Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 July	10 July >

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ameba TV

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

Limited coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:44, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CaptainPrimo (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-hit wonders in the United States

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

This is an article that seems to be an attempt at an exhaustive list of an undefined concept. The criteria for inclusion is merely 2 source invoking the label even if they wildly disagree on their conception of what that is. Wikipedia already has an article on the concept of one-hit wonders. There is no purpose for a list that is entirely subjective and based on conflicting criteria. CaptainPrimo (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are lots of published lists of one-hit wonders. Every entry has two references, and while some of the sources are questionable, Afd is not for cleanup. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly a notable concept. Yes, the criteria used by the sources are subjective and vary from source to source, as is the case at numerous other list articles. Objectively, there is no best movie, worst president, etc. With objective selection criteria, however, we can obviously compile unranked lists of opinions from reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the criteria for what is and isn't a one-hit wonder can be subjective, the list is very well sourced and the concept has widespread notability. Frank Anchor^Talk 14:06, 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 keep. Randykitty (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Almaz Capital

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

A hedge fund with not much in the way of sourcing beyond press releases, created by a paid editor. A WP:G11 was contested, but even after removing large amounts of promotional material, I still can't see how we could improve this so the man in the street would understand the encyclopedic importance. I appreciate the article has been round the houses and improved at AfC, and has been on the Russian Wikipedia for a long time, but there must be something there I just don't get, unfortunately. So let's discuss it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for starting this conversation Ritchie333. I am the person who nominated it for G11, which I stand by. While it was accepted at AfC, I think it was promotional. ~~I also have some concerns about the AfC reviewer given that they also accepted Nyotron.~~ Following the G11 decline, I then removed a substantial percentage of the promotional aspects. In looking at what remained, as the very start of my BEFORE, I came across two existing Russian language sources [1] [2] for which I didn't attempt to fully ascertain that they were RS but which definitely suggested the company had received substantial independent secondary coverage and so stopped me from nominating for lack of NCORP notability. So if this concludes we should delete because of PROMO, well I think that's a good outcome, but also think it is likely that this firm would, in a neutrally written version would meet our notability standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether the organisation is notable, not whether it's a good article. Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the question is should the article be deleted. Deleting because of lack of notability is the most common reason but that does not, in my way of thinking, preclude deletion (or alternatives to deletion) for other policy based reasons. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: @Ritchie333: 1) The sources mentioned above: forbes (staff written) and vedomosti are definitely RS and prove the WP:NCORP. The article as accepted by me had over 40 citations, and was mostly a direct translation of the Russian version of the article that has been around since 2008. When @Barkeep49: has removed what he refers as "promotional content" he also removed more than 2/3 of citations. Alamaz is one of the biggest / successful venture funds in Russian (post Soviet) Eastern Europe, that is a significant corporation and has massive influence. I am puzzled how can a man from the street not understand the encyclopedic importance of that. In my opinion when dealing with subjects that have majority of coverage in a foreign language and there is an existing established page we should almost defer to the editors on that Wiki when it comes to questions of notability. But we don't have to, here is a Wiki list of Notable Venture Capital firms i just clicked through 10 of them and many of them include similar info to the one deleted by Barkeep49 (history of recent exits for example) and the ones that don't list the history of exits have less RS sources and news coverage than Almaz. So if you AFD Almaz why not all those other ones, this makes no sense.

P.S.( @Barkeep49: is your reference to Nyotron questioning my motives? Otherwise i don't see how it's relevant to this AFD) Shemtovca (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that this is not the right forum for any concerns I might have about you and I have stricken the comment. However, the idea that a whole string of press releases and/or churnalism helps convey notability and isn't promotional is one I disagree with. I also think the other stuff exists doesn't change whether or not the content for this article was promotional. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the sentiment expressed by Shemtovca; is there a mechanism for notifying the editors of the Russian version of this entry about this AfD? Looking at search results in Yandex (Russia's top search engine) and narrowing it down to the year of launch (2008), I'm seeing many articles that are probably independent, but I'll be the first to admit I don't know these publications. Examples: 1 2 3 4. Of course sustained coverage is necessary, and these refs only show proof that the company's launch and early activity was notable, but I'm pretty sure that if we sifted past all of the brief mentions (founder said this, partner said that) we'd find plenty more examples of substantial independent coverage between 2008 and today, between Yandex and Google. Pegnawl (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three important notes:

Let me quote my own reasoning from AfC. I will try to show, that Almaz Capital's notability for venture capital market is reflected in publications that suffice for reliable sources. The history of the fund has received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable publications in leading business and technological mass media. The oldest Russian business newspaper Kommersant extensively covered activities of Almaz Capital including transactions (2009 - investment in Parallels, 2015 - investments in data centers) and its internal life (2012 - detailed publication about the conflict between its founders). The second major Russian business newspapear Vedomosti also covered events that took place in Almaz Capital. There were publications about the establishment of Almaz Capital, fund raising, internal conflict, and numerous investments. In particular, the publication about purchase a stake in Yandex called the fund “one of the largest IT investors in Russia”. Forbes published a huge editorial article devoted to history of the fund entitled “How the Alexander Galitsky Foundation became the leader of the venture capital market”. It covers the history of the fund, its organization and principles, partners and most notable deals. The links proviced clearly indicate that Almaz Capital complies with WP:NCORP.
Before the nomination Barkeep49 removed a section of article that covered Almaz Capital's invesments and exits. The uncut version of the article is avaliable through the revision history. Investments are the core activity of venture capital (VC) firms, so a short representation of fund's portfolio is as important as corporate history. I looked through the Category:Venture capital firms of the United States and found out that most of them have short lists of invesments (even with short descriptions of portfolio companies' businesses!). Check the following articles: Accel, Silverton Partners, Index Ventures, Balderton Capital, Union Square Ventures, Valar Ventures, Tenaya Capital, Khosla Ventures, General Catalyst, and others.
The version of this article submitted for AfC additionally included the Almaz Capital's general and managing partners. Core teams are important for VC firms and that's why some of them carry partners' names, i.e. Andreessen Horowitz. I believe Bloomberg profiles generally suffice as RS for such a list 'cause they are basically a in-deepth reviews provided by S&P Global Market Intelligence and not the Bloomberg itself. You can see the list of partners in articles such as Kleiner Perkins, TechOperators, Founders Fund, etc. Gruznov (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Shemtovca, Best - Blake44 (talk) 22:38, 15 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karunakara M Reddy

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. I looked at all the references. Many don't mention him at all. Of the ones that do, they're all just quotes from him related to this business, press releases, and other sources that we would normally not consider contributing to WP:N.

The best source I see is The New Indian Express, but that's just a single source. WP:ANYBIO says, The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor. This source is about the subject receiving the Jal Daan Water Hero Award. I haven't been able to find much on this, so I'm assuming it doesn't qualify. I also note that searching for the term makes it look like Reddy is the only person who has ever won this award, which certainly means it doesn't qualify. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Came

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

Not yet notable by WP:NCRIC, as hasn't played first class, List A or T20 cricket. Should merge/draftify with the existing Draft:Harry Came article until he plays enough senior cricket to become notable. The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no news sources, for example, which deal with him in any form. Of course, it's a tricky search term, but I worked through a variety of possibilities and found nothing - although I should think there's stuff out there somewhere that at least mentions him. I need to see that before I could vote anything other than delete based on this being a BLP without any in depth sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While he is in the Hampshire squad, he has yet to debut at any level which satisfies WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources. Also in the BBC website only mentioned him in a sentence and without any further details. Maybe in future he will have an article, Best - Blake44 (talk) 09:09, 16 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) 16:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FaceRecog

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

Small startup. Some coverage around Tech in 2014 Asia’s Startup Asia Singapore - where they won a prize. Not much else. Not close to meeting WP:NCORP. Note I AfDed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhd Amrullah (the founder) as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note WP:CORPDEPTH which states "Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement ... brief or passing mentions, such as ... non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products ... [and] presentations, speeches, lectures, etc. given by organization's personnel ... [and] other listings and mentions not accompanied by commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 22:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dose not have significant coverage, is not a notable company. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:40, 13 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Amrullah

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

Founder of start up - fails WP:GNG. Not much that is in-depth on our subject. In terms of sources in the article, the first ref is a deadlink. The second one is in Guardian's network blog and is a video of our subject speaking. Ref3 - techinasia - is comments from our subject on his startup. Ref4 is a deadlink, and is a blog regardless. Ref5 (challengefuture.org) has blurbs from our subject in a group interview. Note I AFDed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FaceRecog (the startup) as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey X

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

I do not believe this topic meets the WP:GNG: The topic does not appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Copy-pasting a comment from elsewhere: I found a small section of a book where the language is used as an example, a how-to program in the language book, an article where the language is used to explore game design, and then trivial mentions elsewhere (nothing of interest in Google, GNews, Gbooks, Gscholar). None of these strike me as rising to the requirements in the WP:GNG. Searches for the other names are similarly lacking. Izno (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with sentiments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey (programming language). A quick search for WP:RS only found those above. Although there's a couple of games written in it which makes me lean towards keep, without third party sources this fails WP:GNG. Widefox; talk 11:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are mainly from their official website and GitHub which they both fails WP:GNG, the references should be secondary from reliable sources, Best - Blake44 (talk) 22:44, 15 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) 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amrullah Deep Liquidity

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

Appears to be original research; there are precisely two Google results for "Amrullah Deep Liquidity", both from the same website. ... discospinster _talk 13:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recent tradingview post and naught much else - fails GNG. Also fails WP:NOTADVERTISING - possibly even grounds for speedy. We're actually stating in our voice "The average 12-month percentage net profit of ADL backtested across BTCUSD is 1621% and the average 1-month percentage net profit of ADL backtested across BTCUSD is 135% during the periods between 2017 to 2019." - which is, well.... If it's doing so well, why not trade yourself with this? Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note I AfDed - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhd Amrullah as well.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree 100% with the above. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:46, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Obeysekera

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

Non first-class cricketer who played a few minor school matches and minor matches for Ceylon. Fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass CRIN. Articles linked have passing mention or list him as appearing in a photo, so no evidence that he passes GNG. Spike 'em (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable cricketeer. We have way too many articles on Wikipedia on such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:57, 11 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Apollo (disambiguation)

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

I can only find two instances of 'Red Apollo': Red Apollo (Group) and the butterfly common red Apollo, which has no article or red link. Disambiguation is not necessary. Leschnei (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator; almost meets Wikipedia:G14. Geolodus (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The common red apollo does have an article under its scientific name Parnassius epaphus. The band is probably not notable and so this is a case where a hat note could suffice per WP:ONEOTHER. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and {{For}} either the butterfly or the hackers. The band can probably be discounted as it doesn't even have sufficient content on deWP. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with hatnote at primary topic. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:47, 12 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. Well, it seems like there is no evidence of the requisite third-party coverage we'd need to establish notability and several delete arguments on this basis. Thus delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mind Tree

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

I know I tend to be biased on this topic but hear me out. To begin with, the four references in the article don't even mention The Mind Tree at all. It should be known that the book was allegedly written by Tito Mukhopadhyay, a low-functioning autistic individual who supposedly uses Rapid prompting method, a scientifically unproven communication technique.

In a recent deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Sequenzia_(2nd_nomination), a user made the following point:

Even a top-line source such as New York Times would be severely called into question at Reliable Source Noticeboard if the NYT published an interview or other information obtained via telepathy or channeling of dead spirits, without even commenting that the communication might be questioned, without giving any indication they even considered the issue and that they actively consider this case reliable.

Yet all the possible sources for this book that I have found do not question that method at all. For instance, the Simon and Schuster page says "Although he is severely autistic and nearly nonverbal, Tito’s ability to communicate through his extraordinary writing is astonishing." Publisher's Weekly says "the experience of reading the book together with testimony from psychiatrist Lorna Wing convinces that Tito wrote it himself." Even a journal article claims "He is the author of three books: The Mind Tree, The Gold of the Sunbeams, and How Can I Talk If My Lips Don't Move?"

If the article should stay, editors will have to find sources for this book that also question RPM, otherwise, they cannot be reliable. Ylevental (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:02, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The issue here is whether the book is notable, not whether it is scientifically sound. 2.34.246.55 (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hear what you're saying about sources being reliable on matters of science. However, I think this is kind of similar to having, say, an NYT interview with an author who writes books on telepathy, where the interview doesn't mention that telepathy is clearly bunk. Sure, ideally the source /should/ question pseudoscience, but (particularly for book reviews), I don't know that it automatically makes the source unreliable for establishing notability that they go along with the premise of the book. Considering the notability of other books full of pseudoscience such as The Secret, I'm pretty sure that notability-establishing sources are not required to reject the content of the book. Gilded Snail (talk) 16:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing Note A blog post[3] advocating for "Facilitated Communication" has linked to this discussion and urged people to participate. ApLundell (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has no references. The three that were recently removed don't even mention the book, and were therefore not real references. Besides that, the article makes no assertion of notability at all. It asserts only that the book exists, which is clearly not enough. After a few minutes of Googling, I couldn't find any notable mention of the book, besides booksellers. If this article has supporters, they need to explain why it's notable. (And that's all completely seperate from the rather awkward BLP problems.) ApLundell (talk) 21:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am just not finding sources on the book. There is some coverage of the author, although I am by no means convinced that he would pass WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:26, 24 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) 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nooka

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

The company fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORP guidelines for notability. It is literally a one-man operation of founder Matthew Waldman (recently deleted) and some design interns. The article was authored by a user with WP:COI as a work of WP:PROMO and to this day, it is horribly misleading, full of twisted facts and outright lies. Perhaps it is most compelling to watch Matthew Waldman explain why his company is not notable in his Indiegogo video. Nooka has gotten some press for its designs but has not made them come to life as seen by what they attempt to sell. Instead, Nooka seems to be an e-begging instrument. See failed Pothra and Fairy projects. SVTCobra 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SVTCobra 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Notwithstanding the video which the nominator highlights (in which the owner/operator of the company states himself that it is "such a small company"), the only coverage that I can find are all linked from the article itself. Like the Forbes piece. Which seems to be as much about how small companies use crowdfunding sites to overcome their size/funding issues, as it is about the subject itself. And, frankly, would seem to further reinforce the nominators point (that this company is no more notable than any other small organisation or Indiegogo subscriber). Other pieces like this one seem to reinforce this point. (That, of the limited coverage that the subject has had, much of it seems to be actually focused on its lack of notability/prominence.) The COI/promo overtones in the original creation are also concerning. Personally I'd advocate deletion. Guliolopez (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the nomination mentions all kinds of things that are not relevant to determining notability (one man operation, e-begging, crowdfunding etc), since we have no policies that prevent articles on companies that have these qualities. A video by the article subject plays no role in determining notability either: we go by independent sources here. What is relevant to determining notability is that it has had coverage in lots of good publications (Guardian, New York Times, Wired, Deignboom etc.) Once notable, always notable. Meets GNG easily. Additional sources:

Profiled in the book "Design Entrepreneur: Turning Graphic Design Into Goods That Sell"
Coverage in TechCrunch
coverage in Wired Magazine
Coverage in Fast Company
More Wired coverage
Core 77 coverage

And so on... ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I mentioned such sources in the nomination, but I guess I will explain why I don't think they should count. If you read How to apply the criteria in WP:CORP, you will see they pretty much all fail. The book is a solid source, but it is an interview about Waldman/Nooka's efforts to bring prototypes into production. It is from 2008 and does not demonstrate notability or significance of this upstart company. TechCrunch, Wired, FastCompany coverage is all by freelance bloggers/writers and uses only media provided by Nooka (basically prototypes and illustrations). This fails a major criteria. Core77 lets designers submit projects for publication (they'll write about anybody). Also, the TechCrunch is about the crowdfunding for a new chronograph (photo of prototype) which despite the successful funding does not appear to have been manufactured. The Indiegogo is littered with complaints from people who paid but never got a watch. There's is no chronograph on any shopping site. Now, I know the WP:OR rule, but I don't think a contributed article about a prototype leads to notability for a whole company. Two of the articles you cite are about perfume and umbrellas neither of which appear to have gone into production. This lends to Nooka's notability how? The book explains how Nooka outsourced a run of 1000 watches. It is speculation, but I suspect they are still trying to sell inventory from that run. The fact that Waldman has been marketing savvy enough to get some press should not pass notability. There are probably tens of thousands of startups every year. If the article is kept it needs to be cleaned of lies such has having boutiques around the globe. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. You have some good comments on the sources, but also I think you are engaging in analysis of the company based on your opinion (It is speculation, but I suspect...) of their success as a company. The fact is, there is lots of coverage in many varied independent sources, which easily meets GNG and probably NCORP. WP:AUD says "Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability.", and we have that here. It doesn't matter if they never shipped a product; nor does their financial health; we have any articles on bankrupt companies. Re your concerns, if you have sources for what you believe are their business failures, you should add them to the article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happens, the article cannot stand as is. No, I don't have sources for the recent failures. Nooka didn't submit those to tech bloggers. I have the failed Kickstarter projects, but that is Primary and would constitute WP:OR. The Forbes source currently cited in the article describes a company on the brink and needing $75K from Indiegogo, but of course it has been cherry-picked to be used only for the date of foundation. The book cited is also misused. It claims a design was commissioned by Seiko, but in the book, it was years before Nooka existed and Waldman worked for Seiko in Japan. The article needs so much work because it is WP:PROMO if it is notable. The author, User:Msurtees10001 aka Michael Surtees, is a real life acquaintance of Waldman. --SVTCobra 18:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you have concerns about the notability of the company. But to say it again, your speculation about who is friends with who in real life, how much the company has shipped and so on does not belong here. There are multiple sources in reliable independent publications. Please skip the speculation and stick to our established policies. You might also need to read the WP:OUTING policy as providing off-wiki information about someone's personal relationships is explicitly uncalled for. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that "lots of coverage" is *not* one of the criteria for establishing notability. It must be significant and in-depth coverage with intellectually independent content that contains original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Regardless of whether SVTCobra is interpreting the content too much, the fact remains that not a single one of the references you meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this cv of Waldman states that Nooka watches are held at National Maritime Museum, and the Japanese Industrial Design Association Museum, have been unable to confirm this, it also lists a number of exhibitions including MOMA, again unable to confirm, they do/did sell the watches (see here), the watches also appear to be popular amongst some celebs, see here. on the fence, leaning over into the keep side, a bit more/confirmations required to push me in... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CVs are notoriously puffed up and obviously not a source. If the claim is true, it would go a long way toward what I'd consider notable. Harbour.Space University gives us another article with notability and COI issues. The school is only 3 years old. That CV also shows a new start date for Nooka all the way back in 2002 (the company keeps getting older). I have seen video interviews where he never claimed any of that. You can buy Nooka watches to this day. I mentioned that in nomination. Core77 offers to publish user submitted stories for designers. And reading that, Nooka may have heard of the glow-in-the-dark theme and sent watches to Kanye West. We all know celebrities get inundated with products for free. Oh, I just found that the Maritime Museum does have a Nooka watch but the Chinese made watch is not on display and they are asking readers if they know what it is. I wonder if Nooka sent it to them unsolicited. I am sorry if I am being super-skeptical but once I get the con/scam tingle, it's hard to let go. --SVTCobra 03:23, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Museums regularly display a fraction of their collections. That is entirely normal. The rest of what you say about tingles and so on is irrelevant to the discussion. Try to keep to policy rather than continuously casting aspersions on the subject based on personal opinion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know little about museums, but I thought the "permanent collection" was always on display and the rest of the inventory on rotation. Anyway, you are right and I will shut up for the rest of this process unless I am pinged for a response. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article might be informative.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. The Forbes article is the best, but only mainstream coverage of any length. The best it can do is describe Nooka as "not unknown". A mere mention in the Guardian is not sufficient to push the company over the notability threshold of WP:NCORP. Cool looking watches, all the same! I'm slightly surprised the Matthew Waldman article was deleted. Sionk (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most rely on "announcements", others on interviews failing WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:09, 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 delete. Consensus is for deletion relative to WP:NOTPROMOTION. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fabiano de Abreu

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

I can't see how this person is notable by our standards. There's been interminable WP:COI/WP:SOCK editing on this (and by the same editors on Draft:Hebert Neri and Draft:Jennifer Lobo, though I don't know what the connection is between them). Perhaps the oft-repeated claims of importance and notability are justified ... and perhaps they are not. I read Portuguese only slowly, but at the moment I'm not seeing it. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as PROMO for a press agent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PROMO for a non-notable press agent. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Clear case of WP:PROMO. Nothing else to say. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:48, 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 delete. Further recreation in article space without adequate content could lead to the title being protected. Recreation as a draft is fine if the creator is willing to abide by the articles for creation process. RL0919 (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karna Shilahara

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

Almost nothing here (almost qualifies for A1). Should be incubated in draft space, but author recreated it after it was draft-ified. —teb728 t c 11:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An infobox, paired with a four-word sentence fragment that just says where the subject was born, is not an article. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and reliably source a paragraph of body text about why this person might be eligible to have an encyclopedia article. Note as well that Shilahara does not list this person as having been the "first" (or any other ranking) ruler of any of its three branches at all, so the notability claim being made in the infobox is not verified. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify' again. Pichpich (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify' again. Perhaps salt it so that it cannot be moved back to mainspace without review. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have to agree. Ther's almost nothing at all on this page. What's the point of keeping it?WaterwaysGuy (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userify. This is not even enough to be a stub yet. The subject may well need an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt There are no resources and no sense that the claim of notability made is correct. --Enos733 (talk) 23:20, 15 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleonland

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

Procedural nomination on behalf on an IP. Their rationale is

[this article is] about an idea that gained some media attention at the time, but never went anywhere and Wikipedia should not be having articles about every oddball proposal by a politician. 146.198.136.44 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Reyk _YO! 11:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The French Wikipedia article for fr:Yves Jégo says it is still a live proposal as of 2017, sourced to this, despite out article saying nothing has been heard since 2013. So our article would appear to be out of date. SpinningSpark 17:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It’s still in the news, 4 January 2019, 18 January 2019, 4 February 2019. Mccapra (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BASIC. Szzuk (talk) 06:36, 16 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. RL0919 (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Danoda

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

Politician who has not been elected and does not hold any constitutional office. The subject fails WP:NPOL , WP:GNG and being a general secretary, Scheduled Caste (Anusuchit Jati) Morcha of the Bharatiya Janata Party does not qualify him to have a stand alone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 11:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 11:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. FitIndia ^Talk 11:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per the nom's point, subjects whom have not been elected to a notable office do not normally meet WP:NPOL.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The person is also a working member in Government of Haryana. References/citations are described. Denotified & Nomadic Tribes Development Board (Vimukt Ghumantu Jati Vikas Board) is the department of Government. He is taking two major positions at the statewide office. --iamrahulsethi 17:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: iamrahulsethi (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. and appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.[reply]
Delete: Non-notable and non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The person has a very notable personality and has good media coverage (more references/citations added) and already mentioned in talk page about not having a close connection with the subject of the article.18:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamrahulsethi (talk • contribs)

You may not have a personal connection but you disclosed that you work for the political party that he is a member of and stated that you could get access to his Government ID if necessary so I'd say you almost certainly have professional connection that is definitely close enough to be considered a COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a NPOL and GNG fail. Also Iamrahulsethi, you can comment as much as you want but you can only vote once. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just for existing as civil servants in the government bureaucracy — but two of the four footnotes here are primary source content on the government's own self-published website about itself, which are not support for notability at all, and the two which are real media are just short blurbs about him announcing a government policy, not substantive coverage about him doing anything relevant to our notability criteria. The notability test for a Wikipedia article is being substantively the subject of a significant volume of press coverage, not just getting your name into the newspaper twice as a giver of soundbite in an article about something else. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- The poorly sourced content is removed. It's good to have only verified content rather than deleting the whole article. --iamrahulsethi 19:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, a person has to be properly demonstrated as passing our notability criteria before he's allowed to have a Wikipedia article at all. It's not just a question of "keeping verified content" — if the content isn't being verified by notability-supporting reliable source coverage about him (which is not the same thing as "coverage about other things which happens to mention his name") that would get him over WP:GNG, then it's still not keepable whether it's "verified" or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The author has been blocked for sockpuppetry. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of passing WP:NPOL criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:32, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per bearcat, socking, and COI. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:53, 16 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. Consensus that notability is satisfied (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorakiss

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

Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Search turns up Passing mentions and no WP:SIGCOV on subject for now. Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Lapablo (talk) 09:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the number of hits I'm seeing suggest she is well-known in Ghana. [4] for example, itself reasonable coverage, cites its source as "Flex Newspaper". It looks to me that Sorakiss has had some natoinally-recognised hits in Ghana, so the suggestion of notability is there. Remember that African nations have more print-only news sources than western ones these days, so what you see online isn't necessariy the sum total. — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above, the singer has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as Pulse, Ghana Web and others already in the article and passes WP:GNG and also has claims to pass WP:NMUSIC with charting singles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The refs are OK. Szzuk (talk) 06:33, 16 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 per WP:A7. So Why 08:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Amin Shehzad

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

Non notable cricket player, not covered by reliable sources -- Luk ^talk 08:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Luk ^talk 08:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:55, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaja Renkas

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

No RS found, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not appear notable based on article sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice art but lack of reliable source coverage. Curiocurio (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill illustrator, who hasn't exhibited anywhere notable. His awards are all of the "runner up" or "up and coming" variety. Fails WP:GNG and specifically WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 18:23, 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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ankhmaa (singer)

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

Fails WP:GNG, too early to qualify for a page. Meeanaya (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - badly written in passive voice, the article is about a performing artist who not ready for prime time. There's no evidence she's toured internationally, or that her (single) film has actually been shown publicly, or that she has a hit song. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 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 keep. The page has been improved since nomination and I find the argument that it now meets WP:NAUTHOR persuasive. Just Chilling (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Heldmann

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

Of the five references provided in this article, three are to Heldmann’s own work. The one in the LA Times I can’t access and the last is a passing mention. I can’t find any other references. My conclusion is that while some of the author’s books are possibly notable, he himself isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mccapra, As you say, his books are notable and sources exist from which the page can be improved. However, you appear to misunderstand WP:CREATIVE, with, writers, composers, painters and other CREATIVE types, we do not require that anything at all is known about the creator, only that the work is notable. We have numerous pages about anonymous authors, sculptors, poets... Especially when, as here, the writer is notable for a series of books on a topic, it is COMMON to have a BIO page sourced to articles and reviews about the books.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Nom states, page needs improvement. However, I ran a WP:BEFORE and in a proquest news archive search I can see book reviews and coverage going back to the publication of his first book in the 1990s. Added two book reviews and a NYTimes article stating that one of his books sold 300,000 copied. This page just needs an editor to put the work in, but it may require access to news archive searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks but I still don’t think this passes WP:ANYBIO. The NYT source is a passing reference consisting of one sentence. The CNN source is likewise a passing ref consisting of a one-sentence quote. The last two refs you’ve added don’t have links so I can’t see them, but suspiciously they have identical titles. When I search for that title I turn up a third piece in the NY Daily News also headed “Want to be your own contractor? First read this“. From which I conclude this is most likely just a recycling of launch PR. My conclusion is still that while some of his books may be notable, he isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that they are signed reviews by different journalists, both apparaently using an obvious play on world of the book title. I used a Paywalled Proquest newspaper search, therefore, no links.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Books widely discussed, one sold over 300,00o copies. some book reviews, but mostly discussion of the books, interviews, feature coverage. He was a be-your-own contractor guru. But editors without access to paywalled news archives will have trouble seeing the coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prolific author who meets WP:SIGCOV Los Angeles Times. E.M.Gregory did some good work adding references. Lightburst (talk) 17:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NAUTHOR. I have added a couple more reviews of two of his other titles, in addition to the reviews that E.M.Gregory added the one that has been in print so long. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:19, 23 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Lewarne

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BASIC or any criteria of WP:NARTIST. Sources in article are primary. Search for sources turned up only promotional, self-authored brief bios and passing mentions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Triptothecottage (talk) 05:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find SIGCOV.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Darwinek (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, based on what I found on Google books. It's arguable whether the coverage is significant or not. Her illustrations have been used on book covers and in magazines. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reviews, nor permanent collections holding her work. The one mentioned in the article, "Commanderie Museum D’Unet" (actually the Musée de la Commanderie d'Unet, or the Musée d'art moderne d'Unet) was a scam - a woman who charged artists to display their works, and didn't have a museum, just her dining room! One of Lewarne's works is held by the the Government of Ontario Art Collection [5], but I don't think that counts as a "notable gallery or museum". Her work was selected for the Art Gallery of Mississauga's annual exhibition in 2015 (one of 31 selected from 173 submissions), but I can't find that any of her work is in that gallery's permanent collection. That may change, of course, but for now she doesn't seem to meet any of the WP:SNG or WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:47, 15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brookshire, California

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

I live nearby and I have never heard of Brookshire, outside of seeing it on Google maps. No businesses or other properties nearby include Brookshire in their names. There is no sign anywhere for Brookshire. The name of this locale has not even been mentioned in any nearby newspapers. I don't think Wikipedia needs a page for this just because it is in the GNIS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naddruf (talk • contribs)

Delete utterly fails WP:V. Literally the only hits I get are false positives that just have the words "Brookshire" and "California" next to each other. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that someone said it could be a hoax. I don't think that could be accurate, because it was categorized in the Geographic Names Information System. I think it is more likely just a name created but never used.Naddruf (talk) 06:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think we can base evidence of existence solely on GNIS. This seems to come up quite regularly; place names that are found only in the GNIS database and sites using that database. Pages where the only information is coords and elevation is a red flag for a fictitious/erroneous entry for WP:GEOLAND cases. SpinningSpark 16:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it might be a ghost town - I found a few book references but nothing else. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearian: Do you mind linking to those book sources? If it is a ghost town, then it should be kept per WP:GEOLAND and WP:NTEMP. SpinningSpark 13:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Spinningspark and Bearian: The ones I can see are from some magazines about mining. It seems to have been an oil drilling location. However it says nothing in these books beyond the price of the stock from this location. There are three other books, but I can't open them to see the reference. One is "Pisor's Registry of World Record Size Shells". One is about a pet store (which is listed from 1991; I'm very sceptical that this town existed then. The remaining one is "The Stickley Brothers: The Quest for an American Voice", which I searched inside the book and didn't find anything.
Delete per all. Nothing substantial on Google Books. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:27, 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 delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Social Compassion in Legislation

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

Article about a Non-profit which fails to have any reliable sources that discuss this organization in depth. All references provided are primary or press releases about laws this group may have supported. Failes to meet WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lousy sources, and searches that don't turn up much.A.Jacobin (talk) 14:35, 11 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) 17:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snagger

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

Page is about something I cannot find any evidence is used in the manner this article claims it does. Even the external links used as references do not support anything in this article. I would have CSD but I may have been having regional search issues as this could be a very regional based term. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 04:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete likewise I can’t find anything at all to support the content of this article. Mccapra (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snagging is a part of the house construction process in Ireland and the U.K. (per, e.g., ISBN 9781444302370 pages 113–114), but whilst there is a snag list there's no "snagger" associated with it. snagging is in the U.S. a style of sport fishing with multiple hooks, and that has snaggers which would redirect to it. The history of this article is that it started out as entirely what is now snagger (software), and was later hijacked. Instead of taking the hijacking out, editors took the original article out, attributing the original article to the wrong author along the way. (Q3dotzero (talk · contribs) is the author of this stuff, but was erroneously credited with the work of Swede1127 (talk · contribs).) Q3dotzero's edit pointed to things which did not support the content, and I am unable to find any support for this. This is unverifiable. The right thing to do is either to revert to the original snagger (software) that was here, or redirect to snagging and make sure that snagger (software) can be found. Uncle G (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, the original subject, Snagger software, shows no signs of notability either. The new hijacked article doesn't seem to be verifiable. Sionk (talk) 12:32, 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 delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsbet.io

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

inadequate references for notability -- essentially all references are press releases or notices. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought I'd actually nominated this as I did a full before and found it lacked the multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing it in signficant detail we expect for NCORP articles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with above MaskedSinger (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and open a UPE investigation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have done better research and updated the article with proper secondary sources. It was careless from my part not noticing press releases. What are the other changes you might suggest to improve the article quality? Thanks Smehh (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, all the sources added (both in the version as nominated for AfD and the current revision) seem to be press releases. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep After review it appears that original editor has changed the article sources to independent news providers. Review is needed. Stoupa84 (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)— Stoupa84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
@DGG, Ritchie333, and Kudpung: Please check your inbox. Thank you GSS (talk|c|em) 10:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I re-read just now every one of the proposed sources, to make sure I'm not just going by impressions. Everything is still PR, except 3,4, and 9 which are more accurately termed mere notices, and 6 is an enthusiastically uncritical review--even if it is naïvely seen as a honest 3rd party source, it wouldn't be enough to justify an article. . Two of the blatant indications here are that some of the pr references are almost identical, and that many of them quote an interview with the firm's executive as most of the content. The attempt to keep this article has been advertised off-WP, and small amounts of money offered to those saying keep. I think a snow close is appropriate. Not speedy, for we need to be able to use G5 for the probable future re-creations. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. Not notable. looks like part of a PR campaign WP:ARTSPAM, subtle, but there. Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:43, 15 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:57, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

George Kubini

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

This article is about a person who seems to be really only known for one thing. The article seems to fall into the issue of WP:NOTNEWS, the references used are either that of government agencies or a rehashes of the same press release/court reporting. The article is more a synopsis of the court case then the person himself. This fails to meet the threshold in WP:GNG McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the nominator. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 03:49, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every personaccused of property fraud is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norminator. Lapablo (talk) 21:35, 13 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. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of guest stars on Sesame Street

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

I nominate this list for deletion because its reliability can never be assured; as a matter of fact, the refimprove tag has been there for over nine years. The information that can be verified has been included in List of Sesame Street Muppets and List of human Sesame Street characters, both of which are FLs. I also believe that this list is unnecessary and a bad reflection on the quality of most other Sesame Street articles. The show's 50th anniversary is in November of this year, so it's important to maintain the quality of those articles. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can't argue with your points Christine (Figureskatingfan) but if improved, this page would definitely be a useful resource and very appropriate page to have. Any suggestions apart from delete? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article in its current state does not belong in the mainspace, that is a given. Mostly unsourced; random selection of pictures; a small number of entries have segment information. I also believe that the alphabetized list does not help here at all. A better version would be a proper sortable table with columns for (at least) actor, date appeared, episode appeared, segment (or other info), and ref. Such a table would add context to the list. Either outright delete or send to draft, if someone is actually working on it. --Gonnym (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gonnym, I'd be okay with sending it to draft, but as I state above, the verifiable content is in other FLs. Yes, it's been worked on lately, but mostly by IPs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The WP:GNG is passed by the coverage this gets. A simple search for "guest stars" and "sesame street" finds ample results to sort through. Vanity Fair [6], Entertainment Tonight [7], Screen Rant [8]. So the topic is clearly notable. This information is not in other articles. As for confirming information on the list, that can be easily done by referencing what episode they were on. I search for the name of the first person on the list, Paula Abdul, and "Sesame Street" and found video clips of her appearance. And https://muppet.fandom.com/wiki/Paula_Abdul list what episodes she was on and what she did. That isn't a reliable source since its user generated, however someone can then look at that and search for the episode number and the name of the person and find something. She list her appearance on her official website https://www.paula-abdul.com/zoes-dance-moves.html . The information is easily confirmed. Dream Focus 04:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 04:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article/list easily passes WP:GNG based on the coverage and existing video footage of each celebrity's appearance. For instance: this Washington Post article which details Annette Bening's appearance on Sesame Street. WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suggest focus on creating a single table with sortable columns that includes episode date at a minimum. Can do it in a sub-page. -- GreenC 14:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to pass WP:LISTN with several RS (such as [9]) listing guest stars. There is very little overlap with the two FLs mentioned in the nom~~, and some of those should be removed and kept in guest stars (such as All Star Alphabet)~~. If they refer to the guest star by their real name, then they clearly should be on this list. Maybe it should be noted if they were on the show or in a direct-to-video. That might be clear by the lack of "episode #". Certainly open to changing the format to a table, but we might want to add more info (in a easily replaced format) while it is still broken up by letter. There are 3,465 articles which mention "Sesame Street" and 95 with it in the title so it's important to maintain the quality of those articles. StrayBolt (talk) 02:47, 14 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. Clear consensus in favour of keeping this list at this time. The nominator also has stated that they no longer stand by their nomination of this article (by not SKCRIT #1 due to the single "delete" !vote). TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Toronto District School Board elementary schools

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

This article is not ready for mainspace. Ultimately I think this should move to draft space, but my attempt to DRAFTIFY was politely and firmly contested so I have self-reverted and am nominating it here. It is of questionable notability - there are no equivalent elementary school lists for other major cities that I could find. We also don't normally have articles about elementary schools as they lack notability. In fairness we do list elementary schools for smaller districts and such a list would overwhelm any separate article making it appropriate for a split as LISTN does have some leeway for lists of non-notable entries. However, that notability would assume anything close to a complete list. There are 451 primary schools in Toronto. While this list does not need to be complete with the information to be displayed in the table, to be ready for mainspace it needs more than the 13 schools (3% of total schools) present. Sending to draft (or userspace) for further development and/or restoring the redirect seems like the correct outcome at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my nomination in light of the table that Bradv was able to generate. It is now not an indiscriminate list and is in a shape where interested editors who add other information overtime has a strong base to build from. Thanks Bradv. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply: Yes we do have lists of elementary schools, usually in school district article. E.g. Jefferson City School District. Toronto is bigger though. But see: List of public elementary schools in New York City. AFDs about individual elementary schools are usually concluded by linking to the mention in the school district article. --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've worked on the sister page List of secondary schools in the Toronto District School Board and thought it could use a partner. There are several pages on elementary schools in this district that may be orphans without this list. I do not agree with the argument that notability rests on how complete the list is, since wikiepdia is always evolving. I do agree that notability rests upon the content of the list which is up for debate. Ultimately, wikipedia is a collaborative process and pages cannot (and should not) be constructed by one user only in a draftspace and the mainspace is the only place for other editors to see and to edit and improve. I've started many lists like these that have went on to featured list status with collaboration that would be impossible if they were deleted like this page has. I'm glad this is up for discussion, I was frustrated that hours of work were deleted without any discussion nearly causing me to quit wikipedia altogether. Also to consider, Wikipedia is not paper WP:Paper so there is absolutely no harm in having this list, even incomplete, on wikipedia for others to improve. Mattximus (talk) 03:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is normal to have a repository for information about nn elementary schools. Sometimes it is a school board and sometimes a list. I see no policy objection to having this as a list and it looks useful. BTW as an editorial action, I would remove all the red links that will never be blued. Just Chilling (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a indiscriminate collection of information that does not satisfy the notability criteria for a standalone list. There are no independent and reliable sources that talk about the list itself as a topic. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look again, there now several independent and reliable sources added to the article. More will be added later. Please let me know if the CBC, or the EQAO websites are not independent or reliable, in addition to the TDSB official website. Also, the information is in no way in discriminant since it is not a random collection at all, but a finite list with a defined scope. Mattximus (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The "list itself" is not a "topic"; the list is a format for presenting information. postdlf (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not "an indiscriminate collection of information" since it is limited to a distinct number of a specific class of elementary schools. I have sourced the inclusion criteria for avoidance of doubt. It is established practice in educational articles to group elementary schools, that are mostly nn, together either in a list or in the Board article to record key information about them. If this list were deleted they would have to be added to the Board page and that would make the page look unbalanced. Just Chilling (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft space I agree this page is not ready for main space. It is, frankly, crap. If editors are willing to work on and provide ALL of the information that is required to fill the columns, it could be a useful list, I suppose. However, I am dubious. Myself, I am not sure of the value of listing the testing scores. They seem to be numbers without questionable validity to represent the quality of a school. I am not sure of the purpose of a list of schools here when the school board does so itself, with maps showing their catchment areas. Alaney2k (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's opinion that "this article is not ready for mainspace" is fundamentally contrary to our editing policy which states that
Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. For instance, one person may start an article with an overview of a subject or a few random facts. Another may help standardize the article's formatting, or have additional facts and figures or a graphic to add. Yet another may bring better balance to the views represented in the article, and perform fact-checking and sourcing to existing content. At any point during this process, the article may become disorganized or contain substandard writing.

This method of making a quick start on a topic is the reason that Wikipedia has its name – wiki means quick. This quick and dirty method replaced the perfectionist approach of Nupedia which was an utter failure. Our successful approach is explicitly incomplete and imperfect – that's why every page has a disclaimer; why we have concepts like stubs; and why we have templates like {{dynamic list}}. If you want to make it even clearer to readers that a page is under construction then you just put a template like {{under construction}} on it. What you don't do is delete it as that would be disruptive and bitey.

Note also that the topic certainly passes WP:LISTN because there are substantial sources which list and analyse these schools such as the Report Card on Ontario's Elementary Schools.

Andrew D. (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of educational institutions in Scarborough, Ontario about a list of schools within one big section of Toronto. There was considerable sentiment that organizing by area was not best, though the list-article was kept for the time being (I think it should be broken up now). Discussion led to thinking that there should be lists of schools grouped by school district within the city, instead (though there turns out to be complication where districts don't align with city borders). I think that listing schools by school district is what works well elsewhere in Wikipedia, and can cover the schools in Toronto, too. (Pinging Nfitz, Bearcat, and PKT who participated there.)

I presume school district lists could be organized by (or be sortable by) primary vs. secondary vs. post-secondary, and by location/area within the city. And articles about any small area within the city can mention any elementary school, say, but wikilink to its coverage within the relevant school district list. Having mention somewhere for all elementary schools, is, in practice, essential to our avoiding cycles of new article creation and deletion for scattered separate elementary schools (usually the school name should be a redirect to an {{anchor}} for its coverage within a big list). In the list-article, most elementary school mentions should be "black-links", i.e. avoid redlinks to avoid suggesting that separate articles should be created.

In that AFD it was noted there that there exists:

Toronto District School Board (TDSB), whose borders align with the city's
Toronto Catholic District School Board (TCDSB)'s whose borders align with the city's
Conseil scolaire Viamonde (CSV, French public board), which is an amalgamation of 6 old boards, only one of which (Conseil des écoles françaises de la communauté urbaine de Toronto (CEFCUT)) is in Toronto, while the other 5 cover the entire Southwestern Ontario, Niagara Peninsula, Hamilton, the rest of the GTA outside of Toronto, and a surprising chunk of Central Ontario
The French Catholic Board (Conseil scolaire de district catholique Centre-Sud (CSDCCS) "is a bit more limited, but still covers most of the entire Golden Horseshoe and some of the surrounding counties."

Here, this AFD is about a list-article for one type of school in one of the districts. It seems like a useful chunk of the total, and can be referenced from Education in Toronto article, which lists the school districts and also independent schools. It is fine in general for sublists to be split out from list-articles that are otherwise too long, and it is just an editorial decision when to split, or how. Splitting out elementary schools seems okay. It could be argued that splitting within school district by geographical area, instead, could be better, but I leave that to others. I hope that there are editors who will properly organize this stuff, including merging away the Scarborough list (which combined schools from 3 or 4 districts). --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there is to be a list of public schools, then doing it by school board is the most pragmatic way of doing it, I'd think. It's how people around here (in Ontario) would probably expect to find the information. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, although the list oughta be quickly developed so that it is comprehensive. A sublist of one type of school can be split out of a list-article about schools in a big district. That is just an editing decision. Merger vs. different split can be discussed at Talk page, with notice given to Talk:Toronto District School Board. It is okay that this is an incomplete list for the moment, and I like the table, but most entries should be "black-links" i.e. no link, rather than redlinks. The name of a school like Adam Beck Junior Public School (which showed as a redlink) should be redirected to its row in the table, and the mention in the table should be delinked. As I just did for that one. It required using "id=" to set an anchor in its table row. --Doncram (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just merged into the table all the elementary schools of this district from the Scarborough list-article (which should be dropped soon, IMO). I think the ESL percentage and Reading, Writing, Mathematics scores columns ought to be dropped; parents considering where to buy a house they should look this stuff up somewhere reliable and regularly updated, which must be available. Add columns for relatively unchanging info such as date of establishment of school, and add a description or notes column, instead (adding to current location, size, grades covered). --Doncram (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with a priority on having a simple complete list rather than an incomplete list with incomplete ancillary data (we really don't need test scores here). I've proposed such a version on the talk page. – bradv🍁 21:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this had been the content to begin with I would never have nominated and have already support the simple list Brad included on the talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment / Note on process. The article has been developed quite a bit and discussed on its Talk page, and the nominator has applied strikethrough to their nomination statement. I am not sure if striking that way is most proper, because it makes the AFD hard to read, although of course the nominator is allowed to indicate they have changed their mind. But this AFD must continue, anyhow, and the nominator cannot (and did not attempt to) close the AFD, because there are outstanding !votes for "Delete" and "Draftify" from two editors. User:Ritchie333 and User:Alaney2k, do you care to change/update your !votes given developments? It is okay if they do not choose to make any update or even to reply. Unless they both change to "Keep" then this AFD should run its course and be closed regularly by an uninvolved party. Actually a week has gone by since the AFD nomination though, but there have been substantial comments up to today the 17th, so I don't know when a regular close is allowed. I !voted "Keep" above. --Doncram (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in this edit I reduced the stricken out range to just the nominator's words, so no longer striking out the AFD's basic info. As the AFD is going on. And that was a day or two ago and seems to have been accepted. I guess it is okay for the nominator to strike out all their words, as it now displays; it just appears wrong to strike out the title of AFD, the links to searches, etc., at the top. --Doncram (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we generally don't consider most individual elementary schools notable. Redirecting to a board, or in the case of a board with hundreds of elementary (451 apparently), list of schools, seems reasonable. And lists of schools within a board seem to be a common enough thing in the media that this would meet GNG - like this. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, the original issues that would have potentially justified deletion have been addressed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:31, 18 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Ministry

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

The first part of the article engages in unsourced speculation on the real-world dates of Jim Hacker's political career and the second is a list of fictional cabinet members, including the "former Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Defence." It stands in violation of point 1 of WP:IINFO as it merely summarizes rather than discusses "the development, design, reception, significance, and influence of works." I could find no sources apart from the TV show or book that discuss this fictional government ministry, and if no sources can be found discussing the Hacker Ministry, we shouldn't have an article on it. I love Yes, Prime Minister, but this doesn't belong here. schetm (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can any of this content be moved to the main page? MaskedSinger (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, there's nothing worth merging. The tenure of government section is entirely original research, and everything from Her Majesty's Government on down is pure WP:LISTCRUFT. Merging the content anywhere would violate either WP:OR or WP:IINFO. schetm (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like the Her Majesty's Government section. It is not LISTCRUFT, it is essentially a list of characters, but organised according to role rather than the organisation on the Yes Minister page which is the more conventional main/minor arrangement. However, that may be more suitable for Wikia than here. SpinningSpark 15:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The material is either entirely in-universe, or a discussion of the dates of the Hacker government. The latter is all WP:SYNTH of in-universe statements. The writers of Yes Minister clearly kept the dates deliberately obscure, presumably to prevent association with any real-world government. Any claimed ability to be able to deduce the dates is akin to spotting continuity errors in movies. For this to be notable, sources with out-of-universe discussion of the subject are required, which are entirely lacking at the moment. It's hard to imagine how a source might discuss the Hacker government separately for Yes Minister in any case. SpinningSpark 15:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apart from the fact this is all very speculative and seems to contain original research, a fictional administration would have to have a lot of coverage and significance to meet the notability standards needed for an article. While, yes Minister/Prime Minister were popular series the actual Hacker ministry is not really a significant part of the series. Other than the main characters (two of whom are civil servants) the rest barely appear. Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wholly non-encyclopaedic. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:45, 15 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. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nik Halik

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

Not notable- nothing about him online besides his books. TheAwesome Hwyh 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TheAwesome Hwyh 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - if he does do a spaceflight article can be recreated but nothing apparent to establish notability. On basis of articles obtained by User:Northamerica1000 this is probably borderline, so I'll change to neutral as the article needs significant work and sourcing. Bookscale (talk) 11:16, 4 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) 01:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above MaskedSinger (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Teraplane (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Per a basic WP:BEFORE search, I found some articles and content about the subject in seconds, listed below. Not !voting at this time, but the subject has received some coverage outside of the purview of his books. Furthermore, coverage about a subject's books can qualify notability per WP:AUTHOR if independent book reviews in RS are available. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

The Sydney Morning Herald
The Age
The Common Thread of Overcoming Adversity and Living Your Dreams. pp. 238– (subscription required)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:55, 16 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) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While much of the article and in fact the searches turn up puff pieces I am convinced there is notoriety in the subject: Perhaps not for the book (5 Day Weekend) which was a co-write situation, but more for the subject's wealth and ability to perhaps be a civilian moonwalker. I found references which appear in reliable sources: Forbes, Times of India, Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and Entrepreneur The article is in need of a Neutral POV rewrite (I started to add refs and rewrite a bit), however WP:NOTCLEANUP Seems this subject meets our general notability guidelines. Lightburst (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep – Per a source review, just squeaks by WP:BASIC. Some sources have interview content, but also contain non-interview biographical information. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Entertainers are notable based on their creation. If his book is notable, then so is he. Dream Focus 09:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - except he's not an entertainer, he's an entrepreneur. Bookscale (talk) 11:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - He is notable for being a "best-selling author". Anyway, doesn't matter, passes the general notability guidelines with coverage like this [10] Dream Focus 14:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't disagree with you - was just pointing out the error (in case there was some confusion about him meeting a guideline for entertainers). Bookscale (talk) 10:12, 6 August 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 House Un-American Activities Committee. Not a strong consensus, but it seems closer to what the participants want than a "no consensus" default keep. RL0919 (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Popper

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

Fails WP:GNG. Article with two references, neither of which come close to establishing notability. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:00, 24 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? 16:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only coverage for her that I can find is primary sources (government) when she invoked the Fifth Amendment during the House Un-American Activities Committee hearings. It's possible that there might be contemporary newspaper coverage of the hearings that talk about her, but I don't know that this one event is sufficient for WP:GNG. UrbanToreador (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some news coverage of her which I added to the article. However, I really can't decide what to do about her. I think maybe redirecting to House Un-American Activities Committee until someone writes a better bio about her. There's a lot of primary sources about her (many which I didn't add since they wouldn't show notability) so I could see that as a future possibility. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is basically one event notability, and that is just not cutting it. Not every piano teacher is notable, and being called before a congressional committee also does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 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) 01:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: I would not be against a "Redirect" per User:Megalibrarygirl as a compromise. No bio here and the one inconclusive hearing would not be enough. There may be more secondary sources "out there" but agree with delete if redirect does not find favor. Otr500 (talk) 15:11, 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 no consensus. I am not seeing a consensus in this discussion. There have been two relistings and, since the last comment was over 10 days ago, my view is that a further relist is unlikely to promote a better consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

679 Artists

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

Article is unsourced with the only source I was able to find was the archived version of thier website and http://37adventures.co.uk/679-artists/ which is mostly a copy of the website with an additional sentence about the end of the label. These two self published sources are not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines.

A merger has been suggested to warner music group, but that would be inappropriate since there are over a hundred such labels and including them in the article would be infeasible. Just including one of the non-notable labels would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 679 meets WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label - it was in operation for more than a decade as a Warner subsidiary (I see a release as recent as 2018) and released music from a whole passel of noteworthy artists, among them The Streets, The Futureheads, The Secret Handshake, King Creosote, Death from Above 1979, MSTRKRFT, Little Boots, Plan B, and The Stills. Many of these albums were charting in the UK or the US, in some cases top-ten. The argument against merging falls flat; leaving this as a redlink is certainly not preferable to having it provide some sort of information about the connections between the groups that would link to it. Chubbles (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find what WP:MUSIC's sense of an important label was with no heading for labels. Therefore I looked at the criteria for the "Others" section of WP:MUSIC and to the criteria at WP:ORG. For both these I could not see that it met these criteria due to not finding any significant coverage in any independent, reliable secondary sources. This could of course be due incompatence on my part, but as notability is not inherited having a notable artists in the label is not sufficient for notability.

I am also curious about the 2018 release as according to http://37adventures.co.uk/679-artists/ the label closed in 2013. Trialpears (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:MUSIC's language refers to indie labels, but I don't see a good reason not to apply it to major-subsidiaries, if we are choosing between keeping and merging. I'm not in principle opposed to a merge so long as the basic functionality of the page - an easy way to tell who was signed to the label - is retained; perhaps to a larger Warner discography page, but frankly, leaving it as a separate article (perhaps at "list of artists signed to 679 Artists"?) just seems like so much more user-friendly a solution. Plan B's most recent album (2018) was released on the label according to Billboard ([11]). Chubbles (talk) 20:51, 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 12:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of compelling arguments to say that "labels" should not fall under WP:NCORP guidelines but should instead fall under WP:MUSIC guidelines. As it stands, WP:MUSIC does not provide guidelines for labels (but perhaps it should?). Therefore using the WP:NCORP guidelines, this company fails the criteria as there are no references that meet the guidelines for establishing notability and my !vote would be to delete. Has this discussion taken place under WP:MUSIC in the past? HighKing⁺⁺ 17:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_37#No_criteria_for_labels and then subsequently at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)/Archive_21#Proposed_criteria_for_record_labels. I was the instigator in these conversations, though I did not see the attempt through fully. The chief sticking point seemed to be the number of artists that would substantiate importance - some editors wanted a minimal threshold, whereas I thought a more holistic judgment was warranted, and I didn't end up pursuing the matter beyond this. Chubbles (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:20, 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. Sufficient swallows found. RL0919 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeeves of Belgravia

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

Declined speedy. I think that this is a thoroughly unremarkable business; the only ref that does not seem entirely run of the mill is the NYT article from 1979. It's pretty insubstantial and one swallow does not a summer make. TheLongTone (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the company that owns the business is itself a subsidiary of another company, and does not have its own article.TheLongTone (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the 8 refs only 2 offer anything that would count towards notability. These 2 are newspaper cuttings describing shop openings and count as routine coverage. A recently created article with likely COI. Szzuk (talk) 07:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The article doesn't say they are part of the bigger Johnsons cleaners. However I now see they are. Szzuk (talk) 06:38, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Johnsons Cleaners UK as the perfectly obvious WP:ATD. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not totally sold on all of the sources added, since several do little more than report on the two acquisitions the store has been through. However, the HK Tatler and NYT articles, neither of which I found in my initial look, get it over the line. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Being run-of-the-mill is not a reason to delete and, in any case, the assertion is false as this is an exceptional business, specialising in luxury items and holding a royal warrant. This exceptional nature is recognised in educational work such as this and so the topic passes WP:GNG. See also WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, my first reaction to this was the same as yours, as I've known about Jeeves for years and thought it was a unique and notable business. However, as I started writing what I fully intended to be a 'keep' !vote, and looked for sources to back up my argument, I discovered that there really aren't any that offer any depth of coverage, and particularly none that separate Jeeves from its parent company, with whom I recommend merging it. Luxury does not equal notability and a small feature in an A-level Business Studies textbook definitely doesn't mean it passes the WP:GNGs in my view. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, it is the coverage that is claimed to be run-of-the-mill, not the business. Please learn to distinguish the difference between notability and uniqueness. SpinningSpark 14:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination asserts that this is a "thoroughly unremarkable business" and this is quite false. As a further example of detailed coverage, see here. There are many humdrum dry-cleaners, such as the one I use myself, but this one is something special and has coverage to match. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly in-depth coverage; its a nugget of triva. And being expensive does not confer notability.TheLongTone (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amongst other things, that detailed piece tells us that it was "the largest of its kind in Europe". This is clearly significant coverage and so my !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I declined the speedy, and I have just added more sources to the article. I believe that it meets WP:ORGCRITE, with significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, these being The New York Times, The Guardian, the Independent, UPI (in several publications, here referenced to The Galveston Daily News), The Telegraph and the Hong Kong Tatler. I note too that the coverage extends from 1979, through 1980, 2003, 2014, and 2017. While some of the sources cover sales of the companies, they do not appear to me to be "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage", as they contain 6 or more paragraphs. I have not checked all databases for sources - I will add more if I find it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:12, 15 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 redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Henry (The Walking Dead)

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

Brief mentions in routine reviews of the show. No in-depth analysis or coverage to show any real-world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sounds like a run of the mill support character who isn't a major part in the show Seasider91 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. BOZ (talk) 20:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters. As stated by the nom, there is not much in terms of actual in-depth coverage for this fairly minor character. He is already present on the list of characters, though, so a redirect to that list seems appropriate. As he is already given a brief bio there, a merge is not really necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Nom and User:Rorshacma. Secondary choice of Delete if redirect is not an option. Otr500 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of The Walking Dead (TV series) characters per above. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 15 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 no consensus. Opinion in this one seems to be split down the middle and I find all arguments presented reasonable. The closest thing to a consensus is that the sourcing fails WP:CORPDEPTH, but since there seem to be people willing to try fleshing the article out, let's leave it here and try again in a while if nothing comes of that. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Attain (consulting firm)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP. Sources are all highly specialised (WP:AUD) and so do not confer notability. It has not attracted any mainstream coverage. Looks a lot like undisclosed paid editing as well. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Went looking, found a lot of DC centric coverage, and there seems to be enough notable contract issues that tie to other organizations, I'd like to build it out. Proteinlover (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we've had five days to save it, and all I see are local or insider coverage, duplicate citations, and a Bloomberg listing. That does not meet significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Found some new sources, that are more regional/national. I takes Bearian's point, although, it's always a pain with businesses b/c their aren't many editors to help, and I do think it's better than where it started. Proteinlover (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references in the article meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company announcements (dependent coverage) and they fail WP:ORGIND. Others are mentions-in-passing and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria therefore topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Page has plenty of sources that meet WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV including articles in reputable Washington D.C. media outlets. Mememento (talk) 18:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Except none meet WP:ORGIND. If you think they do, put a link here so we can take a look... HighKing⁺⁺ 11:49, 16 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) 01:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sourcing does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Beltway bandits; so mostly regional coverage, but the negatives on their gov't contracts seem like they need a bit of building out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sneakerheadguy (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was asked to comment. It has a major role in work for multiple agencies of the US government--it is every bit as essential to have articles on firms like this as it is to the official government departments. I added the appropriate links. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: That's a rationale that doesn't seem to have any basis in policy. Either there are sources to justify notability or there aren't. Who the company's clients are has no bearing. SmartSE (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The most fundament of all policies is that we are an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should contain material that people might reasonably look for in an encyclopedia. The relevant specific policy is NOT INDISCRIMINATE. The notability guideline is one way of showing that, and the usual way, but it's not the only way. Size or dominance, though not a written guideline, has been accepted for organizations in many but of course not all AfDs. WP:N is not policy, and many efforts to elevate it to that status have failed, because we need thef flexibility. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and that's why we have *guidelines* to assist every editor in evaluating notability of various topics. Nowhere in WP:NCORP (the relevant guidelines for organizations/companies) does it even mention that "size or dominance" should even be considered as a criteria. The first line of WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE refers editors to the WP:N guideline so guidelines are important - just that they don't trump policy. I'm afraid I do not understand how you are applying policy to support your !vote in response to a question on sources. The policy states "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia" which could be interpreted as a direct contradiction of your position. From the same policy, we also have WP:NOTYELLOW which points out that articles are not "simple listings". Anyway DGG, we have disagreed in the past but I can normally understand (and even eventually agree with) the (very good) points you make in relation to scarcity of sources due to the age of some companies, the difficulty of sourcing sources that may exist solely in print or in other languages/countries, etc. I'm just not convinced in the slightest by the argument you've made here. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:18, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume I was mentioned by name because a further comment was wanted.

Looking around WP as new articles come in, I notice we have articles on all significant government departments and military units, even though 90% of the time we have only reliable, but not independent sources. This is because we need to give people the information to put world events in context, by providing plain description of the basic background. Companies such as this, doings what they ado,are essentially ousourced government departments. If you really don't understand their importance in the world, you need to do some reading elsewhere than on WP. Generally, we have trouble covering them, because of the lake of even basic reliable sourcing. When we can document them, even to the extent that this article does, we should.

Since we make the rules, we say how they are applied. I -- or anyone experienced here -- can take the detailed wording of policy & guidelines and and, for most articles, argue for keep or delete, interpreting the wording to get the conclusion I want. It's a game, rather like college debating. WP has enough divergent rules to make it a complex game, and there are many people here who see these afd discussions as a good place to play it. I spent two years learning how to do it, and after that, got bored with it. Since we can find rules to make a decision on the intuitive basis of what we think WP should be like, that's what I directly aruge for.

I started here as an inclusionist, and with the rise of promotionalism, switched to being deletionist in many fields, as the best way to keep out advertising because for promotionalism is more apt to be present for the less notable subjects. It's no longer necessary to do it this indirect way, because we have advanced to the stage of recognizing promotionalism for what it is, and directly removing it. I think the arguement for deleting an article has to show why it would actually harm WP to have it. Including advertising absolutely harms the encyclopedia , because if we not NPOV, we're not an encyclopedia in the first place. Including relatively minor material does not harm, because an encyclopedia can be of wider or narrower coverage and still be a good encyclopedia. Including completely trivial material however does, for it gives an impression that we're not serious. If you think this organization is trivial, deletion would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation and I believe I understand your position. I would argue that if I (and other editors) were to adopt your position, we would end up arguing over which companies are "essentially outsourced government departments" and which ones are merely promoting themselves as such and (over time) probably end up with something very close to our current guidelines. Apologies - I should probably have asked at your Talk page rather than here but thank you again for responding in detail. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:09, 22 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam

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

Apparently non-notable. The refs are minor notices, not comprehensive accounts. And there's a clear promotional intent. DGG ( talk ) 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Independent and reliable references were added. I think that now this article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. If any sentence in the article that violate neutrality, remove that particular sentence and retain the article.Mayooramc (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Hindu and TOI are certainly reliable sources. Not sure about some of the others. Mccapra (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Winged Blades of Godric/Indian Media helps with paid news in India. Only one of the pieces currently cited is of the politician-promises-something content-free non-news kind, and that's being used to source a minor fact. Most of the current sourcing is news coverage of single incidents involving the subject, rather than the subject as a whole. I have not looked to see what could be found. Uncle G (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is significant coverage on activities and future plans of Sabarimala Ayyappa Seva Samajam in independent media such as, United News of India^[1], News 18^[2] and The Hindu^[3]^[4]^[5].
Mayooramc (talk) 07:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG with not just minor mentions. Activities done by the organizations are prime focus of various news articles already used as sources in the article.

References

^ "Ayyappa Seva Samajam conducts cleaning operation in Sabarimala". United News of India. 2019-07-10. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
^ "Ayyappa seva samajam to offer free food facility". News18. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
^ Reporter, Staff (2011-06-19). "Ayyappa Seva Samajom to open 50 Seva Kendras". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
^ Srinivas, M. (2014-11-09). "Devotee-friendly steps for Sabarimala pilgrims". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.
^ "Campaign to save Sabarimala from plastic to begin in State". The Hindu. Special Correspondent. 2015-11-27. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

Keep. The sourcing looks solid now. Mccapra (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG and WP:Notability criteria and the article is well sourced. Some references from Malayalam News can also be added. --Harshil169 (talk) 07:10, 16 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mallorie Rodak

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

I'm not seeing any notability for this voice actress. No notable convention appearances. Sourced only by cast announcements and no major roles in major titles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reoccurring roles as characters in various notable series means WP:ENTERTAINER is passed: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows," Dream Focus 17:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are minor characters though so they are not significant roles. The series are not television but direct-to-videos. Those shows that actually made it to television (Tokyo Ghoul, Fairy Tail, My Hero Academia) she has minor character or guest roles. She is not made a significant guest list at any anime conventions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Izetta:_The_Last_Witch#Main_characters had its episodes broadcast, and this voice actor played one of the two main characters. Other things have in fact been on television, not that that actually matters. It has a Wikipedia article, then it counts as notable by Wikipedia standards. I did look through various things on the list earlier before stating the article should be kept, but don't feel like sorting through it all again to find other examples. Dream Focus 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, these are titles that if she were the voice actress in Japan, it would be a major, but this is on an English dub that is direct-to-video at most, and not even something like Netflix/Amazon. Notable English voice actors also have a number of convention appearances or significant coverage articles, of which she has none, only cast announcements. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a rule anywhere. Sounds like total nonsense you just made up. These aren't just random people chosen for dubs, these are professional voice actors. And whether something is made for television or internet broadcast is not relevant. Millions of people use Crunchroll to watch anime on. To claim Netflix or Amazon is notable but not Crunchroll and Funimation, is ridiculous. And whether someone goes to conventions or not is not relevant to notability. Dream Focus 14:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Was the English language version broadcast anywhere else than on internet streaming? There are no English language broadcast companies mentioned in the article or here. Is there any way of knowing viewing figure for individual animes on Crunchyroll? This might help to show notability because WP:ENTERTAINER requires that the show be notable. The Japanese version clearly is but the English version may not be. The notabilty guidelines for shows WP:TVSERIES state "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience.". --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's out of context. It reads Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market. Its showing that broadcast are more likely to be notable if broadcast over a larger area than just some local small town. That has nothing to do with internet viewing. And how exactly do you determine if something is notable in Japanese but not English? They review the first one out, then they don't usually review it again for each language its translated into. Dream Focus 15:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I made up. It's stuff that I've used for AFDs for years. This voice actress has NO anime convention appearances. If she's traveling all over the country and world to appear as a invited guest, she is probably more likely to be notable and get mentions in newspapers for it. Not every Funimation voice actor is notable just because their name appears on a Funimation credit. Also WP:GNG is not something I made up. If you can provide articles that meet WP:GNG, then that overrides WP:ENT. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTABILITY is quite clear. A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; It doesn't have to meet the GNG if it meets and of the SSG such as WP:ENTERTAINER. Dream Focus 17:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not convinced by the reply to my question about the notability of the dubbed English version of a notable Japanese anime. So in the absence of enough reliable sources to pass GNG and the lack of information to show she passes NACTOR I'm afraid it's a delete for me. Dom from Paris (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically no reliable and independent sources, Google showed nothing more useful. Esw01407 (talk) 19:00, 15 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 no consensus. Lourdes 16:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah Day

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

Seems like a non-notable song. ~~Previously deleted and is back.~~ Fails WP:NSONG. A redirect, maybe? William2001^(talk) 01:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to emphasize that while NSONG does mention being ranked on a national chart, it also makes it clear that the chart alone cannot be the sole indicator of notability. Thank you. William2001^(talk) 12:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previously deleted article was about a holiday, not a song. Uncle G (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G: Thanks for letting me know; I guess I relied too much on the page curation notices. I still think that the song doesn't meet WP:NSONG. William2001^(talk) 21:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~Redirect Passes NSONG as the song definitely charted on accepted national list in Austria (and perhaps other countries). As the nomination was off the failed SNG, will thus presume notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to redirect in light of the work Aoba did below. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep: song ranked #12 on a national chart [12], passes #1 of WP:NSONG Ceethekreator (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Barkeep49 and Ceethekreator: Thanks for your suggestions. I agree that the song is ranked #12 on the chart, but according to WP:NSONG, I don't think that itself makes the song notable (it may be notable). I would like to see some significant coverage on this song. Thanks. William2001^(talk) 18:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about a song from 1996 so notability establishing sources might only exist offline. This is part of the reason that the presumption of notability from a SNG has some value in my mind. I admit I have not done a full look into finding sources that may exist online. But I did invest effort into establishing that it meets NSONG such that I can say it "Seems like a notable song. Passes NSONG. An article for improvement, maybe?" I'm very open to the argument that something which nominally passes a SNG is not actually notable, but as you didn't understand . However, I don't see you making that case especially as you didn't address the fact that it charted on a chart recognized by NSONG in your nomination. I am more than willing to change my !vote in an AfD based on evidence but from the evidence I'm seeing suggests notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NSONG per peak 12 on the national chart. BabbaQ (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your !vote, but again, NSONG makes it clear that ranking on the national chart itself is not sufficient. From NSONG: "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts. (Note again that this indicates only that a song may be notable, not that it is notable.)" William2001^(talk) 00:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a high ranking song on a national chart. Even within the Top20. Sorry, but this is a clear cut Keep article per Wikipedias own standards set in guidelines.BabbaQ (talk) 10:14, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Born in Africa (Dr. Alban album). Charting is one sign of a song's notability, but it would still need to receive coverage from third-party reliable sources. I disagree with the keep votes because the chart information could easily be merged into the parent article about the album. Offline sources may exist, but I could not find anything through Google or Newspapers.com. It is a valid search term so I think a redirect would be better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, thanks for doing this search. I don't have time at the moment to do my own search but this does provide evidence that a redirect might be appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Just trying to help out. Aoba47 (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That it could be merged is a POV. Wikipedias own set guidelines are very specific here. This is a high ranking song on a national chart. BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is not correct. The following sentence is taken directly from WP:NSONG: (Any of the following factors suggest that a song or single may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful) and one of those factors is chart placement. The guideline is saying that chart placement may indicate that a song has received coverage from reliable independent sources, but it does not present chart placement as an absolute indicator of notability by itself. Here is another sentence from WP:NSONG (Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album), and that further proves that notability is proven entirely by coverage. If the chart placement is the only information about the song available in sources, then it would fall under the "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" part. Apologies for the long response, but the above statement is not accurate to Wikipedia policy. My merge vote is grounded entirely in policy and not POV (as the above editor falsely claims). Aoba47 (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per ongoing disputes on both sourcing and interpretation of NSONG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May I just point out that the article passes WP:NMUSIC, High (top20) Charting/peak at national chart trumps all POV. I still say Keep after review of article and this discussion.BabbaQ (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I literally just explained in my message above how the NSONG Wikipedia policy directly states that chart placement alone does not fully account for notability so again your POV claim is false. Aoba47 (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe the article is notable, then I would encourage you to find and list sources here that cover it to prove that it had received enough coverage for an independent article. I could not find anything, but I would be more than happy to change my vote if sources are produced here. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 16 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) 13:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my Keep !vote. The song reached Top20 in the official chart (place 12). And are well sourced and within WP:NMUSIC.BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - such is my vote until actual reliable source coverage beyond chart listings are provided. If even one is provided, then ignore my vote. starship .paint (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has anyone been able to view Finnish/Swedish/Austrian entertainment industry periodicals from 1996, and come to the conclusion that the topic was not discussed? Are they available online? If not, then this is a textbook case of why we have notability guidelines other than GNG. It seems likely the song was discussed by independent, reliable sources *because* of the song's success on national charts. Across multiple countries. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:17, 31 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. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eylül Cansın

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

WP:BLP1E: Cansın has only received coverage for having died by suicide. gnu 57 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and nothing about this incident rises to more than routine news coverage of a suicide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Far more than just a suicide. Her death sparked protests in several Turkish cities and brought to the public's attention police brutality against sex workers, and in particular LBGT sex workers. Her death also led to a hostel being set up in Istanbul for people in a similar situation. To the Turkish LGBT community, she is an important figure in their history and civil rights struggle.--John B123 (talk) 22:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can't speak to Turkish sources, but doing a Google News search I see CBC, Guardian and Vice News sources mentioning an ongoing impact. Rab V (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the rational of John B123 and Rab V above. I would consider renaming and formatting the page to Death of Eylül Cansın.Thsmi002 (talk) 02:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident sparked protest in Ankara and Istabul - see http://www.kaosgl.org/page.php?id=18441 - here -1] and here-2shows the impact of the LGBT community in Turkey and culcuture in Turkey in general. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - her suicide was not merely news, but had a lasting impact. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/reply - Since the only coverage of Cansın is in the context of suicide, this article amounts to a WP:PSEUDObiography. The problems as I see it are
1. The reliable sources give hardly any information about Cansın as a person: just that Cansın was 22/23/24 years old, transgender, and had the birth name/alternate name Mehtap Zengin.^[1] In particular, there really are no reliable sources for Cansın's being employed as a sex worker. This research paper (the PDF version) does list someone with the same name as a 24-year-old sex worker; the author says, though, that some of the data was collected from people interviewed back in 2012 and some was extracted from LGBTI News in Turkey articles. I would assume the Cansın entry was one of the latter, and the LNT article doesn't mention sex work. (And the quote about choosing sex work is from a different person also named Eylul.)
2. The only sources of information about the events leading up to Cansın's death are the conflicting, non-BLP-compliant, primary source interviews/statements of Nurcan Zengin Bala (Cansın's mother)^[2] and Yankı Bayramoğlu (Cansın's roommate, a transgender beauty queen).^[3]^[4] (Did Cansın become a sex worker? If so, was it because of a lack of other opportunities, or coercion by a "trans gang"? Did Bayramoğlu beat, strip, and defraud Cansın of a large sum of money, or did Cansın remove her own clothes in a fit of agitation and remain friends with Bayramoğlu? Did the police turn a blind eye to the gang of transgender people allegedly menacing and beating Cansın? Bala said that she thought Cansın's death was foul play by the gang rather than a suicide. Michelle Demishevish, the activist/journalist who interviewed Bala and seems to be the only person doing significant reporting, later said that one of the transgender women whom Bala named was taken in for questioning.)
3. The coverage of the death itself is routine news items (with many reprints) which just say that Cansın committed suicide at the bridge, left a video note, and was buried in a particular cemetery, and that others attributed Cansın's death to transphobia.
4. In the aftermath of Cansın's death:
  - a coalition of LGBT groups protested and released a joint statement against heterosexism.^[5]
  - The LGBTI studies unit of the Turkish Psychologists Association released a statement about trans suicides.^[6]
  - a hostel was named in Cansın's memory.^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]
  - The play "Eylul" is named after Cansın but contains unrelated characters and plotlines.^[11]
  - There are also quite a number of passing mentions of Cansın as an instance of a transgender person who died by suicide, mainly in non-RS
    The sources for these all mention Cansın, of course, but don't say anything about her as a person.
I agree with Thsmi002 that a move to Death of Eylül Cansın might be better. I would prefer, though, to redirect/merge to LGBT rights in Turkey or LGBT history in Turkey, because there's very little that's BLP-compliant to say about Cansın's life or death; the bulk of the coverage which mentions Cansın is about the status of transgender people in Turkey following Cansın's death. Cheers, gnu 57 06:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Ramaswamy

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

An article about a non-notable subject probably written by himself. It has been previously deleted and is back again. All the sources fail at least one of the follow categories: reliable, independent, significant coverage, or about him. William2001^(talk) 01:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no SIGCOV. Mere passing mentions do not indicate notability. schetm (talk) 02:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very clearly fails WP:GNG, no indication of notability. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per norm. Lapablo (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 13:10, 15 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 no consensus. Several ideas have surfaced in this AfD - someone suggested a merge, another suggested moving the article to make it about an event (his disappearance) rather than a biography. I encourage people to continue discussing these possibilities on the talk page. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Acevedo Andrade

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

A WP:BEFORE check here turned up little in the way of references. This looks to be a rough translation of the same article on the Spanish Wikipedia, but I can't find much here or in Spanish, which I can read. Lack of sources seem to indicate he's not a notable subject - a mayor of a Chilean commune and a member of the Communist party, who disappeared. That's about the best I can find. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the same editor has done both the English and the fa:لوئیس آسودو آندراده translations from es:Luis Acevedo Andrade, which does contain two pointers to memoriaviva (which is not the Brazilian pt:Memória Viva). Uncle G (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he was leader (or even a leader) of the Communist Party of Chile then he's likely to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Except there's no source to back that claim, to prove he even was. He wasn't "the" leader if the timeline on Communist Party of Chile is to be believed. There's a quick mention that says "Communist Party Leader" in one of the sources, but it goes on to call him a "member", and I also strongly believe that none of the sources used are reliable source. WP:GNG applies, especially if it can't be proven he meets WP:NPOL. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Yes I have translated this article to English and Persian and I think it's a worthy article to keep .thanks to Uncle G (talk) and Necrothesp (talk) , I'll try to find more sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I'm certainly willing to reconsider this if SalmanZ's promise to find better sources actually pans out with better sources. Leading a political party (if he really did that, which seems to be up for debate) would certainly be a valid potential notability claim if it were properly sourced, but it's not an instant notability freebie that exempts a person from actually having to have enough real media coverage to get over WP:GNG — but of the two sources here, the one that contains content about him is unreliable and the one that is reliable doesn't even mention his name at all, so we're batting zero for establishing that he would pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Still remembered ([13],[14],[15]). There are dozens of online reports about the conviction of his murderers. 188.218.87.4 (talk) 07:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for providing the above 3 links that were helpful. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:24, 16 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) 00:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that SalmanZ has been hard at work at this. I have a great appreciation for that, and I see he's found sources from Chilean websites. I still have a lot of concerns. Below, I'll post a review of my reading of the sources used so far. To keep numbers consistent, I'm referring to this most recent diff as I review, and my numbers correspond to those in the diff. I'll also preface this by saying that yes, I can read Spanish and not just a machine translation:
- 1. 1 is sourced to Resumen, appears to be a Chilean website but it's hard to tell if it's a newspaper or something like that; I couldn't find a publishing company. About 1/2 a paragraph is about Luis Acevedo Andrade, and it's specific he was general secretary of the Communist Party of Coelemu, the small commune of which he was mayor. It says nothing about him being secretary of the whole Communist Party of Chile.
  2. 2 claims to be from the International Project of Human Rights, an organization that claims to be entirely self-funded. Website does not appear professional and my instincts tell me it's not a reliable source.
  3. 3 appears to be a book source, but there's little more than a 2-3 line blurb about the subject in it.
  4. 4 is a court case document, but the subject is just a line listing him as one of many people murdered.
  5. 5 is from an editorial website in Chile on social issues. Reads as a sort of reminiscence without really much in the way of factual information about the subject.
  6. 6, 7, and 8 are about the arrest of the captors decades later. 8 has some factual info but cites it from #2.
- Cannot view #9 because it's a blocked page in a Google Book but the book's certainly not about the subject himself.
  1. 10 I can't even see a mention of Acevedo Andrade.
If there is anything that could be kept here, a possibility might be a merge to Human rights in Chile or Human rights violations in Pinochet's Chile, since it's identified in these sources as a human rights issue - the trial is the best-sourced part with little about the person himself. That being said, I still don't think this establishes the notability of this particular person. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your reviewing my work. This article is in the field of human rights. but as far as Notability is concerned, I believe there are more domestic, reliable sources for a mayor of a city like "Coelemu" that passes WP: NOTE. what we need is help from Chilean community to prove Luis Acevedo Andrade's Notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, mayors aren't routinely considered "inherently" notable. As a rule, only mayors of major cities (like Santiago or Valparaiso) are likely to be accepted as notable on their face — but in a place with a population of just 16,000, you would have to get the mayor over a much higher bar of reliable source coverage that expands into national or international media to make them notable enough. The problem is that what you're showing still isn't really notability-supporting reliable source coverage about Luis Acevedo Andrade — you're mostly showing primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage about him. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep per above comments and references in article. Tuesday723 (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2019~~ — Tuesday723 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
CU blocked, !vote stricken. – Levivich 16:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks Tuesday723 (talk), Necrothesp (talk) and all the people in our community who will help to keep this article. what we need is help from the Chilean community to prove Luis Acevedo Andrade's Notability by some more sources. Regards. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- We still need notability established. While the work has been good, we still don't have any sources here that actually help this article meet the GNG - the one article specifically about Acevedo Andrade (and it's more about his capture, not about him personally or his career) is not a reliable source, and everything else is a passing mention. As it stands, I still think a mention in Human rights violations in Pinochet's Chile is appropriate, but I do not agree with an article because notability is still not demonstrated. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and move to Disappearance of Luis Acevedo Andrade. The relevant policy is WP:EVENTCRIT, and specifically WP:NCRIME, which says "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines [depth and duration of coverage, and diversity of sources] and those regarding reliable sources. The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged." The coverage of the arrest, charging and trials of the captors are certainly relevant to this policy. There seem to be three articles specifically about this (there are four listed in the references, but I note that "Three former Carabineros sentenced for illegal detention and kidnapping of former mayor ofCoelemu in 1974" is identical to "Condenan a tres ex carabineros por detención ilegal y secuestro de ex alcalde de Coelemu en 1974"). In a quick search, I found one other (Corte condenó a cuatro ex policías y dos civiles por desaparecidos en 1973 y 1974) which is about the court ruling on several disappearances, including this man. I'll see if I can find more. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RebeccaGreen (talk) for trying to find effective sources for Luis Acevedo Andrade. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:25, 31 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.

[1] "Ayyappa Seva Samajam conducts cleaning operation in Sabarimala". United News of India. 2019-07-10. Archived from the original on 2019-07-10. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

[2] "Ayyappa seva samajam to offer free food facility". News18. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

[3] Reporter, Staff (2011-06-19). "Ayyappa Seva Samajom to open 50 Seva Kendras". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

[4] Srinivas, M. (2014-11-09). "Devotee-friendly steps for Sabarimala pilgrims". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.

[5] "Campaign to save Sabarimala from plastic to begin in State". The Hindu. Special Correspondent. 2015-11-27. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-12.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: others (link)

[fortune-6] ttps://www.fortuneturkey.com/mehtap-zenginin-eylul-cansin-intihar-videosu-bulundu-5753

[mother_interview-7] Demishevish interview: https://t24.com.tr/haber/kadikoy-trans-cetesi-kizim-eylul-cansini-pazarladi-uyusturucuya-zorladi-iskence-yapti,284174 (reprinted here, here, here and here and translated here)

[Demishevish-8] Demishevish article https://t24.com.tr/haber/toplumun-intihara-surukledigi-trans-bireylerin-olumleri-nefret-cinayetidir,282879

[interview-9] terview reprint1 reprint2

[10] ttp://sendika63.org/2015/01/lgbti-orgutleri-intihar-degil-cinayet-238752/

[11] ttps://t24.com.tr/haber/tpd-medya-lgbti-bireylerin-yaninda-durmali,282824

[12] ttps://www.gazetepatika10.com/eylul-cansin-trans-evi-sergisi-yckmde-783.html

[13] ttp://www.agos.com.tr/tr/yazi/10400/eylul-cansin-misafirhanesi-hayati-aramak-icin-destek-bekliyor

[14] ttp://www.cumhuriyet.com.tr/haber/turkiye/218774/Translarin_yeni_yuvasi.html#

[15] ttps://news.vice.com/en_us/article/gynaem/i-feel-safe-turkeys-first-transgender-shelter-offers-a-haven-from-abuse

[16] ttp://www.salom.com.tr/haber-110715-sfrpztfte_ugur_kanbayin_ilk_oyunu_eylul.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]