Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 August	9 August >

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 delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Ryukyuan and Okinawan Studies

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

I cannot find any significant sources that establish notability of this organisation. Collaboratio (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Sadly, their work looks interesting - the Ryukyuan languages are fascinating. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cichy

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

Subject does not appear to WP:NHOCKEY. The Polish league isn't considered for any criteria and though he plays for Poland internationally, he has never played in a World Championship or an Olympics (he played in an Olympics qualifier but that doesn't count as Olympics participation). He was a first team All-Star in the USHL but crucially the league is not listed among the leagues in criteria #3. The Canadian junior leagues (OHL, WHL, QMJHL) are counted but the American junior leagues (USHL, NAHL) aren't. Therefore he fails #3. He also doesn't have any preeminent college awards to pass #4. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey plaeyr.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flowmaster

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

Promotional article about non-notable company with no substantial, independent coverage. Does not meet WP:NORG, and particularly WP:ORGCRITE. A previous prod was removed by a significant contributor, which is why I'm bringing this to AFD. Hug^syrup 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Appears to be a direct violation of WP:G11. The "article" doesn't even have any references. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 18:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G11 per PuzzledVegtable, unsourced and clearly promotional. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. Pretty much cut-and-dried self-promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent company Holley Performance Products. This article, which has been here for almost 12 years, does not qualify for speedy deletion as obvious spam. As written now it reads more like a general description of the company, its history and its products, with no price list or call to action as might be expected in blatant promotion. But this standalone article of a fairly known brand does have its problems. StonyBrook (talk) 01:46, 9 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Bruess

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 55 AHL games and has no preeminent in the ECHL or WCHA. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:39, 10 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Bielke

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played 83 DEL games before his career was cut short due to injury. Has no preeminent honours and did not play for Germany at a senior World Championship. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:58, 8 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. Clear consensus to delete. I would encourage User:Bobo192 to tone it down a bit with the accusations of lying.Making mistakes is human and AGF is expected from all editors, especially sysops. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharmasdrasinhji

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

Does not meet GNG. Only statistical profiles and a scorecard found on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. I could not even find this name in Saurashtra Cricket Association database (http://www.saucricket.com/MenPlayers/Detail?PlayerName=dharmasdrasinhji). Dee 03 08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he does appear in the database: here, but it reveals no further information, and remains a bare statistical profile. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There you go, Dee. Now not only are we trying to censor information, but we are lying in the process of doing so. The sad state of Wikipedia. Bobo . 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Bobo192, you're better than that. I'm confident that Dee03 searched in good faith, but didn't think to split the name. I only found it by trawling through manually. Harrias ^talk 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me you can at least understand my frustration. I've been working my tuchis off for 15 years only for people to come along and say my work is unacceptable. This is why I'm upset. Bobo . 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of lying. I input the exact name provided by you in the article and got zero results on the Saurashtra website. I was searching that site only hoping to find this person's full name as I had just found another Saurashtra cricketer's first name there. Now even if this cricketer's name is found (in a different form) on some other statistical website, it does not change the fact that he does not meet GNG. Dee 03 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although he meets WP:CRIN, that is only a rule of thumb to suggest whether a player will meet WP:N. It is clear that based on the sources we have, and those that can be found from a Google search, that there is only routine coverage of this player, forming a bare statistical listing. Lacking significant coverage, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He does meet N. This is the whole point. N states "or". Bobo . 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. However, while some SSGs such as WP:PROF state that they are independent and "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline", WP:NSPORT and by extension WP:CRIN are not an alternative, as confirmed by community consensus in this discussion. Harrias ^talk 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are lying too. Well done. Lying has got this whole project and this whole debate where it is. What a sad state of affairs. Bobo . 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"CRIN is just a rule of thumb which suggests whether a player will meet N". CRIN is just as much a "guideline" as N. As long as N states "or", the two guidelines are of equal footing. Bobo . 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the slightest no, your understanding is flawed. Harrias ^talk 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know that. I was just pointing out the irony that both were of equal footing and yet one is given more credence than the other even though N clearly states or. Bobo . 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time. Bobo . 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have a universe to attend to. I may be back. I may not... Bobo . 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- another virtually empty article about an obscure cricketer, full name unknown, based on pure stats databases containing not a single word of prose. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article. A merge might be possible if there is a good target article. Calling people liars merely for disagreeing isn't acceptable behaviour. Reyk _YO! 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A claim was made. It was immediately proven to be false. How much more information do you want in the article? Any further information would be superfluous and unnecessary. Bobo . 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. It consists of brief notes transcribed from a statistical source and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion to a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable criketeer who does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers - this seems better than deleting and the incomplete list can be worked on at some point I'm sure. The lack of biographical information and single known match suggest very strongly that suitable sources for a standalone article are unlikely to be provided in the foreseeable future. If they are then we can create the article easily enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:24, 14 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) 09:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alisha Sharma

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

Not notable. No RS SIGCOV. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 08:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Does have some coverage in independent sources but it all seems a short-lived fame, almost BLP1E. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NENT. Josalm64rc (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely fanpage but not notable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NENT. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Looks like promotion of her here. How the person got photo of her? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:37, 10 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 keep. Firm consensus that notability is shown, and that articles created by blocked users but with substantive edits from others users aren't subject to deletion (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Novoland: Eagle Flag

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Philologick: Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:01, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those like me looking for the actual deletion rationale: it appears to be that this is a creation of Boyhoodjams (talk · contribs) using a sockpuppet Lolastarlight (talk · contribs) and others, which per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users, and Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion and enforcement is currently the project's policy on blocked sockpuppeteers using sockpuppets to create stuff. Here are the subsequent edits by (apparently) other people. Uncle G (talk) 09:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Aside from any issues with the initial creator of the article, it's a widely distributed mainland Chinese television series and should be considered notable. matt91486 (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blocked user. Keeping only encourages sockpuppetry.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - topic is certainly notable, and the blocked user is not the only major contributor. -Zanhe (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep topic is certainly notable. 103.200.134.150 (talk) 10:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zanhe. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rind Snacks

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

Failing GNG and NCORP. Sources seem largely aligned to PR/churnalism or are mentions in passing (short product intros). Available search results yield mostly routine corporate announcement or further aligned reporting. May be too soon for an independent article. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree that, at best, this is WP:TOOSOON. I also tried to find reliable sources on these fruit snacks, but also encountered food industry blogs, press releases and churnalism, not to mention a lot of otherwise reliable articles on the non-related pork rind snacks. Alas, there is yet nothing more. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:43, 12 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Druk Trowa

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

magazine that fails WP:NMEDIA. Supplied references are to a study of all media in Bhutan that mentions it but is not significant coverage of it, a news report on its first issue and a directory entry. Google finds no WP:significant coverage. noq (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 8 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

D. Gamit

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

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias ^talk 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Delete all No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. None of these cricketers meet GNG. Dee 03 08:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time. Bobo . 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction. Bobo . 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree completely with the nominator's reasons and don't really think I'd be doing anyone any good by trying to add to them. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- more empty microstubs based solely on score cards and statistical entries, without a word of prose between them. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is not enough to support a stand-alone article. As the nominator points out, this SNG does not trump the general guideline. A merge or redirect to some suitable list article might be possible if a candidate target can be identified. Reyk _YO! 12:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What extra prose would you expect? Surely any other material would be superfluous. Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are purportedly biographical articles, with a person as their subjects. Biographical material, explaining this person's life and works, is the expected content of a biography. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all six articles. There is a lack of significant coverage and so they each fail the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. The articles consist of brief notes transcribed from statistical sources and there doesn't appear to be any potential for worthwhile expansion to readable narratives. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Same question. What extra prose would you expect that wouldn't be utterly superfluous? Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bobo192: I believe it's not so much extra prose as extra sourcing that is needed to prove that there is significant coverage of the subject in the wider media. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the key ruling or guideline within the GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Equally, and again correct me if I'm wrong, sport-specific criteria such as NFOOTY and the cricket one only seek to establish potential notability within the scope of the sport itself and that can then be used as a qualifier for GNG consideration (obviously some sporting subjects could achieve GNG without meeting any sport-specific criteria). It is the GNG that counts because you cannot write an article (and by that I mean article, not brief notes) unless there are adequate sources available. You cannot transcribe statistical data into brief notes and call that an article. I would not be against the statistical data being used in a relevant list, subject to sourcing. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have demonstrated over and over that those who compile Cricket Archive and Cricinfo are independent of the subject - and of each other. As for "the media", and i'm speaking entirely tongue-in-cheek here, I trust the media now a lot less than I used to! ;) Bobo. 15:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Bobo192: Looking at S. K. Desai, as I have a friend of that name, there are no citations in the article which has four short sentences only. The inference is that the information came from the Cricket Archive site, which you mention above, because it is given as an external link. That site is paywalled and so I can't access it but I'm reliably informed that it is the cricketing equivalent of Soccerbase except that it is not professionally run. Received wisdom is that Cricket Archive is self-published by a private club or society of some sort, so it's like an "in-house" publication, same as an online parish magazine or whatever. Cricinfo, of course, is run by ESPN and it does articles as well as statistics so no problem with that, but this Cricket Archive site looks like a dubious source to me.

(Please forgive me, because this reply is to this part of the post I've re-indented slightly). I missed this comment, sorry. Back in 2009 when this article was first created, I created about eight zillion articles like this and, as was the custom at the time, I put external links on the bottom rather than inline citations. We'd be quoting basically the same information and the same sources. And even if the article did have "narrative", we'd be quoting from exactly the same sources as we would without. My simple answer when a situation like that is easily fixable, by virtue of WP:SOFIXIT. The fact that these articles are being deleted in spite of these external links upsets me greatly - as there are hundreds which are missing such links, as I've outlined elsewhere. Bobo . 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know much, much more about football than about cricket but, even though Soccerbase is a professional setup, I would not support an article based entirely on stats lifted from Soccerbase. An article, almost by definition, must contain narrative and a good article must have a flow of narrative. You do not get narrative from a statistical site that gives an incomplete name, as recorded on a scorecard, and tells you that he played in one match and didn't score a run, which is the sum total of Mr Desai's career.

You mentioned fifteen years earlier and that is about the time I've been a reader of Wikipedia. Given a busy career, I only made edits when I saw something that needed correcting or, occasionally, expanding. I didn't become a member till after I retired end of last year. While I was primarily a reader, I used to hate it whenever I followed up a Google search and found something like S. K. Desai. Sorry, but it isn't an article. It is a transcription of raw statistical data that just doesn't pass muster and is indefensible. The GNG is a good principle and it's right. These NFOOTY variations are okay up to a point but that point is potential qualification for GNG; and potential is never certain, only potential. Apologies for the length of this reply. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can say very little other than the fact that it saddens me not only that GNG exists but that notability guidelines are contradicted on WP namespace pages themselves.

My argument throughout all of this is the same argument as that of a certain founder of this site. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge. Not "all human knowledge except for that which other people find offensive". And that is what I've been attempting to do all along. Censoring information because we don't like it is morally wrong. Bobo . 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are not addressing the documenting the person in-depth part. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the relevant team category, for example, P. Balsara should be redirected to Category:Gujarat cricketers, ect, ect. StickyWicket (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard to direct to a category. If there is an article List of Gujarat cricketers, then if people so desire, they can redirect it there, surely... *rifles around Wikipedia* There is, and nobody keeps it updated. On what basis these list articles were created in the first place, and how the information was selectively chosen, I've no idea... Bobo . 15:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. That page should be refashioned to something like List of English cricketers (1787–1825) due to the success of the plan to merge hundreds of permastubs into there. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none come even close to meeting the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: existence with verifiability is one thing, notability is an other. I ran searches for two of the subjects; all I could get is stats, or the websites that cover everything related to cricket. It doesnt establish notability. I will cast my vote soon (in a few hours) for these bundled AfDs (after running searches for the lot of dozen players or so), and most probably it is going to be a delete. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. I know this is an incomplete list, but it allows the key information to be retained and can be developed when someone has time. Without more specific biographical information I doubt we're going to be able to find properly in depth sources on these chaps anytime soon - if at all. Each played just one match and we really don't know anything beyond that and a name and initials. If sources became available I would have no issue with recreating the article - by redirecting to a list that becomes easier to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete all: per my comment above. Existence with verification is one thing, and notability is other. These players fail WP:GNG big time. Even if the subject passes some subject specific guideline, it doesnt mean we must have an article on it. All the coverage I could find came from the websites that try to cover everything n anything related to cricket, this doesnt establish notability. And due to the lack of persistent significant coverage, we can delete the articles. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:29, 14 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N. Kumara

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

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias ^talk 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 07:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. This cricketer does not meet GNG. Dee 03 08:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time. Bobo . 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction. As for "in clear cases where GNG does not apply", that is clearly stated on N. Bobo . 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I've replied to you elsewhere, your understanding is flawed. Some SSGs such as WP:PROF explicitly state that they override the WP:GNG, which is what that clause covers. WP:NSPORT, and WP:CRIN as part of that, do not do that. Harrias ^talk 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards even within SSGs. Wow. If that isn't flawed, I would like to know what is. Bobo . 10:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This article is based on raw statistical entries that do not contain a word of prose between them. Given that we only have a first initial and a (common) surname for this player there might even be issues distinguishing him from similarly named people active around the same time. Harrias is correct that WP:CRIN defers to the general notability guideline, and not the other way around. A merge to a suitable list article might be possible if there is a good target. Reyk _YO! 12:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only other N-anything Kumar played 17 seasons later.... Bobo . 14:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so it fails the GNG. This is exactly like S. K. Desai below with brief statistical transcriptions, no citations and apparently taken from the paywalled Cricket Archive site (mentioned as an external link) which, I am reliably informed, is an in-house self-published source that contains statistics only and no narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to a suitable list like at List of English cricketers (1787–1825). It may be at List of Sri Lanka first class cricketers and can accomodate several permastubs. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The cricket inclusion criteria are clearly flawed. So for that matter are the football ones, where 2 and three leagues per country, even in a country like the US where football is not followed much at all, are included. Our inclusion criteria for actors are more demanding than for many sportspeople. It is time for us to stop giving a pass for one game, we do not give passes for one film, even when the role is significant, which is a word that does not apply to the relationship between the one appearance in a game and the role of some of these sportspeople in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NACTOR is an excellent comparison. Half the actors who appeared in the film which won this year's Best Picture Oscar don't seem to have their own Wikipedia articles. And like you said, inclusion criteria need to be tighter and more consistent across all fields. Dee 03 11:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, if anyone wants to create one, redirect to a suitable list. A lack any other biographical information tends to suggest that we're unlikely, at this stage, to be able to find any sources which deal with the subject in detail - I certainly can't find anything. That we know of only two matches he played in - one club match I think as well as his FC match - makes this more likely in my view. If such sources become available I would, as always, have no issue with the article being recreated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 14 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 keep. Per the GNG claims; as noted there is no such thing as an "inherently non-notable topic". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MarJon Beauchamp

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

Highschool basketball player, doesn't meet the criteria at WP:NHOOPS GirthSummit _(blether) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gone through all these to see how reliable or significant all these sources are, but a Google search seems to show an awful lot of coverage that would suggest a good chance he meets GNG. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's true Rlendog - there are a lot of articles written around his announcement that he'll skip college to prepare for the NBA draft, but my thinking was that WP:BLP1E would apply - and it's not ever really an event that's happened yet, it's an announcement (WP:BLP1A?) that he's planning to do something. I'm sure he's likely to do well in the draft and become notable soon, but it seems to be jumping the gun to carry articles about promising high school players.GirthSummit _(blether) 00:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article so that it should meet notability guidelines. Sportzeditz (talk) 15:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete high school basketball players inherently are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment high school basketball players or not, if they pass WP:GNG they are notable. -- Dammit_steve (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question Sportzeditz it seems pretty clear that the subject does not pass WP:NHOOPS, but I agree that, if they pass WP:GNG then they would be notable. You've added a lot of sources to the article now, so I wanted to look over to see whether they would meet GNG - I clicked on 3 at random, and found one didn't mention the subject at all, one gave him a passing mention, and one was a profile at a recruitment agency which obviously isn't independent. Rather than read through all of the rest of them closely, I'd like to ask whether would you be willing to suggest the THREE best refs, in terms of reliability and significance of coverage, which demonstrate his notability. Cheers GirthSummit_(blether) 23:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment These three look fairly substantial [1] [2] [3] -- Dammit_steve (talk) 23:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing them out Dammit steve. I agree that they are indeed much more substantial than the ones I picked at random, and they may go far enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I've put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball asking editors experienced in this area to comment here and hopefully generate a consensus. GirthSummit _(blether) 19:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are more than enough to meet WP:GNG. Contrary to another user's completely absurd assertions, neither high school athletes nor any other category of people are "inherently non-notable" and this shows a gross misunderstanding of policy. Smartyllama (talk) 18:26, 22 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The House Between

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

Nominating this for deletion mostly due to not finding it being notable enough to have its own article. Cannot find any reliable sources that covered this series either. GamerPro64 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 05:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of notability. The references include personal blogs, the subject itself, and other self published sources. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:49, 8 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) 19:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judgeship of Rayagada

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

Non-notable list of people who have been judges in a district-level court in India. Judges are appointed by the committees which in-directly can be said to be from Supreme Court. The positions are not filled by public voting and do not qualify with the logic of lets say WP:NPOL. All references are self-published and topic does not pass WP:GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating similar articles:

§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Judgeship of Rayagada relates to a judicial infrastructure and its notability need not be decided from the list of Judges but from the fact that it is an important wing of Judicial Administration relating to Indian Courts. Topics like educational institutions are there in wikipedia. I do not say that educational institutions are not notable, but judicial institutions are notable owing to their becoming one of the four pillars of democracy. That's why Bankshall Court, West Bengal Judicial Academy have been there in Wikipedia. I feel sorry to say that when it is a matter relating to institutions in a backward state like Odisha, its apparent notability is being questioned. I do strongly appeal for reconsideration.Hpsatapathy (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would thank that the matter has been kept open for more views. In this regard I would like to place one more point that the List_of_district_courts_in_India contain red links which are meant to help Wikipedia grow. Certainly the creation of red links prevents new pages from being orphaned from the start.^[1] So when such a red link is developed, it is certainly in consonance with the policy of wikipedia and the purpose is only to enrich Wikipedia with more relevant topics.Hpsatapathy (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the (apparent) "keep" !votes appears to be policy-based. Relisting to get more views.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How are the courts in Rayagada any different from those in other nearly 700 places in India? I have not questioned notability of these articles because they fall in Odisha. I would do same with Maharashtrian courts. Not all entries in any list are supposed to have an individual article. We haven't applied that logic on List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. - Sitush (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and User:Bearian/Standards#Non-notability. Bearian (talk) 16:54, 22 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WordPlay T. Jay

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

Per WP:ARTIST. Insignificant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Non major awards or Top 100 lists. Comatmebro (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was initially inclined to !vote delete, but two things are giving me pause. WP:NMUSIC #11 counts placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network as a signifier of notability, and this artist had a video at least air on MTV - was it possible it was added to a rotation? Possibly more strongly, #12 counts Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network. This article notes Wordplay’s rise began with a feature on MTV’s RapFix Live and that turned into making Music for the Underdog. Were either of these a "substantial broadcast segment"? I'm having trouble telling right now. I will try to look into further, but if you are able to conclusively answer either of these questions before me, it might settle things. MarginalCost (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not inclined to believe it aired on MTV; it may have been in the rotation on MTV Jams perhaps (a lesser-viewed sister channel), but by 2009 if you aired a video on MTV, it was likely only in a late night slot, not as a prime attraction. And according to this, it seems like the feature segment was only hosted on the MTV website. Nate • (chatter) 16:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing where in that link it says anything about on air vs. website-only. MarginalCost (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Generally over the last ten years, short feature segments about music have been web-only for MTV overall (it's been a longtime problem where low-wattage artists that have come to AfD have claimed they've been on MTV, only to be a web-only clip very buried on their website). This link about it indeed airing on MTV Jams beginning only in 2013 clearly notes RapFix is 'the popular webseries'. Nate • (chatter) 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above discussion. It seems the series was not aired on "a national TV network" when WordPlay would have been featured, if the piece was even "substantial" in the first place. No evidence of placement into rotation. No evidence of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. MarginalCost (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate notability, in an article which makes unsubstantiated attempts to suggest significance, such as saying that a song "was huge success" when none of the cited sources says anything remotely suggesting that it did, and nor does any other source I have seen. The fact that one of the sources is a report of the fact that he "starred" in a video promoting one of his own recordings is an indication of how far this article is scraping the barrel in trying to find citations to give an impression of notability. Breaking sticks (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. Deb (talk) 11:39, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny Neguesha

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

Realistically, everything out there about her with the exception of appearing in Drake's music video (not really an accomplishment) is gossip. Someone even lacked the self-preservation to go to the notorious Lipstick Alley! Trillfendi (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borderline Keep People of equally dubious notoriety have Wikipedia articles, after all — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonKY (talk • contribs) 01:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean... other stuff exists? That ain’t it. Trillfendi (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable entertainer. Yes, lots of other articles are on people equally as unnotable, which is why we have pretty much constantly 200 or more articles on people up at AfD, plus more going through procedural and speedy deletion, and with some of these articles having lasted a decade or more the best indication is we have lots more articles on non-notable people that do not get deleted, probably in part because creating a deletion nomination takes at least 5 steps of editing, and in addition you are epected to do an indepth before search prior to moninating, and doing this process will often get you berated and accused of all sorts of ill will for even suggesting we should delete an article on someone who just had a daughter die, or is is a member of a "protected class", or who might have been covered by a newspaper that we no longer have because all the copies burned in a fire, or whose following numbers on Instagram clearly show they are notable, and on and on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are mostly internet. Agree w JPL that this is a non-notable entertainer. Agricola44 (talk) 17:27, 13 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 no consensus. Notability is not temporary. A possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page (or done in a WP:BOLD edit). Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nvidia Tesla Personal Supercomputer

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

The topic isn't significantly more notable than daily developments happening at its time, and has now lost significance. Even the 1st linked webpage in External links section had changed title. Dannyniu (talk) 08:25, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 09:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This 2008 article at Tom's Hardware suggests that it was a milestone at the history of supercomputers. Quote: "Desktop supercomputers became a reality today as Nvidia announced the release of its new GPU-based Tesla personal supercomputer". --Gprscrippers (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just one source, are you very certain that's not over-hyped and unreliable? I think the article is just a routine report of a niche product. The article in its current form is just a description of a proprietary technological setup, having no mention of its sigificance. And after all these years, Nvidia is no longer the sole provider of GPGPU ICs. Dannyniu (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention, the French Wikipedia removed the corresponding article back in 2012. Dannyniu (talk) 03:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nvidia. There are just enough sources [4], [5], [6] to support this being significant when it was released, and I'd point out that notability is not temporary so it cannot have 'lost its significance'. However, I'd agree with the nominator that there is not enough substantial coverage of this specific device to merit a standalone article. Hug^syrup 11:48, 8 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DZMR

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

Fails WP:BROADCAST. And the sources are a long way away from meetingWP:NCORP Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Compared to most Filipino radio articles for smaller stations, this meets BROADCAST; plenty of sources to its existence. Nate • (chatter) 02:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument to keep. Could you identify the sources that you are talking about? Dom from Paris (talk) 06:41, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One of a flood of entirely non-notable radio stations that have had articles created recently. Does not come close to meeting WP:NCORP, which is the required standard. Hug^syrup 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough sources to prove that the station exists. You wanna ride in the Six. You wanna dine in the Six. 23:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't about if it exists. It's about notability. SL93 (talk) 00:01, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SaintCards

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

non-notable product; no coverage in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom after de-prod. No significant coverage, not notable. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Holy card, this is maybe as notable as the "Collecting" heading on this article. Obviously a great deal of condensing would be needed.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The single radio interview isn't sufficient for notability; the rest of the references are not independent or reliable sources, and some are promotional. I couldn't find any sources to add to the article to support it. Schazjmd (talk) 05:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:37, 8 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 no consensus. Participation in this debate was rather poor and there also seem to be some misunderstandings (i.e., a "delete" !vote per someone who seemed to be arguing for "keep"). Therefore no prejudice to re-nomination in a month or so if better sourcing is not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govt ENT Hospital

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

Both sources mentioned in the article fail WP:ORGDEPTH - they discuss a lack of suregeons at the hospital, but not much in depth information about the hospital (year of founding, etc.). Same goes for the sources I could find when searching on Google. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment: The hospital serves throat deceases, and also serves patents. These are really remarkable feats. I mean, how many other hospitals serve patents, or try to cure E/N/T problems of deceased people? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pretty rudimentary. I'm not even sure if the name of the hospital is accurate. But it would be very surprising if a public hospital of this size was not notable, and there seems to be plenty of coverage of it in reputable sources. Rathfelder (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find any WP:ORGDEPTH stuff. If the hospital really has a different name, that may explain it. --MrClog (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost impossible to find detailed coverage of any hospital. They are too complicated. It have to be pieced together over time. Rathfelder (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If there aren't sources meeting ORGDEPTH yet, then the article should be deleted and recreated once these sources exist. --MrClog (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further consensus needed at this stage to decide an outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 01:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per Rathfelder. The article lacks significant coverage. We cant even be sure of the name. The hospital fails general notability criteria, as well as specialised notability criteria. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Usernamekiran, I believe Rathfelder is arguing against deletion, but I am not sure. --MrClog (talk) 12:36, 15 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan M. Busch

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

small-town mayor. Not notable and does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. As with any local politician, he received coverage from the local press, but that's not enough to meet the guideline. Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Coverage is local, and Metuchen, New Jersey's population was only 13K (in 2010), so being its mayor confers no particular notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contrary to what some editors have thought there is not a special exception that makes New Jersey mayors default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unremarkable legal and political career. FWIW, the Diocese of Metuchen is quite large, but the city is smallish. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concede that the page should be parred back, but Busch is mentioned regularly in statewide and regional news outlets and qualifies as receiving "significant press coverage." Homerseditor (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hasn't garnered anything more than routine coverage and doesn't pass WP:NPOL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is local, fails WP:NPOL, we do not keep mayors of small towns unless they pass WP:GNG for other reasons (otherwise notable, or achieved notability over an area significantly larger than their town.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Just in New Jersey, there are numerous other pages for mayors that are no more notable than Busch. Took me two minutes to find four: James M. Cahill, Thomas Lankey, J. Christian Bollwage, Mohammed Hameeduddin. Homerseditor (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Homerseditor, you've already voted above, so I've struck your second !vote, though your comments are still welcome - but please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some of these may also need to be deleted. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lankey and Bollwage preside over populations over 100K (the unofficial cutoff), while Hameeduddin is a pioneer of sorts. I've nominated Cahill for deletion (despite his 28 years in office, and counting) due to a lack of significant media coverage. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable fails wp:npol from a city of less than 15,000. Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 13 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Government TB and Chest Hospital

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

The criteria at WP:NHOSPITALS are met easily enough, but I can't see where that was achieved for this example - no in-depth coverage is provided, and I couldn't find anything beyond the passing mentions already referenced. Possibly editors who get lost less easily in the inventive grammar and complex nomenclature of the relevant search results may be more lucky. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i am added additional reference for this page for avoiding deletion of the article because this hospital is serving all most 20 million people in Andhra region and only one government tb and hospital in the region this hospital is listed in national health mission all so i added that reference all so http://www.nrhm.gujarat.gov.in/images/pdf/RNTCP_District_TB_Officer_contact_details_210814.pdf Jeevan naidu (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – in reviewing WP:NHOSPITALS, the hospital doesn't seem to satisfy the in-depth coverage criterion, and from what I have been able to find the majority of coverage seems to be limited to passing mentions of a government TB hospital without much comment on the hospital's organizational structure or history aside from brief news stories about recent operational developments. This is reflected in both my own searches and the references in the article, which seem to establish the notability of King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam, moreso than Government TB and Chest Hospital whose name doesn't appear in any significant coverage. More often than not, the hospital appears in press coverage through association with other Visakhapatnam hospitals rather than by virtue of its own notability. TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 22:02, 10 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 03:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Ramirez (skateboarder)

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

Doesn't appear to have been the subject of substantial coverage before his death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I respectfully disagree. This article in the SF examiner explains Pablo's significance well.I just added three links and new info of substantial coverage pre-death including a list of his skate parts. I should have included them earlier. RIP Pablo. 1. GQ magazine article 2. full-length video part published in Roll Up video through Thrasher Magazine 3. gx1000 El Camino video - also published on Thrasher --Wil540 art (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the coverage is significant enough for the GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has made a "unique, prolific or innovative contributions" to skateboarding (or close enough to as per San Fran Examiner article pointed out above), plenty of coverage before and after his death (again as pointed out above). This is a keep. Josalm64rc (talk) 01:48, 11 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Visibly

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

WP:CORPDEPTH not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I need to think about this one more, but am inclined to keep. There has been significant coverage by multiple reliable independent secondary sources (over a number of years even). But it's all because of lawsuits, both by them and against them, and FDA regulation. Example of coverage: BuzzFeed News. There has been a smattering of other coverage of its service like from this NYT blog in addition to lots of Chicago Tribune coverage the best of which is [7], [8], and [9]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question: doesn't coverage because of lawsuits count as coverage? If the lawsuit is what brings the company the attention of the press and results in news articles being published about the company in relation to the lawsuit, isn't that coverage? If the sources discussing lawsuits are not to be counted here, then it looks like the original deletion nomination should maybe have been made per WP:ILLCON and not WP:CORPDEPTH overall, but then I don't think the lawsuit-related sources are suggesting that the company has been acting illegally (which is what that standard is poised to address), only that it has been legally banned from offering its services in certain US states. Visibly isn't in the news because of illegal activity (to my knowledge). Let me also be clear: I have no WP:COI here in creating this article— I do, however, have poor eyesight (!) and was doing research on vision tests when I came across Visibly and thought, "Hey, this may warrant an article," and then found sources, and then wrote it up using those sources— nothing more nor less. Just to be clear! A loose necktie (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:03, 8 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. Randykitty (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Natti Ronel

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. All references included in the article were authored or co-authored by Natti Ronel. A search for significant coverage from independent reliable sources did not yield anything that would satisfy notability guidelines to merit the inclusion of the subject on Wikipedia. Ə XPLICIT 01:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ran a news archive search and aded 2 WP:RS on his early career. Also ran his name throughgScholar search, he is quite widely cited, but arguably not widely cited enough to keep. I am inclining towards a WP:NOTPROMO DELETE, but waiting to see what folks who work in counseling, psychology have to say. E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC) Note: On august 8, 2019 E.M.Gregory has been indefinitely blocked as a sock[reply]
Delete Not notable. The nominator is correct. Primary sourced article - WP:PROMOTION. Lightburst (talk) 03:34, 10 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Mani

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

Deprodded, but a minor actor with limited roles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete: The subject fails general notability guidelines, as well as notability guidelines for actors. Creator seems to be either a movie fanatic, or a UPE. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW and WP:MILL. He seems to be a very ordinary character actor. Bearian (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unfortunately as he does have one leading role in a notable production but that is not enough on its own so it is WP:TOOSOON at this stage, though he may well be notable in the future with more roles, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON Lightburst (talk) 23:53, 13 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Stepp

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only 167 games played in the AHL and 200 is needed to pass #2. No preeminent honours to pass #3 either. Tay87 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the sport-specific criteria and coverage is not significant enough to warrant GNG. Also, bound to be no more than a sentence or two transcribed from a statistical source. There has to be enough to produce a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N, WP:NHOCKEY, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:GNG.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:10, 13 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.

[1] Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans

[1]