Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 July	9 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 keep. Enough coverage in Czech sources to establish notability. RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Kroutil

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

Not enough sources for an article of substance, questionable notability Vmavanti (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I've added goodand reliable sources in Czech, and I'm sure it is possible to find out more. I believe that sources such as Novinky.cz, Czech Television or Czech Radio are enough to establish notability. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as he is definitely in the Czech public eye, but much of the unsourced material in the article needs to be referenced or removed. I just removed a claim about a "Nepali Grammy Award" as I can′t find any evidence that such an award exists (or is notable) and as I am now wondering whether the rest of the article needs to be stubbed to what is referenced and rewritten. I found some more sources here for example, many of which are tabloid rubbish but some seem usable. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been sitting around without enough sources for ELEVEN YEARS. I see no reason to wait for another eleven years until someone else comes along to take the initiative and do something about it. Like waiting for Santa Claus to give us what we want. If anyone has sources, add them now or delete the article.

I've added multiple sources - in Czech, but reliable and independent. I can confirm that, as a native speaker. Please check again. I also agree with Filelakeshoe's comment. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article seems to be closely based on this link. Could also be a mirror, but I don't think so because there are some language errors. I can't tell whether this constitutes a reliable source, though. Jdcooper (talk) 22:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a copyvio test with that site's article and it came up 0% so negative Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as multiple reliable Czech sources have been added to the article so it has been significantly improved and passes WP:GNG so it should remain imv, regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 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. Albeit, weak. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 16:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Columbia, Missouri

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN which requires reliable sources to discuss the items in the list as a group. Only building that are notable are notable for historical reasons, not their height. Rusf10 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Columbia,_Missouri#Cityscape per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’ve added a source from Emporis that discusses the items as a group. Several of the other sources mention more than one building on the list in discussion about height. Useful and well-sourced article comparable to other city tallest building list. Some of the buildings are notable historically exactly because of their height. It is too much information to merge while retaining quality in my opinion. Grey Wanderer (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis.com is not a reliable source, it is WP:UGC--Rusf10 (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no sources that talk about the buildings as a group, thus failing WP:NLIST. As mentioned, Emporis.com is not a reliable source, and can not be used to establish notability. I was considering a selective merge to Columbia,_Missouri#Cityscape, however as only a very small amount of the information present on this list is actually sourced by anything close to reliable sources, and those sources do little except establish that these buildings exist, I don't feel that is really necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Rorshacma this source discusses at least four of the buildings on the list, and their context in the skyline. If I found other sources besides emporis for heights would you consider changing your vote? Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly not be opposed to the cityscape section of the Columbia,_Missouri article being expanded with additional sources. However, I do not think that doing so necessitates the preservation or merging of this particular list. The source you provided here, for example, only has one brief mention of the height of one of the buildings, and its source is, again, Emporis. Rorshacma (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into Columbia,_Missouri#Cityscape per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Includes a number of notable buildings. Satifies Wikipedia:CSC.Djflem (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons cited by Grey Wanderer and ~~Rorshacma~~ User:Djflem 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:7&6=thirteen Another WP:PERX vote. Do you even read other comments in the discussion before you vote? If you actually did, you might have realized user:Rorshacma voted delete. But I suppose that doesn't matter to you, as long as all articles are kept for any reason anyone else can come up with.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. The inevitable WP:Personal attack and Argumentum ad hominem from User:Rusf10.

My voting record at AFDs is irrelevant. And it contradicts your labeling of me.

OTOH, arguendo, if such arguments have a place here, your 89% DELETES and 5% KEEPs proves your bias. Just sayin' .... 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:7&6=thirteen, so are you going to explain your vote? Because keep as per person who voted delete makes absolutely no sense. Just sayin'.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rusf10 are you going to retract your gibberish and b.s. WP:Personal attack? WP:Sauce 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a WP:PERX vote--Rusf10 (talk) 17:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made a correction. We disagree. That's your opinion, which does not qualify under Ipse dixit. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your fancy legal terms in a dead language do not impress me. You're the one who made a vote that rest entirely on the opinion of another person. Isn't that ipse dixit by definition?--Rusf10 (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your unsupportable accusations are just a distraction. You are what your record says you are. 'Nuf said. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into Columbia,_Missouri#Cityscape, per nominator/first response. Endymion.12 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep each individual building on the list can be referenced with a reliable source like: Jesse Hall - columbiatribune ref. WP:NEXIST The list is relevant, and serves as a starting place for a researcher. As Djflem has stated, the article appears to satisfy Wikipedia:CSC. It seems any list of tall buildings is almost guaranteed to be sent to Afd as of late. I refer to the many tall building articles nominated for Afds: Aurora Colorado, Cities with the most high rises, Peoria Ill Metairie, Louisiana, North Hudson NJ Tysons VA. People around the world are fascinated by tall buildings. And as Grey Wanderer has staed: Some of the buildings are notable historically exactly because of their height. Just as a tall person is notable for their Height. Regarding Emporis...it cannot be dismissed entirely. Emporis has its place in research...as a starting place for further research: exactly like Wikipedia and IMDB. An ambitious researcher can improve this article with reliable sources. Additional Note: Emporis does not yet appear on the WP:UGC list. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think every item on this list in notable and therefore CSC applies, prove it (otherwise WP:LISTN must be met). So far, proof has not been provided and I doubt it can be. Some of the building are notable, not all of them (and not because of their height). I brought up Emporis.com's reliability at WP:RSN and the consensus was that it was not reliable. WP:UGC is not an all inclusive list, therefore Emporis does not have to appear there to be classified as UGC.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see where any Wikipedia:Consensus was reached - I counted exactly 9 editors who commented (very small sampling and most didn't ivote). Emporis at RSN. And there are not enough hours in the day for me to shore up the refs on all these tall building afds. As an Ivoter I determine if reliable sources exist, and work on the article when I can. Lightburst (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while Rusf10 insist it is not reliable, the only person who agreed with him at first changed their vote to "Marginally reliable" after evidence was shown otherwise. Two others have said its reliable. The fact that thousands of articles use it and have for years should indicate a lot of people consider it reliable. Dream Focus 03:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Rusf10's is a convenient incorrect interpretative claim of the now-archived discussion. Most of those who took a stand point said it was reliable or the unofficial "marginally reliable" and that because it is used as reliable reference in other books and publications, information as to verifability provided by Emporis, and the fact that it is not "largely" user-generated, as is clearly stated in Wikipedia policy.Djflem (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough entries on the list with their own articles to justify it as a list. A reference is titled "Fifth and Walnut parking garage to be tallest in Columbia" for an item that doesn't even have its own article. Around the world buildings being the tallest in a city get coverage. Its a notable topic. Dream Focus 03:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It could merge to Columbia,_Missouri#Cityscape but would create a WEIGHT problem due to the length and it would make sense to split again. -- GreenC 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - I am this article's creator. I am not sure which way to interpret WP:NOTESAL, but I appreciate it's authority in this discussion. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating the article which satisfies Wikipedia:LISTPURP as stated Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes and Wikipedia:CSC, which states:Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources. For example, if reliable sources indicate that a complete list would include the names of ten notable businesses and two non-notable businesses, then you are not required to omit the two non-notable businesses. However, if a complete list would include hundreds or thousands of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list. Djflem (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Unless planning on doing a mass AfD for all other similar lists featuring the tallest buildings of various small U.S. cities, there is no reason for this to be deleted. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (rather than merge). The articles in Template:US tallest buildings lists are mixed between those that list buildings in a cityscape section of a city article or as a separate article ... raising the issue of deleting other articles makes WP:AON relevant here. There is a general consensus amongst wikipedia editors that collated information about the tallest buildings in a US city (ie the cityscape) is of note and relevant for this encyclopaedia; so completely concur this is WP:PRESERVE. It seems the issue at hand is whether the list of buildings in Colombia MO deserves an article per se or should be merged. This question relates to the significance of Colombia MO as a city itself. The buildings of Midland TX (pop 130.000) are incorporated into a cityscape section, the buildings of Tulsa OK (pop 400.000 approx) have their own list article, Lubbock TX (300.000) incorporated into city article. Colombia's population is closest to Midland. Not that this should necessarily be a guide, Beaumont TX has a separate article and a similar population. It's worth noting that the buildings in the list are predominantly structures that are part of a single organisation (viz the University of Missouri); 8 of the 12 entries are university structures, 1 is parking lot (possibly a questionable inclusion). However, merging this into the Cityscape section will doubtless cause a WP:LENGTH problem, hence recommend keep. --Goldsztajn (talk) 14:22, 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 redirect to List of role-playing game publishers. Sandstein 10:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OtherWorld Creations

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

This is an article on a U.S. company sourced to a single book. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, Google News) fails to find any WP:INDEPENDENT sources. It appears to have a product listing on something called "rpg.net" which doesn't rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV and is questionably RS anyway. The entire page was previously subject to a Redirect to List of role-playing game publishers by BOZ but, 12 days later, the article was recreated by an IP editor. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge back to List of role-playing game publishers. Outside of a few product listings, I have had no luck in finding additional sources regarding the company, and the single source being used is not enough to sustain an independent article. Its good enough to keep as part of the list, though. Rorshacma (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of role-playing game publishers as per Rorshacma. I could not find independent reliable sources either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:18, 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. Consensus that the subject fails our notability guidelines. Just Chilling (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Untermyer

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

Linked coverage falls under WP:BLP1E and doesn't satisfy WP:NBIO. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He got a bit of coverage for the piano. Beyond that, he gets quoted in a few news articles, but that's all I could find. Not ebnough to clear the notability bar for me. -- Whpq (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks to be very minor.WaterwaysGuy (talk) 13:12, 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 delete. This closure pertains to the incorrect disambiguation page that was at Witches' Rebellion, which contained the following entries: Witchcraft Rebellion, an album by Old Time Relijun; Irmandiño revolts, a series of revolts in the Kingdom of Galicia; and Witch-hunt. The dab page was changed to a redirect to Witchcraft Rebellion during this AfD, but that, too, would likely be deleted at RfD, so we'll deal with it here. As to the article about the album Witchcraft Rebellion, if people think it's not notable, they can nominate it separately. Sandstein 07:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Witches' Rebellion

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

Fails WP:DABRELATED. Only one of the items has a name vaguely related to the article name – the second article doesn't even mention witches at all, either in its title or anywhere in the article text. Was originally redirected but the creator reverted the redirect. It seems the article creator has misunderstood the point of a disambiguation page. Richard3120 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article creator has now redirected the page to Witchcraft Rebellion, but there is still no need for the page to exist... why would someone searching for that album type in a different name? Richard3120 (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Revert redirect, and delete, per nom. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert redirect, and delete per above. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Redirect - Now that the unnecessary disambiguation page has been reverted, I see no need for the currently existing redirect either, as it reflects an incorrect album title that nobody will search for. At this point in its history, perhaps the discussion belongs at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion but that's a procedural matter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect -- redirects take little space. In fact, if the redirect has been done correctly, removing the AFD notice will achieve this. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: Redirect to what? The page is now already a redirect, thanks to the creator changing it after I had made the nomination, and it isn't a likely redirect as it stands, that's the point. Richard3120 (talk) 15:25, 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. I am not sure what Dot71 is saying, but it mostly does not address the deletion arguments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Hossain

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Sources are either brief mentions in tabloids or interviews that fail WP:IS. As previous AFD mentioned, created to circumvent draft process. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When nominating for G4 earlier, I read through the citations and didn't see anything other than routine tabloid cruft and casting announcements. It's possible that I missed something due to machine translations for the non-English sources, so I could potentially be swayed by quotations from those sources if they demonstrate significant coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: An administrator has kept it yesterday, but I do not see the reason for the nomination of removal again. hare-Dot71 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dot71: An administrator's declination of a G4 speedy deletion has no bearing on this deletion discussion. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 03:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Etzedek24: You said these are taken from the tablet paper but you are wrong. Most of my sources are from the national daily newspaper. And you said that this is the person's interview but you also read the news; Your wrong thinking will be end.-Dot71 (talk) 03:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was not notable when deleted in April and not notable now.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PROMO. At the very least it is WP:TOOSOON. Fails WP:ACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ACTOR. not enough to establish notability actress. --Nahal^(T) 13:49 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete Fail passes WP:PROMO , WP:ACTOR and is WP:TOOSOON. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:35, 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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sonia Hossain

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

Has been created in order to circumvent an AfC process; Draft:Sonia Hossain has been rejected multiple times.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Would you elaborate on your deletion rationale? With rare exceptions, AfC is an optional process. The article is different from the draft that was declined for failing to demonstrate notability. Are you saying that the topic is not notable? --Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the topic is notable, and I do not see how the article is different from the draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- DisagreeThe draft has been canceled, given the reason for the comment option of the draft. This draft had no references. Notability cannot be established without references, so the draft is rejected.But this does not prove that this article is also removable. Because, there is a reference to the article to be verified.-Dot71 (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: If you think the article is not significant then you have a few hundred articles related to the Bangladeshi model in the wiki that must be removed. See the category- Bangladeshi male television actors, Bangladeshi female models, Bangladeshi television actresses-Dot71 (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Ymblanter - As your AFD is presented, it is subject to Speedy Keep. It is quite true that the draft was declined three times and has now been declined a fourth and a fifth time. That is not a reason for nominating the article for deletion. Do you mean that the actress does not satisfy acting notability? The draft was declined because it was not properly referenced and did not establish notability. The article has better references. One can still argue notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Moving a declined draft into article space is (with exceptions involving conflict of interest) permitted, in particular as a way to request the opinion of the community as to whether the draft should be in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Neither this article nor a Google search shows independent third-party in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Google search shows that she exists and uses social media and is not the same person as Sonya Hussain. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Subject does not appear meet WP:NACTOR, and I cannot find any significant coverage to meet WP:GNG. The coverage I can find are passing mentions and routine television programming announcements. Leviv ich 15:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since two editors have presented notability arguments, which are policy-based, for deletion, a Speedy Keep is no longer in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 8 April 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 per WP:BOLD, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICN GPS

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

Acting as a sub page of Navman for a series of navigators marketed in the early noughties. Not significantly notable in its own right, majority of usable info can be used on parent page. Page appears to be more of an advert on how to modify such a system. Nightfury 14:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Navman - none of the content in the article is sourced, so we can't just merge it, unless someone is willing to source the non-prmotional stuff in the article. --MrClog (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (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, Just Chilling (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Navman. This is obviously an illegal content fork. Michepman (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Dreamgirl (season 2)

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

Fails MOS:TVSPLIT, has been deleted before, and no citations. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources and no reliable sources found. Non-notability is self-evident. Otr500 (talk) 08:20, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NeoReach

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

There is news coverage, but not enough to qualify for notability under WP:NORG Sliu.3110 (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 8 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. Sandstein 07:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Dreamgirl Season 1

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

Fails MOS:TVSPLIT, has been deleted before, and no citations. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources and no reliable sources found. Non-notability is self-evident. Otr500 (talk) 08:17, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eazy E & Venice Locals (A Historic Day in the Brotherhood of Hip Hop and Skateboarding)

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

absolutely no notablility, all articles are referring to the images used in the documentary, not the documentary itself BOVINEBOY2008 17:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. When the inappropriate references to IMDb, twitter, facebook, primary sources, and advertising for Thrasher magazine are removed there is not much about the subject. Otr500 (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a nice catch by the nominator. The film displays notable photos in which notable people appear, but per WP:INHERITED that does not make the film itself notable. As noted above, the sources used are about the topics of the film, but the film itself has achieved little notice beyond WP:ROUTINE directory listings. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:41, 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 speedy delete. G11 slakr^\ talk / 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy asewie

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

Zero independent sources giving significant coverage - fails WP:BASIC GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:39, 8 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) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Jeffrey

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

Biography of a "singer, actor, director, producer and writer", not reliably sourced as satisfying our notability criteria for any of those careers. This features absolutely no footnoting at all, but instead just linkfarms an excessive list of external links to almost entirely primary sources, such as IMDb and his paid-inclusion legacy.com obituary and the self-published websites of organizations named in the article body, which are not support for notability. There's only one link in that list (the Canadian Theatre Encyclopedia) that counts for anything at all toward notability, but it doesn't count for enough all by itself -- it says nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to guarantee him a Wikipedia article, so it doesn't constitute a magic WP:GNG pass all by itself in the absence of any other reliable sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep sourcing added by User:RebeccaGreen during AfD carries this one over the bar, just barely, with reviews and INDEPTH 1977 profile in the Ottawa Journal, of blessed memory.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks, E.M.Gregory. As noted, I have started finding and adding sources. I haven't finished yet, as there are many, just in Newspapers.com - I haven't even tried other databases yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability was already there but glad there are some references added. Eight "External links" are about three time over-excessive but that is a content issue. Otr500 (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Appears to meet WP:BASIC as per a perusal of the sources in the article. The sources are essentially paywalled, so this !vote is based upon an assumption that at least two of the sources provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Norway

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is reasonable certain that the events listed in Category:2020 in Norwegian sport will take place and that the creation of new municipalities listed at Category:2020 establishments in Norway will be created. Other notable events that occur on a regular basis also probably exist. For example, see https://www.visitnorway.com/things-to-do/whats-on/ Similarly, the other 2020 in... articles should also be kept. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:09, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Guatemala

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:47, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Mexico

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:45, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Bulgaria

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:44, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Portugal

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:44, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Taiwan

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:44, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Estonia

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:43, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Brazil

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:43, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Cape Verde

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:41, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Iceland

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:41, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Algeria

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Angola

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. We have similar articles at 2020 in the United States and 2020 in Canada. Insofar as these articles are used to list scheduled holidays and events, I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies. Anne drew 17:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentAll articles need sources and there are no sources in the article as events have yet to happen. Article can be recreated when in 2020.

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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Argentina

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:38, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Armenia

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:38, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Austria

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:37, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Azerbaijan

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:37, 8 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 withdraw. (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Australia

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

Now is July 2019. 2020 has yet to come. No IRS, events have yet to happen - WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:27, 8 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. Definite consensus to 'keep'in some form. The present title is clearly sub-optimum and I strongly recommend a 'move' discussion, as a post-AfD action, to Michael Patnam . Just Chilling (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St Michael's Church, Michael Patnam

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

Fails the WP:GNG, is a copy vio [1], and is possibly a web host due to the user not having any edits outside of this page. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. Is it a church? Or a hamlet? Bearian (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no justification for TNT is provided. wp:TNT is an essay basically calling for violation of Wikipedia policy, in that Bearian is implicitly acknowledging validity of the topic, and yet calling for deletion of edit history for no reason presenting, causing grief unnecessarily and violating our contract about preserving recognition for contributors under our license. See essay wp:TNTTNT to which I contributed for more explanations why this is bad. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (was "Keep", then "Comment", then back). It does seem misplaced, and it would better be moved to Michael Patnam or MichaelPatnam (both currently redlinks). The church can be covered in an article about the village, and villages are basically notable as populated places. While it doesn't seem right to present/cover the village in article titled to be about the church. We are obligated to look for alternatives to deletion, and Keeping this with suggestion/admonition to Move it complies with wp:ATD. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (was "Delete"). I first voted "Keep". However I did not first notice the assertion of copyvio, and the link to this Earwig comparison result and I have not been aware of that Earwig tool. wp:TNTTNT does acknowledge that deletion of articles that are nearly all copyvios is an exception that has to be allowed. User:AmericanAir88, for an article that is a complete copyvio, it is not necessary to have an AFD. You should PROD it or speedy delete it. So now I think this should be deleted or speedy deleted. --Doncram (talk) 00:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I cancel my previous "delete" vote based on observation of User:Cwmhiraeth that dating suggests the blog is a copy of Wikpedia, not the other way around. --Doncram (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Michael Patnam - I don't think this is a copyvio because the content that is duplicated in the blog was included in the article earlier than the 22 August 2016 date of the blog. I could find no other mentions of the village online, but as a populated place it meets WP:GEOLAND. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A "Move" vote should be interpreted as "Keep" but with recommendation the article should probably be moved to a specific target or a wp:RM should take place. It is fine for an AFD result to require some implementation steps. "Move" is not an AFD outcome recognized by wp:AFDSTATS. --Doncram (talk) 08:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the article seems to be mainly about the village, Michael Pat(ta)nam actually appears to be a district of Vempathur as opposed to a village in its own right, unless the two have spread to merge with each other. Neither have articles as yet. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The current article states that the district level of Michael Patnam is a Panchayati raj. Vempathur (currently a redlink), might be the next higher level? It would be okay to keep this but move/merge it to cover the higher level instead/also. This decision can be considered at the Talk page and/or left to informed editors to implement as they see fit.--Doncram (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

REname and repurpose as an article on the village. We cannot have an article on a NN local before we have one on the place where it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:39, 20 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 Democracy Abroad, Lynching At Home. Consensus is that the person is not notable, but now that an article about her book exists it's the logical redirect target. Content can be merged from history if desired. Sandstein 07:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tameka Hobbs

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Having a single book reviewed over some journals is not an encyclopedic achievement. None of her other publications seem any significant.

Nothing else over <http://tamekabradleyhobbs.com/the-author/> assures me that she passes our notability. ∯WBG^converse 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly not notable. MaskedSinger (talk) 15:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MaskedSinger Please explain how she is 'Clearly not notable" it is not sufficient just to say that without explanation.Theroadislong (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why certainly Theroadislong! She fails to satisfy WP:PROF, WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG.As I said, clearly not notable. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see non trivial secondary coverage of this subject. It was not difficult to find, since there is on reference that is more than passign mention already in the article: in addition here in Lake Wells News a subject does not have to pass WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR or WP:PROF if they pass WP:GNG. It is one or another. I will look into her award as well. Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lightburst, first of all LakeWellsNews is a crowd-sourced publication and is not a reliable source per this guideline. Secondly, if the likes of the second award were notable, I would have deserved an article over here but sadly, it is too trivial. ∯WBG^converse 08:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reporter for the Lake Wells article: Chevon T. Baccus APR, Executive Editor & Publisher: worked as a newspaper reporter and editor for eight years... - so this was not a crowdsourced article. In addition the subject's main work: Democracy abroad, lynching at home : racial violence in Florida by Tameka B Hobbs: 9 editions were published between 2015 and 2016 in English and it is held by 1,051 WorldCat member libraries worldwide. How many non Worldcat member libraries? Unsure. Some ambitious editors will need to find more to improve the article because WP:NEXIST. I will also continue. Lightburst (talk) 13:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I have added multiple news references showing that this subject is widely called upon for her expertise and her research is often cited. I am satisfied that the subject also passes WP:AUTHOR The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Subject is also called upon to lecture as an expert in her field of study. (will add refs) Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your source self-describes to be crowd sourced; what that means is that it offers no editorial control and any Tom and Harry may write damn anything. Tom may be a self-professed journalist or any dog over the internet or a Nobel Prize winner. WP:SPS is amply clear that such sources shall be discredited as in this particular case.

Writing a single well-received book grants notability to the book but not to the author. See WP:NOTINHERITED. ∯WBG^converse 17:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough citations to pass WP:Prof. Too little in-depth treatment for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, Hobbs' book Democracy Abroad meets WP:NBOOK with two reviews cited (also reviewed by The American Historical Review - here), so one tick for no. 3 of WP:AUTHOR, what about the other ("a significant or well-known work")? well, WorldCat shows that it is held by around 800 libraries so i would suggest that it is "well known", she meets author and is a keep (if editors are uncomfortable with this, an article can be made on Democracy Abroad and a redirect made). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

almost all academic books get reviewed so that is nothing special Xxanthippe (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

yep, (sort of:)) agree, but the way the nbook guideline is worded this title does meet it so could have a standalone. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, can you kindly use proper grammar and punctuation marks? Almost all academic books get reviewed over some or the other journal and thus, unless there are at-least 3 or 4 books which have been reviewed over multiple journals and have been noted to be a significant contribution to the discipline, there's no passage of NPROF/NAUTHOR. ∯WBG^converse 08:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"proper grammar and punctuation marks?", really? and which would you like? British, American, or Australian? i assume you are referring to one of these types, please indicate which. anyway, nauthor specifically states "work or collective body of work", it does not have a proviso/footnote 'an exception are academics who need to have 3 or 4 books over multiple journals to meet this guideline' (and again, nbook does not have a footnote/proviso 'an exception are books by academics that as they are nearly always reviewed somewhere are not able to use point 1 to meet this guideline'). Coolabahapple (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, the first word of a sentence begins with a capital letter. Also, I, not i. ∯WBG^converse 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aye aye sir, I will comply (Note: This agreement is not legally binding. Coola reserves the right to type any which way as long as it is reasonably readable and will probably revert to (some editors may say) inappropriate usage of lower case, and other (so called) grammatical errors). Coolabahapple (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the later parts of your sarcastic reply:- It simply means that you are probably not acquainted with how academia works. Give me any academic book, published via any half-decent press and I will get you a single review, at the very minimum. ∯WBG^converse 17:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

revisiting this, oh well, there goes around 8 years working and studying in academia (its funny how people make assumption about others based on such little information), anyway, on your point above, yes and a single review is not enough to meet nbook while two reviews are so there can/should be a lot more academic books on wikipedia, frankly I have always been pretty amazed at the small number that are on WP ie. there are 22th articles under wikiproject Books that covers (or should cover) all adult non-fiction including academic books, a paltry amount when compared with, say, the project that covers the beautiful game that has around 350th! articles (and thats just one of the ballsy projects!), but I suppose most academics are a self-effacing lot, well maybe outside their given field:) so that could be why WP reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:18, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I have my way, I will nuke the millions of articles about players who stepped out in the field for a single game and vanished thereafter but a lot many have already failed. So, not optimistic, at all.

For someone, who's spent 8 years over academia, you need to have known the circumstances about reviews of academic works. ∯WBG^converse 15:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~. One book with two published reviews and two minor local awards, and three other books that are self-published or essentially self-published and unreviewed, aren't enough for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF for me. What it would take to tip me over towards a weak keep would be some independent and reliably-published coverage of at least one of her other books, but I didn't find that in my own searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Democracy Abroad, Lynching At Home per WP:BIO1E, now that an article on the more-notable book exists. —David Eppstein (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This BLP was declined submission on 12 and 17 June, as can be seen from its history. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Lightburst (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article made on Democracy Abroad, Lynching At Home so if a redirect target is required.... Coolabahapple (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, have added women writers' project to article talkpage so that member editors of that project who have expertise/interest in women authors are notified. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The subject is a nationally recognized expert on African American issues. She is consulted and or quoted by news outlets to give comment on African American issues. CBSNews. quoted in the New York Times Magazine and South Florida Times (African American Newspaper), Lightburst (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please replace content The Afd nominator of this article (User:Winged Blades of Godric) has removed content based on the nominator's personal opinion. The material was referenced with New York Times Magazine and CBS News. It is bad form for an Afd nominator to do so in the middle of an Afd. I request that WBG put the content back in the article and hold off reverting or revising content on the article until the conclusion of the afd. I will leave this afd, it is getting snarky and testy in here. Here is the edit I speak of removing referenced content which I added and changing the wording Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lightburst, editors are able to make changes to an article while an afd is underway (and i see that you have reverted the changes), another way to make editors aware of what was there is to provide a link to the previous version ie. "Since this afd began, text has been removed, the article use to look like this." Coolabahapple (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Coolabahapple that is not correct. Another editor reverted the changes, which means at least two editors disagree with the nominator's removal of content. And, of course editors can make changes during an afd, (that is what I have been doing) however the nominator has an obvious COI. The nom has removed content twice against the wishes of at least two editors. I believe it is poor form for the nominator to remove the work of editors who are attempting to address the inadequacies of the article. It is disheartening. Lightburst (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge to Democracy Abroad, Lynching At Home. I can't find enough specifically about Tameka Hobbs to justify a standalone article; anything WP:RS is primarily about her book. However, it clearly passes WP:NBOOK, with reviews in at least three long-established academic journals. No prejudice against re-creation – should she achieve independent notability in future, the material from the article under discussion would be there, ready to be split out. Narky Blert (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP So sad to see so many Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Article alerts at WP:AFD especially African American. I have reviewed and accepted/declined many thousands of drafts at WP:AFC Professor Tameka Hobbs appears to me to pass WP:GNG with multiple in-depth independent coverage of her, a notable book and a notable award. Theroadislong (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No clue about the relevance of the first two lines. There's zero in-depth coverage of her. There's an article about the book and the award is non-significant. ∯WBG^converse 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not yet notable. Fails WP:PROF (and WP:AUTHOR)--one significant book (Democracy abroad, lynching at home) with only routine reviews, and minor awards, and published by a minor academic press is not enough, and the Library of Virginia one is not significant--the other two are self published. I have reviewed and accepted maybe 500 WiR drafts, and not accepted perhaps 200, of which half went on to be acceptable. There's a difference between trying to include all the notable women, and stretching the inclusion criteria to include those who are not actually notable. The implication from trying to include the non-notable ones is that the standard of expectations for women are lower than for men--this is internalization of the cultural misogyny. I can understand having this attitude perhaps 80 or 100 years ago, but by now we should have realized the need for true equality of both opportunity and accomplishment. DGG ( talk ) 19:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and, fwiw, I don't thing the book meets our notability standards either, but that wil lbe a separate discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 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. There is consensus that the cleanup by Icewhiz shows the article can be improved, rather than deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

B144

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

Complete advertisement that fails the WP:GNG. This is also written by a user whose edits are only on this page making this a probable web host. That also brings up a possible COI. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can any of the content be added to the main Bezeq page or another Bezeq page? MaskedSinger (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteAdvertising. Fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I stubbed this down (removing most of the unsourced content, sourcing the rest) + added sourced content. This is one of the two main telephone directories in Israel (and has a bunch of associated businesses) - and is run as a subsidiary company of Bezeq. The sources currently in the article clearly pass WP:NCORP (or NWEB, GNG), and more sources are available. Icewhiz (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is now solid de to upgrades during AfD.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Directory assistance, where there is already a section for Israel's 144 service. Not convinced this need a standalone article. Number 5 7 09:20, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be just directory assistance (that's the original use of 144 phone number) - but since the mid-2000s this has become the white pages (telephone directory) as well as a yellow pages (in direct competition with Golden Pages) and various business/advertising services. Icewhiz (talk) 09:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established by cited sources. I don't see any serious promotional issues in the current text. We don't delete stuff just because we have suspicions about the author. ~Kvng (talk) 13:24, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Club X

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

In May the PROD was disputed by Michig claiming obvious notability, and I found the first and only reference for an upgrade from {{unreferenced}} 2011 to {{refimprove}} 2019. That's in essence all that happened since 2011, and in a quick WP:BEFORE plausibility check today I only found two references confirming NN as successor of Network 7 or The Tube:^[2]^[3] –84.46.52.138 (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from completion request filed at WT:AFD. I have no opinion of my own on the nomination at this time. --Finngall ^talk 14:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 14:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 14:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Notable programme and article but needs more references. Rillington (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage, e.g. [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and no doubt a lot more coverage from 1989. --Michig (talk) 16:09, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sride (company)

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

Insufficient evidence that this 30-person company meets WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Or, if such evidence exists, I have not found it. In terms of the links/references in the article itself for example, the Times of India article mentions the company only once or twice, and even then only to state that reps from the subject company "remained unavailable for comment". The mention in the Deccan Herald article is also only fleeting. And, not only is it a significant stretch to suggest that it supports the text it is claimed to support but, as with other pieces, the article discusses "ride sharing" (and ride sharing apps/companies in general), and only mentions the subject here briefly. Similarly, the Citizenmatters.in piece discusses the subject alongside a half-dozen other similar companies. In short, I am not seeing any evidence that the subject has been the subject of material and significant coverage of which it is the primary topic. (Yes, it is mentioned in passing in articles about ride sharing in India in general. But insufficient examples where it is the primary or sole topic of coverage.) That this article was initially created as some kind of advert or "how-to guide" is also concerning. Guliolopez (talk) 14:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 14:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 14:08, 8 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. Unambiguous copyright violation. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harriman House

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH/WP:GNG. Kleuske (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no in-depth coverage about this company that I could find. The sources I was able to find are mostly press releases from Harriman or an explanation of their company from the company. I was about to mark as speedy deletion corporation notability because as it stands there is not anything in the actual article that indicates it is notable.--VViking_TalkEdits 13:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree 100% with ^^ MaskedSinger (talk) 14:16, 8 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William Ingram (writer/actor)

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

Despite the significance roles he has given, it fails the notability guideline due to lack of lead roles. Sheldybett (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:NACTOR doesn't call for leading roles, simply "significant roles", and his roles in Target Luna and Night Must Fall accomplish that. In addition, his writing accomplishments also meet WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think writing The District Nurse carries him over the bar at WP:AUTHOR. But there is other notable work, only time and good searches are needed. searches are difficult because William Ingram is a very common name. Searching "william Ingram" + BBC, I find some, brief RS stuff like: (We're talking Welsh, my boyo, and I don't mean Irvine, Mourby, Adrian. New Statesman; London Vol. 9, Iss. 411, (Jul 12, 1996): 42. When the Sherman Theatre Company staged The Government Inspector William Ingram rewrote it for a valleys setting."), Searching William + Ingram + Playwright did better. (IRIS MURDOCH'S "THE SANDCASTLE" on ITV Bourne, Richard The Guardian (1959-2003); Apr 10, 1963; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: The Guardian and The Observer pg. 9; "The Sandcastle last night, ATV production adapted by William Ingram..." adaptation of a novel.); a brief review: (the week's radio reviewed by GILLIAN REYNOLDS, Reynolds, Gillian. The Guardian (1959-2003); London (UK) [London (UK)]19 Dec 1970: 6. "Stop Off by William Ingram had the fashionable Freeid Jones as a kind of mystical trmp who tries in vain...); a long review: (IRIS MURDOCH'S "THE SANDCASTLE" on ITV Bourne, Richard. The Guardian (1959-2003); London (UK) [London (UK)]10 Apr 1963: 9. " actually, I'll just add the longer review to the page. I also get hundreds of schedule pages from seemingly every British newspapers with entries like ("Afternoon Theatre, Darts With the Boys," by William Ingram, 4:35). A prolific writer of material for TV, some of which is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, needs to be renamed to William Ingram (writer). We don't use double disambiguation and this seems to have been his primary claim to fame. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I went ahead and moved the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Significant roles in Target Luna and Night Must Fall CharlenePho (talk) 10:29, 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 Restore. Good call by Vinegarymass911, thank you for looking at the history. The current content should be removed, it is non-notable by consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Satyajit

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

No indication of meeting notability criteria. Sasquatch t|c 10:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 10:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 10:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Sasquatch t|c 10:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:24, 1 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) 12:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is one of thousands of YouTubers. There are no reliable sources as required by WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore- This page was created as a given name/disambiguate page in 2011 but was hijacked in February 2019 by this YouTuber article. Please consider restoring to this version.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:09, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dio Kobayashi

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

So much OR that I assume this must be written by the subject or someone who knows him well. I can find almost no mentions of him anywhere online, and certainly nothing to establish notability. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched on google, news and newspapers. I can only find social media and nothing to establish notability. Szzuk (talk) 06:41, 8 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) 12:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Got nothing else to add ^^ MaskedSinger (talk) 14:41, 8 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. WP:CSD#G4. The current article is indeed substantially similar to a previously deleted version. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chandana Jayaratne

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

Was originally deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandana Jayarathne. The article was then recreated with essentially the same content. This was then deleted as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chandana Jayaratne but has been recreated again with the same content. Was tagged for speedy deletion however a new user with limited edit history and no previous involvement in the subject has removed the tag with no explanation. Believe the article should be deleted for exactly the same rationale that was provided in the previous two AFD discussions as nothing has changed. Dan arndt (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 12:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree 100% - Gross abuse of wikipedia editing. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admin - if this has the same content, it can be deleted under G4, but was unable to see if the content has changed or not since the last AFD (and it was 3 years ago). Can this be looked at? Steven Crossin 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under G4 and salt. As above, it's hard for we non-admins to be sure whether a recreated article is substantially the same or not, but given that this article is still brief and undersourced, I can't see any reason why the outcome of the previous two AFDs would be any different. Hugsyrup (talk) 15:22, 8 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. Canley (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GetIntoPc

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

This article is about a download web site which lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The sources at the time of nomination are site ranking sites and the site itself. My own search finds some forum posts but not any coverage in reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Existence isn't notability. WP:NOTDIR and WP:MILL. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, I can't find sources for notability. Charmk (talk) 21:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability per NWEB or GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Lacks notability. Barca (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources in the article do not indicate notability, when I searched for sources hunting for GNG I failed. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion, and reasonable arguments that the subject has sufficient coverage to be kept. bd2412 T 01:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Claxton

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and/or WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 11:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:48, 9 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) 00:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet any notability guidelines here - fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although would be nice if someone took a run at sources.Catladyz6 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with possible draftification: In the article's current state, only his revue provides a reasonable if weak claim against WP:N. Everything else is noteworthy, accomplished, or non-notable, and the discussion between article creator FloridaArmy and myself at Talk:Leon Claxton#Pivot applies. Unfortunately anything by his granddaughter (website, film, book) currently falls under self-published and non-independent, while Audrey Taylor Henry's Sound of Applause[11] and Joe McKennon's A Pictorial History of the American Carnival, Volume 1[12] would be useful but unfortunately appear to be self-published.

However... the show was an early inspiration for Joni Mitchell [13]. Claxton was "the most successful black carny on the [fairground] circuit"[14]. Has sigcov in Seeing is Believing: America's Sideshows[15] and Caribbean Tourism: People, Service and Hospitality[16]. Notable performers who appeared in his shows were at least Fontella Bass (for a couple of weeks)[17] and Lester Bowie [18] (the show became known as Harlem Review for some period[19]). Evidence of popularity of earlier show "Hep Cats"[20][21]. Between Claxton and his shows there's more than enough material and evidence of notability out there for one article but not, at the moment, for more; cover his shows under his article and redirect there (WP:NOPAGE). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What about these sources. There is a lot more on Gbooks. I'm sure there would be more on newspapers.com and fold3. I think there is enough to flesh out a basic article, more if the work was done. Satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
Johnson Publishing Company (30 November 1967). Jet. Johnson Publishing Company. pp. 58–. Retrieved 20 July 2019.
Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (27 November 1954). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. p. 87. Retrieved 20 July 2019. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (2 November 1959). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. pp. 71–. Retrieved 20 July 2019. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
Audrey Taylor Henry (November 2009). The Sound of Applause. Dorrance Publishing. pp. 8–. ISBN 978-1-4349-6350-5. Retrieved 20 July 2019.

scope_creep^Talk 10:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there is enough sources and satisfies WP:GNG but the article needs to be reworked.Taewangkorea (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further examination of sources recently listed in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 09:01, 23 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]

Keep subject is covered very substantially in reliable independent sources as noted above in this discussion and as cited in article. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:13, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the WP:GNG, is covered directly in independent secondary sources.

https://jonimitchell.com/library/view.cfm?id=2464 Contains substantial biographical commentary on Leon Claxton.

https://itvs.org/films/jig-show "unearthed is the life and lore of African American showman Claxton, a little-known civil rights hero whose vision, passion, and determination produced a multi-cultural stage show that still resonates today." This is an impressively rich secondary source, even as only a single sentence.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of these sources, though significant, are independent since Cunningham is Claxton's granddaughter. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while I love those revue shows, the performers are almost always too common for notability. I'd change my mind if someone can find better sourcing. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 7 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics match stats (women)

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

This articles provide detailed statistical information for the Women's ice hockey tournament at the 1998 Winter Olympics with no supporting prose. A clear case of WP:NOTSTATS – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty standard page for Olympic results. This is a classic misunderstanding of NOTSTATS. Not stats is all about unexplained stats, but on this page any stats used are clearly in context as the results of an athletic event. Yes the prose definitely needs to be expanded, but that is not on its own a reason to delete. -DJSasso (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice this wasn't the main tournament page. I clicked on the wrong link and went to the other page and thought you were trying to delete that. -DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What a wonderful resource! Someone has gone to all the trouble of creating this. Delete it? Should serve as a legacy for generations to come! Definietly not WP:NOTSTATS MaskedSinger (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator – sorry guys perhaps I wasn't clear enough in my rationale. This article is a relic from 2008, which has somehow survived until now. This does not fit within our standard Olympic coverage with no other Olympic team sport tournament having a standalone page for statisics. It is completely unsourced and provides no prose. It is redundant to Ice hockey at the 1998 Winter Olympics – Women's tournament which provides a suitable summary of the key stats at the end of the article. – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete game summaries are already on main tournament page, with detailed, sourced stats. This page serves no purpose and just duplicates material in a poor format.18abruce (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious WP:NOTSTATS. All the pertinent information is contained in the main tournament summary. And this is all unsourced too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am surprised that this article has survived until now and looking at the page it definitively goes under WP:NOTSTATS. HawkAussie (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and User:MaskedSinger. No sources so should be used as a deletion "legacy for generations to come!". Otr500 (talk) 06:48, 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. Consensus seems to be that notability criteria are not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Envision (software)

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

Does not attempt to establish why the subject is important. Does not satisfy WP:NSOFTWARE. Its 3 sources do not classify as reliable, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." I tried moving it to draft so it could be worked on but the author soon moved it back to article space. Lopifalko (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Everyday I learn something new on Wikipedia, today I learned that "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.", I started writing this article while considering that it's subject is notable based on these master thesis, I'm sorry Charmk (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close as a premature AfD, without prejudice to re-opening it in the future.

I'd be happy to see academic theses used as sources (after all, look at REST and CSS) provided that they are both credible as sources (i.e. competent work from a competent establishment, with appropriate levels of supervision and peer review) and also that they have something towards "significant scholarly influence". Now I don't require them to be Einstein's 1905 papers. I don't even need them to meet the influencing standards of REST or CSS. They should be adequate to source and WP:Verify what they're being used to cite, we don't need anything more than that.

They're also an irrelevance. The problems with this article are because it fails CSD §A7 – there is no article here. There is nothing in this article of any encyclopedic significance. There is no content, just a bullet-point list which is so trivial that it looks like marketing copy from a 1980s Byte article. We learn nothing about Envision, we learn nothing as to why yet another IDE is worth recording, why Envision was created, what it might do beyond that which every IDE does. We don't even have these five sources (which ought to add up to something!) used here, they're just listed without inline citations. The article is empty and worthless.

That said, AfDing an article that was created from scratch less than an hour ago is not good practice for AfDing. There is no need for that (we have to have some patience!) and if an article was so bad that it needed to be deleted for hygiene reasons, we have CSD for that. This could, and should, have been created differently. Create it as a draft (in draftspace, userspace, offline or whatever) and only move it to mainspace when it can at least pass CSD §A7. Or else don't AfD it after an hour, watch it and give it a few days to see if the draft at least gets finished, then judge. As such, this AfD should be closed.

Maybe drafting this would be best. Or at least finish it (AfD will do nothing for some days, so there's a chance). The article as is shouldn't be here in a week (I'll CSD it myself). It needs to be either better, or gone, or out of mainspace until it is. But AfDs after an hour are just wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Thanks I will take on board what you're saying about haste. FYI, my guide to this process is the NPP flowchart, which does not mention waiting, and says to use A7 only in the case of "Is the article a person, individual animal, non-educational organisation, or organised event?", and which thus led me to AfD; though I did first try to give it a chance by draftifying. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the useful information Charmk (talk) 10:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No change after a week, so delete Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. I do not think draftifying will help, as there does seem to be enough for an article. we need material from other than the author of the program. Master's theses, fwiw, are a very different thing from Ph.D theses--even from a school as important as ETH-. They usually amount to expanded class projects. But A7 would not apply, neither to the draft or the article. A7 includes organizations, but not products, or software. There have been various discussions of this over the years, and the reason remains: this is something that no single admin should attempt to judge.That's why we're here at afd DGG ( talk ) 21:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Szzuk (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A masters thesis doesn't establish notability. While the association with a masters program perhaps lends some clout, unless the thesis itself has significant scholarly influence, then it's nothing more than your garden variety primary source without notable coverage. (And is therefore inappropriate for inclusion.) Cosmic Sans (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. (non-admin closure) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 07:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Girallon

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

This is a science fiction animal mentioned in books by Wizards of the Coast. All sources in the article are to publications from Wizards of the Coast and are, therefore, not WP:INDEPENDENT. Further, Wizards of the Coast's publications have previously been shown to present material errors, omissions, and exaggerations (see: here) and should be presumed non-RS prima facie. A BEFORE on JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google Books, and Google News finds no INDEPENDENT WP:RS referencing this science fiction animal. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on current usage at List of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 edition monsters#WTC 17755 – Monster Manual (2003). Pretty much all the D&D homegrown creations here have separate articles, and generally all the refs are in-house (ex., Aboleth, Allip, Krenshar, Locathah, ...). I don't necessarily agree that all these three-armed bird-toads should have separate articles, but that seems to be a topic-level discussion waiting to be had, not something specific to this particular one. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is no policy mentioned here, this appears to be an argument of WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. I believe the correct course of action when multiple policy violating content is discovered is to delete what is possible, versus deleting none of it at all. Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew that OSE would be dragged in now :) I think I'm going to make a template that I can just slap on whenever someone misuses that (should be about twice a day). Have a look at Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists#Creation_of_articles, which covers just this kind of situation. Decisions based on individual merit are fine, but WP:OSE is not a counter-argument in itself - consensus-based common usage is a legitimate precedence to point to. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're in an Essay v Essay battle! Chetsford (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chances are there was some applicable RfC on the issue at some point, which would be a much preferable thing to point to, but I for one can't find it (and the talk pages of related projects are a bit of a fanboy swamp to wade through, frankly...) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha - swamp is a good word! Chetsford (talk) 21:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters Hugsyrup (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. Clear failure to meet WP:GNG due to lack of independent sources. (In terms of the OSE/precedent/consensus discussion above, the most recent related discussion I was able to find was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medusa (Dungeons & Dragons) (2nd nomination) which ended with a consensus to merge.) Lowercaserho (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Girallon is a notable Dungeons and Dragons monster. IP restrictions prevent widespread use (as with Illithid and other monsters that Wizards of the Coast have not put under the Open Gaming license). However, the Girallon has been a feature creature since it was created. There's even a zombie Girallon in 5th editions's Tomb of Annihilation. The Girallon does crop up in licensed fiction as well as D&D products. This book, for example. Having said that, the article needs a copy edit. If it is retained I'll work on it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the sources you've cited list the publisher as "Wizards of the Coast" which is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Chetsford (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upon consideration, as nom, I have no real objection to a Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters based on the rationale set out by lowercaserho. Chetsford (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters per above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge, which should bethe normal way of treating them unless there is some special reason. That it does not have widespread use, as recognized above, is a reason for not having a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The list article offers the appropriate place for this content. Szzuk (talk) 06:24, 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. Unnecessary split of content that be kept at Samragyee RL Shah for now. RL0919 (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samragyee RL Shah filmography

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

This is a filmography page for an actor who has less than a dozen film credits. The actor bio lists more films than this page. As such, this page is both useless and unnecessary. I would have suggested a merge but no content that's missing from the actor bio has appropriate sourcing. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 10:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Article. It's reliable and well sourced. Comment: The only thing that Article has needed is expanding, I think so.Forest90 (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Neither the article nor the relevant BLP are long enough to warrant such a separation. The table here is cleaner than the BLP's, so merging this format into the longer filmography on article would be beneficial. Kingsif (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no justification for a separate article for such a small filmography and minor actor. I have moved the filmography table over per Kingsif but beyond that I don't see anything to merge. I also oppose merging as that implies a redirect, which I don't see any justification for here. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Separate article is not needed for such a small list. Filmography section on actor's article is enough. ~SS49~ {talk} 09:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article «Samragyee RL Shah» be more beneficial. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero need for another article. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 8 items, only 3 of which are notable. We need some consensus foe the appropriate number of items to justify an article, --my estimate would normally be at least 25. DGG ( talk ) 20:34, 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. There has been significant improvement in sourcing since nomination and I read the consensus as 'keep'. Just Chilling (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sunil Khandbahale

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

Fails WP:GNG per User:Winged_Blades_of_Godric/Indian_Media. ∯WBG^converse 06:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 06:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: Can you explain your rationale using Wikipedia deletion policies? While I can certainly skim your essay, it will be undeniably easier to present your case to other editors and me if you cite established policies. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This person, his software creations and his education initiatives have been discussed extensively in many news outlets, including the Wall Street Journal; they can't all be "paid news". If some of them definitely are, I suggest commenting them out with a note to that effect, so that they will not be re-added. If the article text is promotional, that can be fixed through editing, not deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - This person's work is noticeable, enough news references are available. this article has been live for long time, promotional issue can be fixed by community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raajeshpaatil (talk • contribs) 17:20, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 8 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) Hugsyrup (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gus and Yiayia's

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

This is a food truck. Although it has been well-written up in local papers, and been on the local news, this is a strictly small-scale operation. bd2412 T 03:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This ain't a food truck, it's a long-running sno-cone vendor that's been active for 85 years; in any business, that's an eternity. The sources pretty much clinch N easily for me, despite the article being Pittsburgh-centric. Nate • (chatter) 22:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't see how "sno-cone vendor" would be a step up from "food truck". bd2412 T 01:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reclassified it as a food cart in the article. It is the longest running food cart (or truck) in Pittsburgh. Popscreenshot (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot decide if the article should be about the business or the personalities behind the business. I don't believe there are enough sources that meet the criteria to establish the notability of the business but it appears that there may be a case to have an article focussed on the personalities that own the business. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest keeping it as a business. The stand had two owners prior to Gus Kalaris. He is 86. His family will be running the stand in the foreseeable future. Popscreenshot (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thank you for your input. Please keep in mind it was created as a stub and is WP:IMPERFECT. Though the cart may be small, it is considered an iconic part of Allegheny Commons Park and Pittsburgh by the media who has covered it. The cart dates back to 1917 and the Kalaris family has run it for several generations. I believe this article, when researched and added to, would provide further context to the park, city, and food scene. Popscreenshot (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep much loved local food stall with WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:31, 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement

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

Non-notable minor political party. G11 and G12'd in the past. No significant coverage other than its founding. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 20:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what do you expect a two month old crowdfunded political party to do? they already explained in why they wont run for elections ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

I do not know why you have nominated the page for deletion, Talk:Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement @Kautilya3: concurs. Mhveinvp (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ashiqsrinagar, Peerzada (2019-05-07). "Low turnout in Anantnag LS constituency: Political parties call for "introspection"". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
^ "Ex-babu, former engineer forge new front in run-up to Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
^ Observer, Kashmir News (2019-03-23). "Shah Faesal's party to stay away from LS polls". The Kashmir Pulse. Retrieved 2019-07-04.
^ "PUF united voice of J&K people: Shah Faesal". Greater Kashmir. 2019-06-23. Retrieved 2019-07-04.

Keep - A couple more recent sources.^[1]^[2] Clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ New Front, Old Frontier, Kashmir Life, 26 June 2019.
^ Hakeem Irfan Rashid, People's United Front: Another agenda and another alliance in Kashmir, Economic Times, 19 June 2019.

Comment: Mhveinvp Kautilya3 The issue is that in the provided sources, which are all routine coverage, the party is only subject to passing mentions in the articles listed, and not even mentioned directly in a few of the sources. If it's a recently started party, as you claim, then perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)}
- The two sources I have provided above do represent significant coverage as needed for WP:GNG. It is clear that this party represents a significant development in Jammu and Kashmir as practically every national newspaper has covered them. Some of the press has also carried out detailed analyses of their agenda.^[1]^[2] The party is set to contest the next Assembly elections and frankly it is silly to quibble over whether its page should exist or not. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Analysis of Vision Document – Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement, Epilogue, 19 March 2019.
^ PUF’s DNA, Read The 45 Point CMP, Kashmir Life, 18 June 2019.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (WP:INDIA contributor here). Non notable political party that has not won any elections and no indication why it is notable. Notablity is WP:NOTINHERITED. Whatever coverage this party is getting is dependent coverage based on its founder. This includes all the links above and those on the article. This dependent coverage cannot be used to claim notability. Also fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) due to this basic criteria. I would like to thank User:Sandstein for relisting this discussion. --DBig Xrayᗙ 17:39, 8 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) 00:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It's not notable political party and just two month old party which didn't won any election yet. Not given enough coverage by reliable and major sources to meet WP:Notability criteria. If this political party will play significant role in politics of India and in upcoming elections then it should be added. There is no deadline. --Harshil169 (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lots of coverage and I entirely disagree with DBX on his assessment of INHERITED. ∯WBG^converse 12:18, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on your link above and randomly chose this 4th link and this is how the article starts "Former bureaucrat Shah Faesal’s J&K People’s Movement and... this is a text book example of INHERITED coverage. And lots of inherited coverage does NOT indicate notability.--DBig Xrayᗙ 05:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone says SRK’s Red chillies. But Red chillies is notable. 106.66.180.36 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:OSE--DBig Xrayᗙ 07:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too soon for a political party to be notable enough to pass GNG. Delete without any apprehension for recreation in next few years if it becomes worthwhile by then. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is a redirect to the founder out of the question as a wikireader search term? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is not a notable political party to pass GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:19, 21 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 Userfy to User:Feroze Ahmad 2/Yesvantpur – Hubballi Express. A railway service can most certainly be notable but this article gets nowhere near meeting WP:GNG. I read the consensus that userfying, to permit further development, is the best way forward. Just Chilling (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yesvantpur – Hubballi Express

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

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

I am not sure a train service is notable. This is like having an article on the 07:56, London Liverpool Street, London Overground Slatersteven (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But this train service is newly launched and completed just one year so it shouldn't be deleted. Feroze Ahmad 2 (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:crystal we do not have articles because something might one day be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A train service can certainly be notable. Z cannot find in-depth references for this train service, however. I get some results when I search for यशवंतपुर - हुबली एक्सप्रेस (translation by Google, which may not be accurate) but I cannot tell whether those hots can be used as references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - per Eastmain, sources may exist in other languages, and we should give the author the opportunity to add these so they can show notability. --MrClog (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to User:Feroze Ahmad 2/Yesvantpur – Hubballi Express - Indian results seem better however no idea if they're any good. Better off moving back and allowing creator to continue working on it, –Davey2010^Talk 00:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 8 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. Not in a position presumed notable per WP:NPOL, and coverage for WP:GNG has not been demonstrated. RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina Erlingson

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

Non-notable local politician. The sv.wiki article, though more detailed, includes nothing additional to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 07:58, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Sources confirms her position within politics. Article needs expansion but that is no reason for deletion. Politicians are in general notable and here is a politician with high positions within both national and local Green party politics.BabbaQ (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which states how this subject satisfies the criterion that you are using. What are the provenances and depths of these sources? If you are going to use that criterion, use it properly. It isn't about positions in political parties. It is about provenance and depth of available sources, which you have completely failed to address. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- County-level politicians are not deemed notable just because their existence is technically confirmed by a staff profile and a glancing namecheck of their existence in a newspaper article that isn't about them. Politicians have to serve in the national or state/provincial legislatures to be deemed "automatically" notable; county councillors become notable only if they can show a depth and range and volume of sourcing that marks them out as much more special than most other county councillors. Bearcat (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment she was elected as a councillor for Skåne. Generally local politicians including mayors are not automatically considered notable. Mccapra (talk) 08:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Members of a national Riksdag party are.BabbaQ (talk) 08:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Members of the Riksdag are notable. People who are affiliated with national political parties in non-notable capacities are not. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if she was actually elected to the Riksdag herself then she would be notable, but just being a local politician who is a member of a party represented in the Riksdag does not make her so. Mccapra (talk) 08:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well documented politician, Sadads (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County councillors are not automatically notable just because one or two sources can be shown to verify that they exist — for starters, one of the two sources here is her own "staff" profile on the council's own self-published website, not a reliable or notability-supporting source, and while the other one is real media, it mentions her name but is not fundamentally about her (and even if we accepted it anyway, it still takes more than just one media source to get a politician into Wikipedia if their role isn't "inherently" notable.) The corresponding article in Swedish is even worse, being written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and referenced only to the staff profile — literally the only reason I'm not nominating it for deletion is that I can't read or write Swedish in order to navigate their deletion process. And politicians in non-notable roles are also not extended notability just because of what political party they happen to be associated with, either: the notability test is not "members of a national Riksdag party, even if the person is personally just a local councillor in one of the counties", it is "the person is themselves a member of the Riksdag". None of this, either the substance or the sourcing, is enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone at svwiki have her svwiki article sent for deletion? I don't think it's notable there. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd say that as a full time "regionråd" (county councillor) she passes the demands for notability on swwiki. /FredrikT (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think regionråd pass the WP:NPOL threshold; I can't see how GNG is met. Bearcat's analysis is to the point. --bonadea contributions talk 08:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL and doesn't meet the threshold of significant coverage necessary for a politician to pass WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would a article about British politician of the same caliber be delete, never. But hey, throw in some ”no significant coverage random reason.. and it gets fixed. Sources and WP:GNG are for notability of this article subject. BabbaQ (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the articles of British, American, and Canadian politicians of the same level are deleted quite regularly. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, an article about a British (or American or Canadian) politician at this level of office would normally be deleted — in fact, such articles very regularly are deleted when they get attempted. There might be occasional exceptions for a county councillor who can be really well-sourced as having much more nationalized notability than the norm, such as being a nationally prominent activist on an important political issue or having already had preexisting notability for other reasons, but just serving on a county council is not an automatic free pass over NPOL in any country on earth. The same rule applies to Britain, Ireland, Canada and the United States, and there most certainly are not different unequal standards being applied just because this one is Swedish instead of anglospheric. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Indeed, local councillors from English-speaking countries are regularly deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete Lacks significant independent coverage and fails the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 23:30, 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 delete as WP:CRYSTAL. As usual with such cases, no prejudice against recreation once notable events have actually occurred, or when there is sufficient coverage of plans to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 15:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2020 in Antarctica

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

Empty, and per WP:CRYSTAL it is unclear whether anything notable would happen in Antarctica in 2020. Ymblanter (talk) 06:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No need for it. nothing notable going to happen then WP:CRYSTAL unless now someone happens to have 2020 vision. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an empty shell. The same user seems to be creating tons of similar articles. I'm glad though, as it's important to know when Christmas Day takes place in Iceland and Australia... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteand per WP:CRYSTAL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Antarctica-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, apologies to above editors but there probably are notable scientific expeditions to Antarctica planned for 2020, just not much readily available coverage ie. a gsearch brings up literally 100s of touristy expeditions (Damn you ecotourists!!:)), now if only there was some sort of sporting event planned there......Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 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 Redirect and delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:56, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian government

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

I am afraid this disambig is misleading. Syrian government just refers to the government of Syria, which has de jure and de facto authority in the country. The fact that some parts of the country are controlled by other entities some of which call themselves governments does not make them Syrian government. Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, per my rationale below. wbm1058 (talk) 15:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Council of Ministers (Syria). It is, without a doubt, the prmary topic. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with Finnusertop MaskedSinger (talk) 12:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect, but add a section to the article noting the existence of opposition movements which assert claims of being the legitimate government of Syria. bd2412 T 01:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a duplicate, created in error, of Syrian government (disambiguation). — Gorthian (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Syrian government (disambiguation). So this is a defacto proposal to delete Syrian government (disambiguation) as this is not an ambiguous topic. We need an article about the topic of "Syrian government", even if that article says there is no Syrian government or says that there are multiple Syrian governments. This is a WP:Broad-concept which can be discussed either in a separate article at this title or in the lead section of Council of Ministers (Syria) which should clearly explain that they control most, but not all of Syria. The current configuration is not acceptable and Syrian government (disambiguation) should be deleted. Comment at Talk:Syrian government (disambiguation): This entry is absolutely grotesque: there is only one Syrian government, the one represented at the UN, and the only thing this partisan entry is trying to do is to create ambiguity, certainly not any "disambiguation". – wbm1058 (talk) 15:14, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Syrian government (disambiguation). Redirect Syrian government to Council of Ministers (Syria). This removes 2 spurious disambiguation pages. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect per Finnusertop Cambial Yellowing(❧) 10:28, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NewsMarket

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

Limited coverage, fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 9 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) 23:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with nom. - Jacobz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd suggest merging into the parent but that now seems to be DMA Media and we don't have an article on them. I get the impression that this scene is too fast moving for us to keep up with and so we should wait until the process of consolidation and pivoting settles down. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom and per above. Barca (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:41, 20 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 deleted WP:G4. (non-admin closure) Ceethekreator (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Marchand (surgeon)

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

Does not appear notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- No RS, most of the sources listed are primary, fails WP:GNG.Meeanaya (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears someone is trying to get around the last delete and salting.[22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with what is written above. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNOTABLE there are far more notable surgeons out there that don't have Wikipedia articles. Mrbuskin (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 07:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable subject. Lapablo (talk) 08:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I almost nominated it myself when I first saw it, per all the concerns already mentioned/elaborated above. Only refrained so an expert on the field could review it first. I am assuming WP:SALTING means it ought be an uncontroversial delete (but interested to see what happens). Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For your info, I believe salting is technical wizzkiddery for preventing any attempt at recreating the article under that (and similar) title. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 09:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can I close this now, or am I not allowed because I've voted?Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 09:51, 8 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Purnima Gupta

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing significant found about her, lacks RS. Created by possible paid or COI editor. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why this is nominated for deleted. She is one of the great astrologers who got some of the awards like best tarot card reader in 2017, Young women achiever - astrology 2018 (National excellence award by anti terrorism crime and corruption front), Best astrologer 2018 - By magica, Jyotish ratna in 2017, jyotish bhushan 2019 by Nier, Mother terasa sadhbhavana award in 2019 and so on. I believe she is eligible to add an indian astrologer category. Please elaborate in detail why do you want to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavithra12 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pavithra12, if you are not paid where did you got this photograph? Declare your COI or employer to comply with the Wiki policies. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meeanaya spoke with her directly through social media and received some details to add more info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavithra12 (talk • contribs) 06:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Independent of the deletion discussion, this article is so poorly written. Not good enough - not by a long shot. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now added some of the award achieved by her with source link. Could you please check and help me to improve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavithra12 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Feels like a plain promotion content and a paid edit. 117.207.24.238 (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not paid edit. Entirely it is based on my research. i really dont understand what makes you to think this way. Could you please explain. (talk)Pavithra12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should it be listed in list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions this is a astrologer. FYI in modern times Astronomy is NOT related to Astrology. Someone with the power should re remove it from the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. thank you -- Bayoustarwatch (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no longer on the list. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Use of Wikipedia as an ADVERT for this professional astrologer. A number of people in India who get into the news share her name, but while there are some hits in a search on this astrologer, they are brief and read like mere PROMO. afaic see, she fails WP:SIGCOV. If somebody manages to find adequate sources, feel free to ping me to revisit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO as argued just above. Call it star-crossed, but keeping this article just isn't in the cards. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kangtai Cactus

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

The article lacks independent reliable sources and the only other sources I see are standard business profiles and pickups of company press releases. This therefore appears to be a non-notable company. There may however be sources in Chinese that I can’t read. Mccapra (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one fails WP:NCORP --FrankTursetta (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - current sourcing doesn't establish notability per NCORP, and I couldn't find anything better - but I did note that company's website given at the article no longer works, suggesting that they may not even exist any more. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail passes WP:NCORP. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:36, 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 delete. Sandstein 08:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzy extraction

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

Previously nominated for deletion but closed with no consensus. According to Google Scholar, the scientific paper in which this technique was described has been cited only 11 times since it was published in 2016. [23] That is not notable. There is no evidence of notability here, and the creation of this Wikipedia article (by someone who appears to be the inventor of the technique or someone closely related to him) seems to be part of a self-promotional circle jerk for technique inventor Paweł Urban. TL;DR: 11 citations in 3 years is not notable, and minor coverage in a couple of specialist news sources (tantamount to coverage of a press release) is also inadequate evidence of notability. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I'm not seeing sufficient independent coverage to begin to satisfy WP:N or WP:NEOLOGISM. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:04, 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. Sandstein 08:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ace Lightning (video game)

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

I could not find any sources for this article and I don't think it meets notability because of the lack of citations about it. GamerPro64 01:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 01:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with what is written above. Nothing else to add. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ace Lightning. [24] indicates (garishly [oh, 2000s Internet] but otherwise authoritatively) that the game was announced for GBA if no other platforms. --Izno (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, this is a WP:ATD-R response. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not redirect. Ace Lightning does not mention video games at all, so a redirect would serve no purpose at all. Fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (was not able to find anything except the mentions or listings). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ace Lightning can trivially have the announcement added to it. --Izno (talk) 14:24, 8 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. Sandstein 08:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gantamulla

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

Deprodded with the rationale, "The two village likely meet WP:GEOLAND. Covering them both in a single article does not seem like an unreasonable approach." However, their is no village named "Gantamulla", which is divided into two "areas". Article should be deleted, and if someone wants to, two articles created about the two individual villages created. Current article is misleading, and therefore by definition, non-encyclopedic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might help to know that "Bala" and "Pain" ("Payeen" here) occur sometimes in placenames in this part of the world, and mean "upper" and "lower". c.f. Wani Gam Pain and Wanigam Bala in Pattan sub-district, Baramulla district. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Gantamulla does appear to be a genuine village. Not two separate villages. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hi Necrothesp, do you have a source for that? Currently the article doesn't have any to support that, and I couldn't find any.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that it is not clear from the sources I've reviewed whether this is one village or two. My best guess is that Gantamulla is an inhabited area administratively divided into two villages (perhaps due to some dispute). We don't build an encyclopedia by deleting articles with suspected errors or ambiguity, we improve articles to eliminate errors and clarify ambiguity. If that eventually leads us to split this into two separate articles, so be it. At this point it is not clear what is the best way forward. Neither WP:DEMOLISH nor WP:TNT should be applied here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets our guidelines for [WP:GEOLAND]] Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Lightburst (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - okay, so there isn't a SINGLE source showing that this is actually a "legally recognized places". There are sources which show that there are two villages, but not a single entity like in this article. So somehow, in an encyclopedia, it's okay to mislead folks looking for info. Got it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source I used in researching this. Feel free to try some other maps yourself. ~Kvng (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that's not a reliable source, and the info links back to the WP article under discussion in this AfD (which is why it's not a reliable source). If that's the best anyone can come up with, that pretty much makes my point for deletion.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly your gloating does not convince me to change my position on this deletion discussion. ~Kvng (talk) 23:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And oddly, your lack of understanding of notability criteria does not change mine, either. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References: Digital India Land Records, hindustantimes, Zee News, Rising Kashmir. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the two villages are recognised by the Indian census. SportingFlyer T·C 06:30, 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 delete. "Is shown on TV" is not part of our notability guidelines. Sandstein 08:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What Would Your Kid Do?

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

This does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. It was a TV show, but how was it notable? Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Either add sources to this article or WP:TNT it. Nate • (chatter) 20:51, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking in SIGCOV with no evidence of historical significance, enduring notability or encyclopedic value. Fails GNG. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to add. too many compelling reasons to delete. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is notable as is shown on ITV at 7pm (popular evening time for TV viewing). Needs work on sources and content but meets notability guidelines. Willbb234 (talk) 09:18, 8 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oddz N Endz

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 1 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) 00:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't satisfy notability. MySpace?! Bless them. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even with (supposed) connections to lots of famous people, this production duo is suspiciously low on reliable and independent media coverage that focuses on them specifically. The one source already in the article, a quickie from their hometown newspaper when they were starting out in high school, is all I can find beyond routine promotional listings. They are not even mentioned in media coverage for the songs they produced, except for a basic listing here and there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OBS Logistics

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

Non-notable per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 23:23, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:45, 1 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) 00:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no effort to satisfy notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I like the way the page is built out but the lack of notability to warrant WP:NCORP is concerning. If able to find some sources to back the copy I'd say keep. Mememento (talk) 18:06, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manfred Unterweger

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. The EBEL is not considered for #2 but even if it did the subject has played less than 200 games anyway. No preeminent honours to meet #3 and he never played for Austria at senior level which fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete Has no significant coverage and fails WP:NHOCKEY.Sandals1 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that he meets either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 18:52, 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Port Pirie City SC

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

Non-notable sports club per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No notability. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:24, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 08:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Teraplane (talk) 00:13, 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. ‑Scottywong | gossip _ 16:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Pod 9

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

This article on a company that makes a WWII game has been sourced entirely to its own website for the last 14 years. Maintenance tags were placed on the article six years ago and have yet to be acted upon.

A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find any RS. The only sources uncovered in BEFORE are a press release [25], an incidental mention on a Finnish blog [26], and an incidental mention on something called vg247.com [27]. Per WP:GNG, notability must be demonstrated, not simply declared or asserted. In the absence of any reliable sources of any kind (let alone significant coverage) the article fails the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Newimpartial (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Snow Keep~~ Merge and Redirect to Heavy Gear - I am changing my mind, because now that we have improved sources and content, it would make sense to consolidate them to the best-known product until we have time to document the company itself more thoroughly using the dead tree sources. Plus, ideally, I would like to expand the author/game designer articles more than I would emphasize the publisher itself, though I know that's a personal choice and goes against some traditions in the field. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the original !vote text follows - in addition to the substantial discussion in Appelcline's Designers & Dragons (a parennial reliable source in this field), Dream Pod 9 is also cited in Chandler & Chandler's Fundamentals of Game Development (2011), Mogensen's "Dice-rolling systems in RPGs" (2007), Williams and Rooney's "From book to field" (2018), the company has also been discussed on gizmodo, guildcompanion.com, gamemonkeys.com and Pyramid, and that's without even looking for the print reviews that were dominant in the 1990s when the Pod came to prominence. Therefore, snow keep. Newimpartial (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

-Morgensen's "Dice-rolling systems in RPGs" (2007) Can we get an OCLC number on this? Worldcat doesn't seem to think this book exists (see: [28]).

-Chandler & Chandler's Fundamentals of Game Development (2011) The only reference I can find to the company in this book is the following: "Heavy Gear is a trademark of Dream Pod 9". Proof of existence is not proof of notability.

-Williams and Rooney's "From book to field" (2018) ... according to the publisher it is "an online publishing imprint that makes books and games available as PDF ... as free downloads" [29] - this book (ebook?), according to Worldcat, is not currently held by any known library in the world. While I appreciate not every publisher is a Springer or Taylor & Francis, I question if a publisher with no office, no employees, and which creates PDFs it hands out for free (but no library will accept for cataloging) is a reliable source as we generally understand the term.

-"the company has also been discussed on ... http://www.gamemonkeys.com/reviews/g/gearkriegrpg.htm gamemonkeys.com" - "gamemonkeys.com" is an anonymously written site (see: [30])that doesn't show evidence of a gatekeeping process and has not been sourced by other RS, ergo, is not itself RS

-"the company has also been discussed on ... gizmodo, guildcompanion.com... Pyramid" - No, I believe that's incorrect. These are WP:PRODUCTREVs of specific products which already have WP pages and are not discussions of the company itself; per WP:COMPANY and WP:NOTINHERITED companies do not inherit notability from the products they manufacture

Thanks, Chetsford (talk) 02:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the Pyramid citation. For Mogensen, Chandler & Chandler, and Williams and Rooney, perhaps you would have more luck using Google Scholar?

As we have preciously discussed, Chet, NOTINHERITED does not apply to the relationship between creators and their works; in particular, creators do indeed inhetit notability from their works. In the case of Dream Pod 9, many of their creations, including their four most notable games, are creations of the studio as a whole and in some cases, such as the Silhouette system, these works have exclusively corporate ownership without being the product of one or more individual authors. The production of notable games and other intellectual properties does indeed grant notability, just as Disney would be notable for the IP it has created, bought or stolen (q.v. the birthday song) even if its corporate shenanigans did not occupy our business pages. Newimpartial (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"... perhaps you would have more luck using Google Scholar?" No, I'm afraid I didn't. Chetsford (talk) 02:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is strange to me, as it is how I found those sources. Have you had trouble searching using Google Scholar before? Newimpartial (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. So, what is the OCLC number to "Dice-rolling systems in RPGs"? Or a DOI number? Honestly, at this point, just anything to prove it exists. Second request. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't use Google Scholar for yourself, how does it become my responsibility to do it for you? Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While it's unusual in an AfD to repeatedly refuse to provide an OCLC, LOC, or DOI number — or, indeed, any information by which one could verify that an offline source actually exists — I'll AGF it does. Chetsford (talk) 05:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"creators do indeed inhetit notability" Can you demonstrate this is a WP policy by linking to it? Per WP:PRODUCT "a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable". Chetsford (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCORP specifically excludes "entertainment groups [and] co-authors ... covered by WP:Notability (people). The latter specifies that creators may demonstrate Notability by having created "a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." This precisely describes the case of Dream Pod 9. Newimpartial (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:NCORP specifically excludes "entertainment groups [and] co-authors covered by WP:Notability (people)" I regret to inform you that "Dream Pod 9" is not a person. Chetsford (talk) 03:14, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Pod 9 is the corporate form for a group of creatives ( designers and authors) to which NCREATIVE applies. If you were to read the entry in Designers & Dragons, this would be clear to you. Please try not to engage in Straw Man argumentation or to be facetious. Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Dream Pod 9 is the corporate form for" Yes, that's correct. Therefore, WP:NCORP applies. WP:NBIO applies to natural, not juristic, people. Chetsford (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chetford, the carveout from NCORP applies to groups of "natural" people, regardless of their "juristic" status, e.g. "groups of inventors". Please try to keep up. Newimpartial (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral/Keep? The way I see it, if Dream Pod 9#Properties truly are notable, then having made multiple notable games makes that game maker notable. However, none of those games are greatly sourced (Heavy Gear being an exception, that one clearly is notable), so they are possibly all deletable. It's also possible that everything, as standalone entries, aren't notable, but could be merged together and as a whole attain notability. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in the AfD. Just for full disclosure, I plan to sequentially nominate each of Dream Pod 9 Inc.'s products (except Heavy Gear, for reasons you noted) for deletion after this closes as they all seem to be advertisements that fail WP:N. Chetsford (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chet, you can do what you like, but as all of the Dream Pod games with articles were extensively reviewed, they will all pass the GNG, and so you will simply ending up wasting your own time. Would you not rather take up another hobby, like billiards? Newimpartial (talk) 11:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At this time, I have heard of them, so suspect they may be notable. The problom is it was all in gaming mags I no longer own.Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial, although I will see what I can do to improve this article this week given my limited time. BOZ (talk) 12:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added one source that includes several pages of discussion on the company and its games; I will see if I can find anything else, but the coverage is likely to be print sources rather than online coverage. At minimum, if this does not go to "Keep" then I think it should be merged somewhere - perhaps to its most well-known game Heavy Gear, or to a list of game publishers, or something. BOZ (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there is a product review from Dragon magazine which discusses the company's Silhouette game system; the system does not have its own article, so I believe it should be discussed in the company page, and I believe that the review does help since it discusses the system. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Eh. Saw this mentioned at WP:RSN. WP:NOTINHERITED seems pretty straightforward here. We need significant coverage of this subject in reliable independent sources. So far every single source I've seen is a brief mention of the company in an article that's about one of it's properties. E.g. "published by Dream Pod 9". Even if we lump a pile of those together, we still don't have notability. A corporation isn't an artist or a band. Companies aren't "creative professionals" even if the people who work for it are creative professionals. None of the links above are to significant coverage of this subject, and "go Google Scholar it" with strange evasiveness about particulars is not reassuring. I went ahead and did so, finding e.g. Dice-Rolling Mechanisms in RPGs. The only mention it has of the subject is this line: "One of the simplest is to roll a number of dice equal to the ability and then pick the highest result, as is done in Dream Pod 9's 'Silhouette'." Again here there is nothing at all about this subject, and its product only given as a quick example. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the citation is that it is a scholarly author writing within their area of expertise, and the die-rolling system in question is referred to and cited as authored by "Dream Pod 9" as a collective author - it is an IP that cannot be attributed to an individual within the studio, and is therefore a perfect example of how the developers work. This is directly equivalent to the "groups of inventors" discussed explicitly in the carveout from NCORP (who may also operate legally as a partnership or LLC) to which NBIO also applies. If this is not clear, the chapter (!) on Dream Pod 9 in Designers & Dragons Vol. 3, an impeccable RS in this field, should be sufficient to explain. Newimpartial (talk) 14:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, based on google searches the company does not appear to meet WP:GNG, and I am not finding any significant coverage, to show that the subject meets WP:NCORP. The subject isn't a White Wolf Publishing, or a TSR, at least at this point. Perhaps it is WP:TOOSOON?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Pod 9 peaked in influence and commercial appeal in the 1990s, so these internet searches are not beside the point. Please remember that notability is not temporary, and the Pod was covered reasonably extensively in print publications in the 1990s. Newimpartial (talk) 02:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Newimpartial. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Newimpartial. Also the addition of mention from Applecline strengthens the article. Guinness323 (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on finding more sources, Guinness. BOZ (talk) 16:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guinness - one of the sources you've added returns a dead link and the other doesn't appear to actually mention the name "Dream Pod 9" in it. Can you clarify if you meant to add these? Chetsford (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I've repaired the deadlink with a link to an archived copy. The first link does not mention Dream Pod 9 because is a citation for the claim that Protoculture Addicts is the oldest surviving mecha magazine in North America. I've also changed the exact wording of that statement from "the first" to "one of the first", since the source notes five older mecha magazines which have ceased publication.Guinness323 (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Just to clarify, while these may or may not be fine sources to use in the article and you've used them appropriately in a "background" section to cite specific claims, they don't contribute to establishing WP:N if they don't even mention the thing about which the article is about. And "colonydrop.com" appears to be (or was, since it's offline) a blog (see WP:SELFPUBLISH) written by "Sean" (no last name) and "Todd" (no last name). Chetsford (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[31] is the source discussed above. Probably self-published, but the author is reasonably well published in the field of CS math. It's certainly independent and probably meets WP:SPS. I tend to favor keeping articles about companies with multiple notable products, and that appears (for now?) to be the case here. Call me a weak keep. Hobit (talk) 23:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, here is a RS review that dedicates several paragraphs to discussing the Silhouette core system, which is a Dream Pod 9 IP that could not be tied to any one individual author/creator. This review discusses Dream Pod 9 explicitly (rather than relying on NBOOK/NAUTHOR rules for Notability), and may prove helful for this relisted discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously closed, but backed out as WP:BADNAC. See also WP:Deletion review/Log/2019 July 16#Dream Pod 9.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments after DRV and relisting: Note that the product review from Dragon was added after the first Delete response above, and although it was added before the second Delete response (which seemed to misunderstand that the company is still actively producing products the way it once was, although I am not sure if they are even active at all to be honest) and I do not think the user took that source into account. The relevance in my opinion of that source is not so much that it includes reviews of the games, but that it comments on the Silhouette system, which does not have its own article, and is the core element of the company's games, and I believe that an independent source such as that is necessary to include in the article so that we have more about the Silhouette system. I added the source Designers & Dragons after both delete votes, which contains several pages of information and commentary on the company. I will AGF from Hobit's response that the self-published "Dice Rolling Mechanisms in RPGs" comes from a reliable author in the field of CS math. I believe that the commentary from "Next Generation" magazine – an independent reliable source from the video game industry – is most useful in its contrasting the smaller DP9 with the much larger FASA, as the video game publisher at the time had gone from licensing FASA's BattleTech to DP9's Heavy Gear. I have not seen the "PC Gamer" source to know what it says about the company. I believe that the above is enough to meet the minimum for the WP:GNG, and thus I affirm my initial Keep, although if consensus ultimately disagrees with me, then I think we have enough to show that rather than deleting it should be merged somewhere. Meanwhile, I will see what else I can do to find more sources for this topic, which are likely not easily found online due to how long ago this company was at its peak. BOZ (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly suggests adding something based on The Alexandrian piece I cited just above. Newimpartial (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Came here from a closed DRV. Can a company be notable for having products which were reviewed given WP:NOTINHERITED? The only potentially significant coverage of the company I've seen are the two Lien Multimedia articles published within four days of each other, unfortunately require a subscription to view completely, and I'm not sure that's a reliable source, or whether the articles are PR. Many of the links provided above are links to reviews of the company's products and are not of the company themselves. Even if we're going to start accepting self-published academia, Dream Pod 9 is only mentioned once and as a throwaway, which may be a good source for the article but not to demonstrate notability. Even assuming Designers & Dragons is a good offline source for WP:GNG, there's still not enough here to pass WP:NORG. If anyone has offline sources which discuss the company and not the company's products, please let me know. I also don't mind if the game-specific prose gets merged into its respective game. SportingFlyer T·C 22:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is still not a policy-compliant reading of NOTINHERITED in relation to CREATIVE. Also, the reliability of 'Designers & Dragons' has been previously affirmed, and multi-paragraph discussions of Dream Pod 9's Silhouette Core system are not "trivial mentions" per policy. Newimpartial (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Guinness323 apparently has access to Lien Multimedia as he just added it to the article; you may want to ask what is in there? BOZ (talk) 01:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Lien Multimedia (The Multimedia Link) is a respected Quebec-based French-language on-line magazine that focusses on modern media, everything from movies and TV to video games, cellphone apps, animation, the music industry, etc. They are a news organization with independent reporters, not a PR firm. Recent articles include artificial intelligence in the creative industries; Minecraft as a social learning tool for kids; the LabLabLab Project about Game Studies at Concordia University; the Montreal band Off with Their Heads; headliners for the Aboriginal Presence Festival; etc. Their articles about Dream Pod 9 are not trivial.Guinness323 (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Chetsford does not read French, so he is likely to remain from Missouri on this source, contra WP:V. Newimpartial (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget is presumably also a WP:RS, no? Good work, Guiness323. :) BOZ (talk) 03:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ICv2 as well, great work! BOZ (talk) 04:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Engadget is certainly RS but the article is not about Dream Pod 9. It's about one of its products. ICV2 is RS but as a trade outlet should be treated like we do Business Journals ... fine for facts, not N. I know many people !voting here are almost exclusively involved in RPG articles, but speaking as someone who is not I hope you are able to empathize that the frustration some of the other delete !voters seem to express originates out of the unique situation we find ourselves in having to continuously reiterate these points throughout this thread since they're not ones that typically require explanation in most AFDs. It is most certainly not personal nor does it represent more stringent standards being applied to the topic of fantasy role play. It's wonderful we have so many editors here on both sides of the fence genuinely interested in improving WP. Chetsford (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I likewise hope that you are able to empathize with the frustration on the other side of the argument, that people are doing their best to find the best sources we can, while it seems like you put your best effort into striking down everything we do. If your current deletion campaign against RPGs continues, then understand you are going to be seeing the same people commenting about a lot of the same things, which is not going to change just because you feel we are being repetitive and frustrating your attempts to delete these articles. I'm going to disagree with your self-assessment that you are not applying more stringent standards than at least most other editors do; take for example this recent thread on your talk page about a draft you rejected by User:Zxcvbnm, a user whom I consider from past encounters to be more in favor of deleting articles that don't prove their notability than not. You rejected that AFC and poo-pooed most of the sources he provided, yet just as soon as you rejected it another user quickly moved the article into mainspace and more sources were added; would you reject those sources as well? The video game WikiProject is a huge and successful one, and I think if you saw some of the articles there which are in as bad shape if not worse than the average tabletop RPG your head would spin - and there are probably ten times as many VG articles as there are RPG articles! So if you want to experience less frustration in life, my advice would be to lighten up. Otherwise, if you prefer to fight it out with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality just because other editors disagree with you, or maybe you are trying to prove some kind of WP:POINT with this slew of deletions, watching people scurry around gleefully like ants running away from a kid with a magnifying glass, then we will continue as we have been. Yes, we are genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia, or we would not bother. I advised you sarcastically in the DRV on this article to go after the low-hanging fruit instead of articles that might actually have a chance like this one, although I really did mean it. I see every RPG AFD that you start; some I do not even respond to, and some I give a half-hearted response to because I am letting you have those. If you see me fighting instead, then know I really do believe in that topic's potential, and I do believe that this one deserves the Keep vote I gave it. Understand that I am probably not alone when I say I do not find it wonderful that you are pursuing deletion in this subject area so heavily, nor would I consider deletion or redirection of this article an improvement to Wikipedia, when I feel that the article has room for improvement. I don't think I have anything more to add to this AFD than I did before, and I think we should leave it to any new respondents to add their take on what has already been said and done. BOZ (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

people are doing their best to find the best sources we can I think that's wonderful and do empathize. I have written hundreds of articles and understand it can be a challenge to find good sources. Sometimes I've even had to abandon a draft before moving it to Mainspace upon coming to realize I did not have the minimum threshold of quality sourcing. I assure you I'm not on any type of "campaign" with RPGs. I'm actively involved in WP and specifically seek out articles other editors have slapped refimprove tags on so as to either improve or, if not possible after my best efforts, AfD. It just happens a huge percentage of articles I come across are RPG stubs. The situation is so acute that it is almost impossible to avoid. Chetsford (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... it's simply coincidence that you have sent about 10 RPG articles to AFD within the last month alone, when I had not seen any AFD activity from you in this area for several months? You are not specifically looking for RPG articles to see if they were something that should be deleted? It was just a coincidence that when you first declined the AFC draft for Xanathar's Guide to Everything (which was not written by me, but I requested the AFC review because the new editor was having trouble doing it so it was my name you saw on the AFC review request) and then saw that same new user improve it enough where you changed your mind and accepted the article, that it was only after that when you started sending RPG articles to AFD again? I'm perhaps misinterpreting the fact that when I look on [[32]] and see your name starting 36 AFDs between Aug 13 2018 to Nov 26 2018, and then absolutely nothing at all until June 24 of this year when it started up again; I am just imagining that long gap between two bursts of continual AFD nomination in the same area, just a coincidence instead of an actual pattern? Somehow when you were looking at articles to see whether they could be saved or should be deleted, you only saw RPG articles that you perceived as deletable in those two periods of time and you just happened to spot a lot of them all together like that? You didn't just forget about deleting after RPG articles towards the end of last year or get distracted with something else, only to be reminded of it when you saw my name a month ago on an AFC review for an RPG article? I'm just trying to understand your comments, and how I should interpret your suggestion that it is "almost impossible to avoid" this "huge percentage of articles" you come across all being from the same area for four months, then none at all for seven months, and here we are back again like nothing happened. Maybe it's not for me to understand. If you see all these RPG articles in your efforts to improve sources, can you come up with one single example where you have added any source at all to any RPG article? I can't recall one, but it would help ease my mind a bit if you could think of one. BOZ (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I have no power to delete articles on WP. When articles on fantasy role play are deleted, it's the WP community that has made that decision. Beyond that, I'd suggest the rest of your comment, which seems to address issues not directly related to this specific article, would be more appropriate for a Talk page and would be happy to continue it there. Thanks. Chetsford (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reaffirming my delete !vote. The Dragon source is, like basically everything else, about the games and says practically nothing about the company. For those curious, though it's not yet linked from the article, it's available here. As far as I can tell the keep rationale rests entirely on Designers and Dragons, which I'm unable to find even a preview of. All I can find of it is that it's a Kickstarter project, which doesn't instill me with confidence. May be perfectly reliable, but since I'm still yet to see even one other source that provides more than a brief mention, I'm still on the side of delete. These sources about the games. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the RSN discussion of 'Designers & Dragons' is here. Also, I wouldn't see a multi-paragraph discussion of the Silhouette Core system, a major IP created by and consistently attributed to Dream Pod 9 in the RS, to be a trivial mention. Newimpartial (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Rhododendrites' !vote preceded the addition of French-language business press to the article, and should be weighed accordingly. Newimpartial (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we forgo the sneaky AfD tactics to undercut !votes of people who disagree? I left a comment literally a few hours before you posted this. If a source is added and you want people to update their !vote, ping them. Leaving a comment on the source below. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on newly added sources and "creative carve-out" argument: In reaffirming my delete !vote I examined all the newly added sources (or those mentioned in the AfD, such as the personal Wordpress blog/online resume of an aspiring actor named Justin Alexander "TheAlexandrian.net" [33]) and found that, in each case, they amounted to single line mentions of the company or were in objectively non-RS outlets, therefore, did not meet WP:SIGCOV. I also found CThomas's and Masem's arguments here [34] to be compelling, in which they examined whether a "creative carve out" for companies of this type exists. Beyond that, I don't believe the interests of civil discussion are served by WP:DHCYCLEing every comment so will probably leave my input on this subject at that pending this AfD's eventual closure. I very much appreciate the time and valuable input both sides of the debate have put into this interesting discussion. Chetsford (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that those esteemed editors also held that game publishers with four or five Notable works to their credit should be treated with a more relaxed Notability standard than NCORP, and you agreed, so perhaps that should also be taken into account by the closer.

Also note that acting credits do undermine anyone's reliability as a game reviewer, as Wil Wheaton can attest. And Chetsford, your rather restrictive and FRINGE views about self-published RS have been repeatedly repudiated in the past and should (evidently) carry no WEIGHT here. Newimpartial (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You don't mean Whil Wheaton, do you? BOZ (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So this is the source being highlighted as a discussion-changer to the point that Newimpartial is trying to undercut other people's !votes for not factoring it in. It's a weird single-paragraph promotional bit that seems to exist only to say "here's a quote from this guy". Could it be reliable? Possible, I guess, but the website takes user submissions and seems to be by/for the industry. Regardless, the basis for it is a quote from someone who works with Dream Pod 9, so even if it's not promotional it doesn't do much for significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think you would have to log in to see more? BOZ (talk) 14:14, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, BOZ; those are teaser blurbs rather than the stories themselves (there are more than one). I don't have a subscription either. Newimpartial (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Heavy Gear – Also here from the closed DRV. The article fails to meet NCORP/GNG per source analysis. Appelcline's chapter (if it's an WP:RS; I don't have confidence in that RSN thread) focuses on DP9's predecessor Ianus, and on DP9's product line, but not on the company DP9 itself. Moby Games is user-generated content. Liem Multimedia is a local trade publication interviewing the president of a local company in the trade. The Alexandrian (assuming it's a valid WP:SPS), ICv2 and Engadget are product announcements. Dragon is a product review. All the other links in this AfD are brief mentions, mostly in product reviews. Notable products don't make a company notable. We don't have even basic information about this company, such as it's incorporation date, ownership, management, number of employees, units sold, revenue, distribution, and so forth. The company's notable products already have articles, like Heavy Gear. The company's Silhouette game system a.k.a. SilCORE is already covered at Heavy Gear#Silhouette CORE RPG Rules. "Dream Pod 9" is probably a useful search term, though, so it should be kept as a redirect to the company's main product, Heavy Gear. What little is known about the publisher can all be included in a section at Heavy Gear. – Levivich 15:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a merge and redirect to Heavy Gear would be fine for now, and the company article could be rebuilt after the other game like articles have been fleshed out and the corporate info has been properly document. I have changed my !vote accordingly.

However, Leviv, the RSN thread on Applecline was started and canvassed by the source's most hostile skeptic, so the fact that it does find the source reliable should be considered a good baseline. And I don't know what version of the source you read, but the chapter in Volume 3 dedicates most of the page count to post-1995 Dream Pod, with only a couple of pages for pre-1995 Ianus. Newimpartial (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The first page or so of Appelcline's chapter focuses on Ianus for about the first page, and then the remaining pages do focus on DP9. It does give the founding of Ianus as 1985 by Claude Pelletier, and that DP9 split off from them in 1995. In my experience, smaller game publishers like this rarely if ever report things like number of employees, units sold, revenue, or distribution figures publicly; I don't even know if bigger companies like Wizards of the Coast do that. BOZ (talk) 16:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to both of you for your comments. The version of Appelcline I'm reading is this one (pp. 116–124). Going through it page by page: 116–118 are about Ianus. DP9 discussion starts on page 119 with Meanwhile, the now fully independent Dream Pod 9 kept the majority of Ianus’ dozen employees, overseen by Pierre Ouellette. They kept the roleplaying titles too, of course, including the brand-new Project A-Ko. The newly independent Dream Pod 9 didn’t ever supplement Project A-Ko. Instead they created a second Silhouette game, Heavy Gear (1995). The rest of 119–120 is about Heavy Gear. Jovian Chronicles on 120, Tribe 8 on 121, some other games and Silhouette on 122. Granted, page 123 is mostly about DP9's transitions around 2004. Page 124 is half a page about DP9's future products. All in all, these nine pages mostly cover Ianus and DP9's games, with only about one page being spent on DP9 itself, cumulatively. Call that SIGCOV and it's still just one example, and we need multiple. We'd need at least another one like Appelcline, which we don't have. As for that RSN, I don't have confidence in it because of who closed it, and because it looked like it was closed based on a counting of votes (note the table of votes). I thought the 120 fact checkers point was rather persuasive, though, and there were good arguments both for and against independence, but I think that source would benefit from a new RfC with a better close (the result may be the same, I'd just have more confidence in it if it were "cleaner"). I think if you compare the information available about DP9 with what we have on TSR or Wizards of the Coast, the contrast is very strong; there is rich detail (about the companies' employees, layoff numbers, units sold, etc.), sourced to multiple independent RSes. I agree that this level of sourcing doesn't exist for smaller RPG publishers, and I think thats because they're not notable. :-) In fact, I think lack of sourcing proves that they're not notable. Heavy Gear is notable; Silhouette may be notable in its own right; but DP9 just isn't. Outside of very few examples (Appelcline and maybe Lien), all of which come from within the industry (as opposed to "pure", non-RPG-publishing media like Boingboing.net or Gizmodo), nobody has ever really paid attention to this company, as far as I can tell. If additional examples of SIGCOV are uncovered, the redirect could always be turned back into an article, as Newimpartial suggests. – Levivich 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the book--I don't think I'd ever seen a copy online. I'd say the chapter on DP9 is pretty solid. Yes, it starts on Ianus, but it would be more than reasonable to include that history in this article and redirect Ianus to here. While it was more than just a name change, it appears to have been the same company. And yes, how their products were designed and received is really coverage of the company. I mean the chapter is called "Dream Pod 9" after all. So the author clearly felt he was writing about the company.

I personally think the book chapter has great coverage. It appears to meet all the requirements of an RS. The sum of all the other sources, IMO, meets the requirement for "multiple". One good source (and it's rare to find this good of a source on a smaller company) and lots of weaker ones is certainly enough to write a solid article. Hobit (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ. I know Chetsford mentioned putting other DP9 properties (Jovian Chronicles, Tribe 8, and Gear Krieg, etc) up for deletion. Should those be merged with DP9? I don't think merging DP9 & all of its properties with Heavy Gear makes the most sense. Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - all of these games meet NBOOK and the GNG (even if the current articles may not) so in my view it would be better to make sure each of them holds two reviews plus Alpelcline citations, as a miminum, so that each article transparently meets GNG. Chetsford is going to continue with his "from Missouri" attitude and his incompetent BEFORE practices, so the solution is to produce a situation like the current Jovian Chronicles AfD, where the delete argument is laughable and IDONTLIKEIT is utterly obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 10:56, 20 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 Jetlag Productions#Myths and legends adaptations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pocahontas (1994 film)

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

I found no significant coverage for this film that was made to cash in on Disney's Pocahontas. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jetlag Productions#Myths and legends adaptations, the film's producer, so it goes somewhere. Paint by numbers plot for a cash-in film we don't need an entire article for. Nate • (chatter) 02:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - agree with this. Provides best of both worlds. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:37, 8 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] Ashiqsrinagar, Peerzada (2019-05-07). "Low turnout in Anantnag LS constituency: Political parties call for "introspection"". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 2019-07-04.

[2] "Ex-babu, former engineer forge new front in run-up to Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 2019-07-04.

[3] Observer, Kashmir News (2019-03-23). "Shah Faesal's party to stay away from LS polls". The Kashmir Pulse. Retrieved 2019-07-04.

[4] "PUF united voice of J&K people: Shah Faesal". Greater Kashmir. 2019-06-23. Retrieved 2019-07-04.

[5] New Front, Old Frontier, Kashmir Life, 26 June 2019.

[6] Hakeem Irfan Rashid, People's United Front: Another agenda and another alliance in Kashmir, Economic Times, 19 June 2019.

[7] Analysis of Vision Document – Jammu and Kashmir People's Movement, Epilogue, 19 March 2019.

[8] PUF’s DNA, Read The 45 Point CMP, Kashmir Life, 18 June 2019.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]