this film is very frequently cited as a significant film in her career, because, in addition to the not-insignificant award, per my description above, the project was chosen for development/funding by the CFC. NFILM goes on to say: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." We certainly would not include everything in the article in Carter's bio, particularly the quote by her cinematographer.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author left some messages on my talk page which hinted WorldFest Houston as a world class movie festival while in fact, as listed on their websites^[1], they bestowed about 894 awards this year (+16 asian regionals). There are 628 mentions of "international" on Wikipedia's List of film festivals, and that list does not include "WorldFest Houston". Viztor (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the notability test for film festivals does not hinge on whether they've already been added to List of film festivals or not. It is not a list that's been preselected for notability assessments such that a film had to be on the list before it was allowed to have an article at all — it's actually the other way around, having an article is the prerequisite for getting added to the list, but people don't always remember to add new film festival articles to the list once they've been created. So preexisting inclusion in that list is not the notability test for a film festival in and of itself — it took me all of three seconds to add it to that list so that it is in there now. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "2019 Remi Winners – Worldfest-Houston". worldfest.org. Retrieved 2019-06-10.

Comment in response to Onel. I did seek input from the small number of editors who have made contributions on the article. I am not aware that is inappropriate (as it would be if I invited a bunch of editors with whom I work cooperatively on a regular basis). In fact, I assumed it was expected as I have been "canvassed" before for similar reasons on RfCs simply for having conributed on the relevant page as someone who'd be "interested" in the subject. If that's not how it's done, I'll refrain from doing so in the future. I still don't see why that festival or its awards are the be-all and end-all of the article when there are so many articles on films that have none at all.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor. Again, you are confusing the issue by making this all about whether WorldFest is "really" a "world festival" and how many awards they give out. And just because they are omitted from that WP list does not mean anything. I could add it tomorrow, and you could remove it. It's irrelevant. I have moved a quote I had added here earlier which was better suited on that article's AfD, which I will not participate in further. It's really neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for reference improvement. Yes, this could use a few more solid sources — but short films are routinely much harder to write long, highly sourced articles about than features are, because they don't get as many full reviews from film critics. Nevertheless, short films still can and do win significant notability-supporting awards and/or get designated as artistically or culturally significant, and can still pass WP:NFILM on that basis. Nominator is misrepresenting the significance of the film festivals in play here: WorldFest Houston is a long-established real film festival, not a PR-fraud operation, and Gimli is a major stop on the Canadian film festival circuit. (It is a Canadian Screen Award qualifying festival, for starters — and if you find it curious that Winnipeg doesn't have its own general film festival on the TIFF-VIFF-MWFF-CIFF-AFF-Cinéfest prestige tier despite being a major city that very much should have such a thing, but instead restricts itself solely to special interest and genre film festivals, well, "we don't want to undermine Gimli" is the reason.)
The notability test for films also does not depend on one user's ability or inability to find them on the internet, nor does it depend on the film's preexisting "fame". In fact, precisely the point of Wikipedia having film articles at all has at least as much to do with helping people find reliably sourced information about lesser-known notable films as it does with having articles about franchise blockbusters. And note that NFILM includes a criterion that extends notability based on archiving, but does not include a criterion for "distributed on internet platforms like Vimeo or YouTube or Netflix or BitTorrent" — in other words, your ability to find it on the internet is not a notability criterion in its own right. Even completely lost films whose prints can no longer be found at all, let alone on the Internet, can still be notable.
So, granted, the podcast and IMDb sourcing isn't ideal and could stand to be replaced with better stuff if possible: but I do still count four genuinely reliable sources here, which is quite enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- BearcatCould you point me the four sources which you consider to be reliable? thanks. Viztor (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three of Canada's largest daily newspapers and Canadian Cinematographer magazine is somehow not enough? Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 1 July 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) 08:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original two arguments for nominating the article for deletion have been refuted: (1) WorldFest Houston is a real and significant festival, as is Gimli, as is Montreal World. Nominator's attempt to devalue this article by nominating WorldFest's article has failed, result was keep; (2) "fairly unknown film" was never a starter. The nominator is now unofficially introducing a third argument by asking which sources in the article are reliable -- something they should be able to do for themselves, and if they cannot, they have no business nominating articles for deletion in the first place, which is something they've also been advised by senior editors on their talk page. I believe the problem may well arise from the difference between the threshold for notability on English Wikipedia, which is the lowest of the big language Wikipedias. The editor has not yet learned that whatever was the standard on Chinese Wikipedia, it's different here.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:07, 2 July 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. ST47 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Law Group

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

unable to verify. it list all these org but there were no report. there is one report on federal website, which mentioned it as a scam, which... https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-sues-world-law-group-for-charging-illegal-fees-and-making-false-promises-in-debt-relief-scheme/ Viztor (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While some member firms maybe be notable, that's not INHERITED. Best sourcing I could find was this brief mention in the New York Times from 1989 - which initially was promising give the age of the consortium. However I could find little else that wasn't self-published and nothing that comes close to the standard of multiple reliable independent secondary sources with substantial coverage as per NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Law firm network lists the WLG as the globally 4th largest network with the numbers of lawyers obviously being outdated - the network article lists 10000, legal 500 mentions over 18000. WP has articles about other similar - even smaller - networks (Alliott Group, Lex Mundi, ALFA International, WSG - World Services Group, Meritas (law), Multilaw, Pacific Rim Advisory Council. It is unjustified to single out the WLG because of a relatively small visibility when it marshals such a number of professionals. By their very nature, law firms and thus their associations might just act a little more seclusively than other, more flashy industries. The power of transnationality cannot be underestimated, especially when it comes to resolving legal cases in the globalized industry, thus, networks of global players are more than the sum of their parts. At best, such a deletion proposal could serve as a reason to believe that someone tries to guard their secrecy, at worst we would have an example of an "it appears beyond us, so let's not bother to mention it" attitude. -- Kku (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS...? Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, as required by WP:GNG. Kku writes "It is unjustified to single out the WLG because of a relatively small visibility"; but "relatively small visibility" here means that it's not gotten any coverage to support a claim of notability. Wikipedia should not be the place that provides that coverage; that's not its role.

As an aside, the lawsuit and settlement with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau appears to be with a entirely different entity. TJRC (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Captain Raju, Barkeeper49, and TJRC make excellent points.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:51, 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 no consensus. Sandstein 17:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Yelagin

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

Football commentator with unclear significance.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 23:20, 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being recognized as a Merited Artist of the Russian Federation is an argument in favor of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not even the highest rank in the profession. There is a People's Artist of Russia.--Kirill Samredny (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:48, 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 keep. ST47 (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eclipse Center

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Beloit Plaza

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centre 2000

Articles for deletion/Eclipse Center (2nd nomination)

(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 keep. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laforet

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been tagged for refimprove for 10+ years, so a review is in order, following the even older AfD from 2005. As it is written now it fails WP:NORG and I am not seeing any better sources. I am hard pressed finding any in-depth coverage. There are a few mentions ([18], [19]) but I am not seeing any in-depth coverage, and a lot of it seems like a rewritten press release. Can anyone find something more substantial? I'd be happy to withdraw this nom if better sources can be shown to exist (there also may be Japanese coverage that I cannot find). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~.Keep. ~~I didn't find anything google search. if anyone want to keep this article, so improve this article and add more source~~.

Piotrus-The content of this article is based on its Japanese equivalent on Japanese Wikipedia. - Nahal (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment Note that the Delete !vote was changed to a Keep !vote by an anonymous IP user. No evidence it was the same editor. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - NahalAhmed (talk · contribs) changed from "delete" to "keep" here. Cunard (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are several references in the corresponding Japanese article at ja:ラフォーレ原宿 and a Google News search for the Japanese name "ラフォーレ原宿" generates several more possible references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Godoy, Tiffany (2007). Style Deficit Disorder: Harajuku Street Fashion - Tokyo. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. pp. 77–78. ISBN 978-0-8118-5796-3. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
Young, Davey (2018-03-04). "Laforet Harajuku". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2019-06-24. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
Insight Guides Experience Tokyo. London: Insight Guides. 2017. ISBN 978-1-78671-837-2. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
Stone, Terry Lee (2010). Managing the Design Process-Concept Development: An Essential Manual for the Working Designer. Beverly, Massachusetts: Rockport Pub. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-61058-066-3. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
Simone, Gianni (2017). Tokyo Geek's Guide: Manga, Anime, Gaming, Cosplay, Toys, Idols & More - The Ultimate Guide to Japan's Otaku Culture. North Clarendon, Vermont: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-1970-3. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
Morton, Don; Tsunoi, Naoko (1993) [1990]. Best of Tokyo: Revised and Updated. Rutland, Vermont: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-0225-5. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
Webb, Martin (2006-09-12). "Style wise: Heart of Harajuku renewed". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-24. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
Tanaka, Nobuko (2007-12-21). "The art of youth". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-24. Retrieved 2019-06-24.

Sources with quotes

Godoy, Tiffany (2007). Style Deficit Disorder: Harajuku Street Fashion - Tokyo. San Francisco: Chronicle Books. pp. 77–78. ISBN 978-0-8118-5796-3. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The book notes:

Harajuku's evolution from fashionable village to fashion capital is epitomized by the arrival of Laforet. In 1978, a part of the Tokyo Center Church was razed and replaced with a shopping mall. One might almost hear the angels singing when walking through the doors, were it not for the din blasting from the competing sound systems pumping music from every shop. At the time, Laforet was one of the tallest buildings in the area, dominating the landscape. The exterior gives scant evidence of the experience lying in wait. The sales, storewide and seasonal, are extraordinary—but shoppers must brace themselves for one of life's most intense shopping experiences. Everything—the music, the clothes, the riot of storefronts packed into its six floors (split into twelve half-floors), the shop girls screaming inasshaimase ("welcome!")—competes for attention. It is still a very Japanese experience. Shoppers swarm, but not aggressively. ...
Laforet was built by real estate developer Mori Building, responsible for countless properties across Tokyo, including the Roppongi Hills shopping, residence, and museum complex. ... Laforet was the first that would become solely devoted to youth culture.
Brands like Hysteric Glamour and Ba-tsu opened their first shops in Laforet, and even now, after nearly thirty years, it remains the place for emerging fashion brands to break into the market, and the best reflection of what is happening on the streets.
Surprisingly, this wasn't always the case. Laforet was originally intended to cater more conventionally to shoppers drawn to established brands. But its first year in business was a flop. The original standard shop layout and staid design weren't drawing customers. Rethinking their approach, the management brought on Ryuki Matsumoto, the designer of the fashion brand Ba-tsu, to help attract customers and improve sales. His suggestions along with those of the participating shops culminated in a reworking of the interior. Long, deep stores were traded for a central stairwell and shallow shop space, giving shoppers a panoptical view. Young, emerging brands were encouraged to move in, reflecting Harajuku's new creative spirit. These changes became the foundation of Laforet of today.
Beyond the layout, there were also early stumbles with image and branding. Laforet's first advertising campaign, designed by U.S.-based fashion illustrator Antonio Lopez—whose work was typically chic with European flair—didn't seem to click. Laforet continued to struggle to find its public image until art director Takuya Onuki was hired to create a series of ad campaigns in the mid-1990s. He had a preference for the use of nonliteral, quirky imagery. Rather than casting pretty women to present a precious sensibility in his ads, Onuki's graphics were more frequently humorous and a little trashy, with toy dogs modeling designer denim, or scens of regular Americans going about daily life in their underwear. Along with Onuki's designs, another art director, Nagi Noda, helped give Laforet its playful and distinct image. The advertising campaigns she designed for Laforet blend a dreamlike fantasy with a playful stance.
The book contains at least two more paragraphs about Laforet.
Young, Davey (2018-03-04). "Laforet Harajuku". Condé Nast Traveler. Archived from the original on 2019-06-24. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The article notes:

Long venerated as a standard-bearer for Harajuku fashion, Laforet Harajuku is a dynamic department store with roughly 140 clothing and accessory boutiques across its six floors. Twice a year, the complex and its shops undergo a complete renewal, creating a sink or swim environment whereby old vendors must constantly reinvent themselves to keep up with the latest trends or risk being replaced by new blood.
...
Laforet Harajuku is most popular among the teenage set, and has a lot more to offer the girls than boys. With so many shops, however, there's something for everyone here. The fashion-conscious of every generation are known to stop by, if only to keep up with the latest trends.
Insight Guides Experience Tokyo. London: Insight Guides. 2017. ISBN 978-1-78671-837-2. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The book notes:

Discover what Japan's trend-defining gyaru (girls) are buying at Laforet Harajuku

Tokyo has been overwhelmed by department stores trying to one up each other. And yet, for those in search of kawaii ('cute') culture and Japanese fashions you won't find anywhere else, Laforet remains the ultimate pilgrimage.
Opened in 1978, Laforet is a six-storey slab of geometric forms that looks increasingly distinctive amid Tokyo's multiplying ranks of steel-and-glass towers. If you don't wish to be overcome by waves of teenage girls, try visiting on a weekday.
The top three floors target young professionals, and as such tend to have more conventional brands like Olive des Olive, As Know As Pink and Pageboy. Further down is where the looks get really interesting. Laichi integrates Western designs into Japan-made clothing for one-of-a-kind pieces. You can also choose from wonderfully imaginative silk-screened stockings and patterned ties.
The Goth-Lolita look is integral to Harajuku style, and you'll find a number of shops devoted to it on the B1.5 to B1 floors. ...
Laforet Harajuku also contains two floors of Store by Nigo, with the iconic t-shirts and streetwear by the eponymous Japanese designer known for his collaborations with Kanye West, Pharrell Williams and other hip-hop luminaries.
Stone, Terry Lee (2010). Managing the Design Process-Concept Development: An Essential Manual for the Working Designer. Beverly, Massachusetts: Rockport Pub. p. 103. ISBN 978-1-61058-066-3. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The book notes:

Laforet Harajuku, the department store and museum where cutting-edge original fashion has been dispatched for over thirty years, is a landmark of the Harajuku area of Tokyo. It is a place known as a hub for youth culture and radical street fashion.
Simone, Gianni (2017). Tokyo Geek's Guide: Manga, Anime, Gaming, Cosplay, Toys, Idols & More - The Ultimate Guide to Japan's Otaku Culture. North Clarendon, Vermont: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-1970-3. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The book notes:

On a sunny warm June afternoon, Chocomoo takes me on a tour of her favorite spots in the neighborhood. Our first destination is Laforet Harajuku. Opened in 1978, this historical place has contributed more than any other store to shift the center of Japanese youth fashion from Shinjuku to Harajuku. Our visit is perfectly timed as on the third floor we can admire Chocomoo's latest and biggest collaboration yet: a new collection for influential LA-based brand Joyrich.
Morton, Don; Tsunoi, Naoko (1993) [1990]. Best of Tokyo: Revised and Updated. Rutland, Vermont: Tuttle Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4629-0225-5. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The book notes:

Best Haraju-cutie Store

Laforet, Harajuku. A "Haraju-cutie" is one of those black-clad children (M or F) that make up a goodly percentage of Japan's fashion-buying public. The initiator of the trend toward boutique-filled buildings, LaForet could be considered the cultural center of Harajuku. That's a little scary. It houses 150 shops on six floor and two basements divided into half levels. Some Japanese designers are represented, but basically it's reasonably priced young fashion. The LaForet Museum on the 5th floor is host to numerous avant-garde events. LaForet Part II, with 50 more shops for the younger-yet generation, is a few blocks north on Meiji-Dori. Look for the lifelike pair of women's legs sticking out of the building.
Webb, Martin (2006-09-12). "Style wise: Heart of Harajuku renewed". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-24. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The article notes:

Teeming teen shopping haven LaForet Harajuku opened in 1978 and has been a pivotal part of Japan’s youth culture ever since. The complex has had a few subdued periods over the years but is currently experiencing a happier chapter in its history. Earlier this month it underwent a major overhaul that saw existing outlets refurbished and a dozen or so new ones added, including U.K. chain stores Topshop and Topman.
Tanaka, Nobuko (2007-12-21). "The art of youth". The Japan Times. Archived from the original on 2019-06-24. Retrieved 2019-06-24.
The article notes:

An Aladdin’s Cave of small, distinctive retail spaces, the Laforet building at a main crossroads in trendy Harajuku has been a shopping magnet for young people since it opened in 1978. This year, for instance, more than 3,000 lined up outside awaiting the start of its New Year sale. And whereas its Shibuya retail rival Parco also boasts a theater and a cinema, Laforet Harajku has the acclaimed multipurpose art space called Laforet Museum on the sixth floor.

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

Cunard (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicle Books provides extensive coverage about Laforet Harajuku. It provides critical material about the subject, noting that "its first year in business was a flop" and "Beyond the layout, there were also early stumbles with image and branding. Laforet's first advertising campaign, designed by U.S.-based fashion illustrator Antonio Lopez—whose work was typically chic with European flair—didn't seem to click."
Condé Nast Traveler says Laforet Harajuku is "[l]ong venerated as a standard-bearer for Harajuku fashion".
Insight Guides says about Laforet Harajuku, "for those in search of kawaii ('cute') culture and Japanese fashions you won't find anywhere else, Laforet remains the ultimate pilgrimage".
Rockport Pub. says Laforet Harajuku is "the department store and museum where cutting-edge original fashion has been dispatched for over thirty years" and calls it "a landmark of the Harajuku area of Tokyo".
A Tuttle Publishing book says about Laforet Harajuku, "this historical place has contributed more than any other store to shift the center of Japanese youth fashion from Shinjuku to Harajuku".
A second Tuttle Publishing book says "LaForet could be considered the cultural center of Harajuku".
The Japan Times says "Teeming teen shopping haven LaForet Harajuku opened in 1978 and has been a pivotal part of Japan's youth culture ever since."
Cunard (talk) 07:57, 24 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) 03:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival

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

Promotional. I've did some digging, as much as the fest promote itself as a world class festival, no one recognize it. Wikipedia should not be part of their PR effort. Viztor (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it promotes itself by saying having famous "alumni", well anyone can bestow an award on some world class directors, but that doesn't make the award "world-class" Viztor (talk) 11:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How much time have you spent doing your digging? Today? FYI, this editor has been nominating articles for deletion, left, right and centre for some time now at an exponential pace, and has been given advice against this on their talkpage. I'm involved because they've nominated an article I created, a short Canadian film. One of their arguments was that its awards were not "world class" (whatever that means) and when I pointed out that one of them was from this festival, they began arguing that the festival itself is bogus, "hilarious", etc. Let me point out that I am well aware of the existence more or less fake or questionable film festivals--but that's a very recent phenomenon. It does not apply to a festival that has been running since 1968. I do not want to assume bad faith here, but it strikes me that the primary motivation to get this page deleted is to devalue the award of the film in the article they nominated for deletion mere days ago. It is certainly not done after a period of reasonable research and reflection. The editor's pattern of behaviour (frequent calls for deletion) may stem from bitterness over one or two of their own articles being deleted. It's hard to understand the call to delete this article out of the blue otherwise.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's this:

WorldFest is one of the oldest and largest film & video competitions in the world, with more than 4,500 category entries received from 37 countries in 2006. Actually WorldFest is 12 Major film & video competitions in one event, unlike Cannes, Sundance and Toronto, which are just 2 competitions for shorts and features only. Because of our 12 major competitions and the 200+ sub-categories, WorldFest does give a lot of awards, but they are both earned and deserved. No awards are given in any category unless the scores from the juries are high enough to place for honors. Overall only 15-20% of the total category entries actually win an award at WorldFest. However, everyone attending the Grand Awards Gala wins an award, as we only invite the actual winners, which makes for a delightful and enjoyable evening, since there are no disappointed “nominees” that do not win anything. Those that do not win an award are informed by email or letters prior to the festival.^[1]

ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "WorldFest History". worldfest.org. Retrieved 11 June 2019.

@ZarhanFastfire:Write long paragraph without an argument doesn't make the case stronger, inserting the official promo does not help at all, I've seen pictures of their event, It is pretty clear what they are doing. Questioning my experience in filming also does not make the case, which you seems to have made a habit of, ad hominem statements are not arguments. And calm down, plz. Viztor (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And assertions made without evidence are not well-constructed arguments either (What do these pictures you refer to show? Are you able to prove that the above statement by the Festival is false in some way?). I've merely stated facts, not made ad hominem attacks: you have been nominating many articles for deletion at the drop of a hat recently, many of them within hours of their creation, some with equivalent articles in other languages, and you have been told this on your talkpage by other editors; some you acknowledged, some you dismissed. Look, I don't want this to be personal any more than you do, and I grant that as it's the first time it's happened to me I certainly could be reacting more emotionally than I should. It does irritate me when someone dismisses another person's arguments as non-existent or does not acknowledge them at all. Seems counterproductive at best.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 11:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 11:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this article could use some improvement and expansion — but WorldFest Houston is a well-established real film festival that's been running since 1968, not one of those fly-by-night "buy yourself an award for PR purposes" outfits. Even I've heard of it before, and I'm a Canadian who can name just four other USian film festivals (Sundance, Frameline, Tribeca, Telluride) off the top of my head without consulting a list to refresh my middle-aged memory. It's also a film festival that gets international media coverage, and has had more than enough written about it in its 50 years to clear WP:GNG. And no, the article is not unduly advertorialized in tone, either. Sure, it could use some further expansion and some more references — but it's not an objectively non-notable festival just because the nominator hasn't heard of it. Bearcat (talk) 12:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with extreme prejudice (in case that wasn't obvious from what I wrote above. @Viztor, here (and elsewhere) you seem to think you know a lot more about the world of film than you really do, or else you think you have a better grasp of material you read online (including WP policies) than you really do. Whenever you reply by dismissing another person's argument by saying "there is no argument" and offer none yourself in rebuttal when challenged on your own arguments, it means you are probably only seeing/hearing what you want to see/hear, and not genuinely engaging with the other person on any meaningful level. If you do not address this problem, you will repeat this pattern of failed nominations again and again until someone considers it to be disruptive. As I and others have suggested to you on your talk page, you need to slow down, and perhaps find something more positive to work on. Searching for monsters to destroy is by its nature dangerous. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is invited to read this press release from ca. 2011, in full, and consider withdrawing the nomination. Or else explain how all those august bodies can still be involved in the festival and it still be "not a real festival". The reference to "alumni" in the article is actually a list of discoveries made by the festival, i.e., those people's careers started at the festival.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:01, 29 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 Windstream Holdings. The "keep" arguments do not seem to establish notability, but it is a plausible redirect and per the "redirect" arguments the information in history could be used to expand coverage of the acquired company in the article about its acquirer. RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Windstream Concord Telephone

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

Delete 12 year-old declined PROD; WP:BEFORE reveals no sources that rise to the level of meeting the WP:NCORP requirements. UnitedStatesian (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Search for the company's original name, Concord Telephone, and you will find more references. This article about Clarence Horton, a retired judge and author, says that he wrote (among other things) a history of Concord Telephone, A Century of Progress. I have not seen the book itself, though, and the Library of Congress does not appear to have a copy. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon entry says "hardcover by Clarence Horton, Jr. as published by The Concord Telephone Co./Jostens Graphics, Inc., and copyrighted 1997," which would mean that the book was published by the company (as is often the case with such books), and therefore not a source independent of the subject. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything in a search which would lead me to believe they pass WP:NCORP. It's an old company, it's possible, but I can't find anything. SportingFlyer T·C 07:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eastmain's rationale Lubbad85 (☎)(Edits) 03:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. I also note that the book referenced by Eastmain above is published by the company themselves and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windstream Holdings where it is mentioned. Though it doesn't meet notability standards for its own page, I see no reason not to convert it into a worthwhile redirect. I am not wild about a delete before the redirect since there is no reason not to preserve the history to alow expansion of the target if thought appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Current article is completely unsourced and, judging by this AfD, unlikely to be cleaned up in the near future. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:36, 3 July 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Zelyaeva

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

Pessimistic sigh* At this point these anachronistic, heinous-quality articles are like bed bugs. Inevitably people "on here" will contort themselves out of shape to try to say this model meets notability standards (because she exists, "but... Women Management!", there’s a few completely unsubstantiated buzz words and there’s a free image? Is that it? But hey, no one seriously wants to ameliorate "NMODEL"), so I have to ramble off everything don’t I. For 9 and a half years, there has been an unaddressed BLP template. When you actually try to find sources what do you get? "Model attends party in St. Tropez with other models hosted by a certain well-known modelizer", "model was airbrushed", that really pointless SI Swim Daily thing where all they do is post a bunch of Instagram photos of models who will never make it to the magazine. The Elle Russia link is a bunch of inane questions about her beauty routine with trivia at the bottom. They don’t even talk about what work she’s done at the very least. In the 3 sentences that pertain to jobs, the source, predictably and lazily, is Fashion Model Directory (not. a. reliable. source. A last resort at best.) And then the irrelevant quote about size with the nonexistent "TheSunDaily"? Do better. Trillfendi (talk) 21:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:07, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Bondegezou (talk) 15:52, 22 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. ST47 (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enakshi Ray Mitra

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

Provided sources do not meet WP:GNG, as they comprise a single review of a book by the subject and some informational pages about organizations that the subject is affiliated with. I was unable to find anything more substantial searching for her name in English online. A Google Scholar search would seem to indicate that her publications have not been sufficiently cited to meet WP:NACADEMIC. The citation provided for the claim that the subject is affiliated with Indian Institute of Advanced Study does not mention the subject, and she is not listed on their list of fellows. It's further unclear whether being a fellow of the organization would establish notability. While Scholar is not the be-all end-all of measurements of academic impact (especially for the humanities), based on this University of Delhi website, it appears that the subject is an assistant professor, and her publications are all relatively recent––it may simply be WP:TOOSOON. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article clearly needs some work, but GNG and NPROF is met, at least minimally. But needs the WP:HEY squad to improve quality quite a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 19:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw, could you clarify what exactly leads you to believe that GNG and/or NPROF are met? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article doesn't meet the notability guidelines as it lacks significant coverage in multiple independent resources. Edwige9 (talk) 12:27, 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 02:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This academic do not meet NPROF, she is a fellow of a research institute, that is not the same as being a fellow of a national academy. I also can not find press coverage, I did a google search and there is only routine coverage by the institutions she worked at. Viztor (talk) 01:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enakshi Ray Mitra page has been revised, the objection raised that the subject was not the member of the said institute is untenable. In the recent edit, User:Parchahimanshuphil has edited and provided the reference for that point. Indian Institute of Advanced Studies, Shimla is one of the most prestigious research institutes for the humanities in India. This shows that the subject is one of the reputed philosophers among the philosophers' community of India. All the objections raised against this page are based on the simple quantitative method (like how many publications the subject has etc). It seems that User:Rosguill is not aware of the subject's works and especially the quality of the work. In philosophical works number and pages doesn't count, but what counts is the quality of the idea. I propose that Wikipedia shouldn't remove this page, this page will help the current and future students to know more about a hard working and genius philosopher who is not in the limelight. I propose that the entry shouldn't be removed. —Preceding undated comment added 11:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON. Being a member of a research institute is not cause for notability by itself, and nothing in the article rises to the level of WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, or any other notability criterion. I did find one published review of her 2017 book [20] but that's not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 30 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. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kanish Sharma

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

Difficult to find notable material with. Viztor (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what’s wrong with the sources provided? Mccapra (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
third one is not accessible, the second is from an actors database. the first seems to be a short article. I can not find other sources. Viztor (talk) 02:43, 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 01:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've fixed the third link. I agree the second ref is not that strong but overall it doesn't feel to me like we're in deletion territory here. Mccapra (talk) 10:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mccapra:It seems he is the youngest in the industry, which gives him some media exposure and would also put him in the BLP1E category. I also don't think being youngest is enough to ascertain notability or importance. Viztor (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:12, 24 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.

[GreeneGarmire2017-1] Greene, Casey S; Garmire, Lana X; Gilbert, Jack A; Ritchie, Marylyn D; Hunter, Lawrence E (2017). "Celebrating parasites". Nature Genetics. 49 (4): 483–484. doi:10.1038/ng.3830. ISSN 1061-4036.

[2] Viviane Callier. "The Open Data Explosion". Retrieved 17 June 2019.

[sn1-3] Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. "Congratulations, you're a parasite!". Retrieved 17 June 2019.

[4] Ivan Oransky and Adam Marcus. "Incentives Science". Retrieved 17 June 2019.

[5] "2019 Remi Winners – Worldfest-Houston". worldfest.org. Retrieved 2019-06-10.

[6] "WorldFest History". worldfest.org. Retrieved 11 June 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]