Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jogurney (talk | contribs) at 15:10, 8 August 2019 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristopher Mejia.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< 7 August 9 August >

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cristopher Mejia

Cristopher Mejia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about former footballer who made a total of 1 appearance in Trinidad & Tobago's potentially fully-pro TT Pro League (however, per the discussion at WT:FPL, I don't think the sources demonstrate the league is fully-pro). Although this appears to satisfy the bright-line of WP:NFOOTBALL, it does not because there is longstanding consensus that a footballer who played a minimal amount in a fully-pro league but comprehensively fails WP:GNG does not actually satisfy NFOOTBALL (see e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phakamani Mngadi). All of the online coverage is routine (database entries or transfer announcements). Jogurney (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:43, 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. The weight of WP:PAG based argument comes down heavily against retaining this page. There was one suggestion buried in a delete comment that a merge might be possible but I'm not seeing any other support for it. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biological determinism of human gender roles

Biological determinism of human gender roles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It may have been made in good faith, but this is an unnecessary content fork that is inherently prone to POV issues. The same subjects are covered much better in other articles.

It presents a very one-sided view of nature vs. nurture that is slanted in favor of nurture way more than the scientific community is. Consider its discussions of sexual orientation and the book Not in Our Genes and compare them to our articles on those topics as just two examples. Other editors have complained about it as seen on its talk page and in its tags. It is inherently POV since "biological determinism" is usually an accusation against some researchers made by other researchers who heavily favor "nurture." -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -Crossroads- (talk) 02:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was created procedurally to remove a coatrack from the main article, which certainly didn't need it. The material here is indeed unbalanced and should be deleted. For the record, labels like "inherently" and "usually" are emotive and unreliable: opinions and attitudes on such matters are contextually (medicine, philosophy, sociology, and genetics are four disparate contexts, for example) and historically dependent, and terms like biological determinism have had varied connotations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is an important article, and has plenty of references. It is not unbalanced - as well as talking about biological determinism, it talks about the book by Rose, Lewontin and Kamin called Not In Our Genes, which criticies genetic determinism. Vorbee (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 11:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all the fact that a topic is controversial and "is inherently prone to POV issues" as User:Crossroads1 states above is not a valid reason to delete the article. If it were a lot of very important articles such as Creationism and Vaccine hesitancy should be deleted which I doubt anyone would think is a good idea. I agree that this article needs a lot of work. IMO it currently has too much emphasis of the viewpoint from people such as Gould and Lewontin and not enough from people such as Stephen Pinker, E.O. Wilson, and Richard Dawkins. But that's an argument to improve the article not delete it. I could possibly see a justification for merging this into Biological determinism. However, when I looked at Biological determinism it already has several sections that point to articles on specific sub-topics. So I think this article should be kept (and improved) and also that there should be a link to it added in the Biological determinism article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an argument admitting the article is bad, but saying we should keep it because someday someone else will put in the work to fix it. Regardless, the problem is not that it tends toward controversy, but it is inherently POV. We already have NPOV titled articles like gender roles and sex differences. We do not have one-sided fork articles titled social constructionism and human gender roles or divine creation accounts of the origin of life or evolutionist accounts of the origin of life. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"This seems to be an argument admitting the article is bad, but saying we should keep it because someday someone else will put in the work to fix it" Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. If you look at the policy on reasons for deletion the fact that an article is not good is not one of the reasons. Nor is the fact that an article is inherently controversial. Those other articles you mention don't cover the same topic. There is just some basic undeniable science that biology plays a major role in whether or not people have a penis or have a vagina and breasts. If you have 2 X chromosomes you get a vagina and breasts. If you have an X and a Y you get a penis. If you have some unusual (I'm just saying unusual in a statistical sense not in any judgemental sense) combination such as XXY you are likely a transgender person. This is a real topic and it's very wp:notable I would be in favor of changing the title of this article because I agree "Biological Determinism" is a loaded term and it's not a term that most competent biologists would use. There are always environmental factors, such as epigenetic effects that interact with your genome and influence if and when a certain gene (including genes that do things such as tell a body to start puberty) gets turned on or off (but note that these environmental effects are also under the science of biology). The renaming was done with Vaccine denialism. The current article is titled Vaccine hesitancy but there are also redirects for more loaded terms like Vaccine denial. If someone wanted to do the same with this article and rename it to something less loaded but retain a redirect I would support that. But I think the article itself should clearly be kept --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By now you've admitted that the article needs material from the other viewpoint added as well as the title being bad. Once I make it discuss this topic from NPOV and give it a neutral title, how is it anything other than a redundant content fork of gender roles or sex differences in psychology? Albeit one that would be of low quality since it would still be a hodgepodge of info on intersex conditions, sexual orientation, Lewontin et al's book, etc. Per WP:CFORK, "Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." That is why this needs to be deleted. I need to emphasize that my nominating is not just because it 'needs work' nor just because it is controversial. However, I do agree with the essay WP:Delete the junk regarding not keeping bad articles on the basis that someone else will fix it. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ("intro" Note: I may be new to this, but there is a first time for everything [plus, anyway, this might already be my nth time -- to "not" vote ["!vote"] -- for some other "small" value of n [other than "n=1"] ... so, ... here goes.) I understand that this topic is one that, at least in the minds of some persons, is controversial. This topic may have a lot of baggage for some of us (perhaps partly emotional, perhaps other kinds). Perhaps partly because someone (let's call that person "P3", 'just for now'; that might help to avoid using pronouns ... which might be "even more" of a good idea, for this particular "!vote", than ... for some ordinary "common or garden-variety" AfD discussions) has -- let's imagine, for a minute -- a different "take" on things, than your ordinary "randomly chosen" ("Plano vanilla") reader or editor of Wikipedia.
For example, [P3 might be] a "n00b" to "!vote"). P3 might have had [e.g.] some very memorable experience in the past, ... perhaps something involving a "[potentially trans]" friend or relative (maybe not P3.self) ... who was [considering] having some kind of "gender assignment" consultation [maybe even surgery]; ... and perhaps the fact that things went well (*or* ... maybe, things did "not" go so well) was one reason why the episode made a lasting impression on the mind of P3. Another possibility: even if P3 has not had that close of an "encounter" with the issues relevant to the topic of this article, P3 might have read some material, (e.g. at the library, or on the internet) ...or somewhere else ... which made it clear that there are some "experts" who seem to disagree about some of this stuff, ... big time. Especially if an "expert" (let's call him "X3" ... we are already using "P3" for something else, and the first character of "X3" reminds us that X3 is considered -- at least by X3! -- to be an "eXpert") has a biased POV, or otherwise 'might' have some motivation to cherry-pick the data, or otherwise to [try to] skew "how things sound" to readers like P3, ... caution is necessary. But -- IMHO -- "caution" does not "necessarily" mean that we have to delete the article! It might mean, that we have to keep in mind, that there may well be some persons in this world, who have a motivation to [try to] be kinda bossy about what other persons think, say, and do.
PS: Thanks for your patience, since ... this is (it turned out to be) so long. --Mike Schwartz (talk) 19:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. A perfectly valid subject. Perhaps it could be merged somewhere, however without a clear target for merging this is definitely a "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC). Yes, arguably a content fork, merge to Gender role. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I would like to point out that our keep votes all have poor rationales; whereas I believe my rationale for deletion, endorsed above by the article's own creator, is much stronger. To reiterate: This article violates WP:CFORK, as in its present form it is a (good faith) WP:POVFORK, and even if improved, would be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of gender roles and sex differences in psychology. The 4 keep votes do not refute this and cite no policy that justifies a keep. The 1st keep asserts with no proof that this article is "important," whatever that means, states it has "plenty of references," which is irrelevant, and claims it is not unbalanced because it talks about the book Not in Our Genes, even though I specifically mentioned this as an example of how it is unbalanced. The 2nd keep agrees it is POV, but never explains how, once renamed and fixed, it is distinct and not redundant from our other articles. The 3rd keep is frankly nigh-incomprehensible, but seems to just be saying that having POV problems does not mean we should delete it, which does not address the central problem. The 4th keep simply states that the subject is "perfectly valid," whatever that means, which again does not address the issue. Please see WP:ILIKEIT and WP:VALUABLE. There is nothing in the article worth saving or merging. It is an unfocused essay that meanders through intersex conditions, homosexuality, what Not in Our Genes says about gender, a random paper by Rossiter from 1980, and intersex conditions (again!). (The first sentence does not even define the topic correctly.) The article is redundant junk. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Crossroads1 has the stronger arguments, which should be taken into account with regard to what WP:Consensus states. Anything worth keeping and that isn't redundant can be merged with one or more articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article isn't about "biological determinism of human gender roles" at all. This is evidenced by the first sentence which asserts that gender roles are about "human sexuality" which totally misconstrues the topic - gender roles are rather "a social role encompassing a range of behaviors and attitudes" (according to gender roles). It may be appropriate to create an article with this title should there be a section within another article actually discussing this topic and where WP:SIZESPLIT is satisfied. Meanwhile "gender assignment", "homosexuality", and "social construction of gender" are different topics, and if these sections are removed we'd be left with nothing. For an actual section related to this title see Gender#Biological_factors_and_views. ----Pontificalibus 13:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had trouble formulating my convoluted assessment and thus put off commenting here, but I find that Crossroads1 has essentially done the job for me. In summary, this was created in good faith and could be shifted in a variety of different directions, but I can't see any likely outcome that does not involve a high degree of redundancy. This is not needed, and housekeeping considerations suggest it should be removed. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At this point, the "delete" !votes appear to have the stronger arguments (I have difficulty to unearth anything policy-based from Mike Schwartz' overly long !vote). Perhaps the suggestion for a merge with Gender role deserves some more attention. Relisting one more time to obtain clearer (policy-based) consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I actually originally thought that this article was a keep and was just poorly rewritten, but the arguements above have changed my opinion on that. I disagree with the arguments for delete based on heavily unbalanced content-- that can be changed. Indeed, the article in its original form has a more neutral format. Take a look at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-gender/#BioDet for how this article doesn't have to be written with such biased language. But I do agree that the article is present in many forms all over wikipedia, and its size doesn't merit a content fork, especially because a lot of the language in this is "fluff." I would merge to Sex differences in psychology#Psychological traits as this seems to cover what the title is referring to (while not covering some of the content). For those that are still not convinced, take a look at it this way: 2 of the 3 sections in the article are merely summaries of main articles, and if this article is supposed to be justified as a content fork, then how can it in turn point to subjects (the third category, anyway just seems to be a summary of gender discrimination)? The content fork justification was the original justification for creating this, and seems to be the only justification, but at the same time, can't be true as there is no original content on this page. Unless someone wants to add new content to this (which is already extensively covered in my proposed redirect), this is a delete for me. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:21, 16 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritesh Agarwal

AfDs for this article:
Ritesh Agarwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has a long history of recreation and deletion. Most recently, it was WP:G4'd, but I've backed that out and posting here per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 August 1. This is an administrative action only; I offer no opinion on the outcome. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this page has failed WP:GNG, I would have deleted it myself and really would like you to review in detail. I am not sure why there is a delete vote without reviewing detailed page history and a quick google search. As Mkativerata has said here, The case for notability here is blindingly obvious. Meeanaya (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy and strongest keep, if content is advert, it is not just the reason to salt and burn, content was again edited by a new editor User:Tortew which was overlooked by admin in July 2019. The content was perfect when it comes to this version. As Agarwal is one of the most notable entrepreneur in India, you just think of all reliable news references in India and you will find his name organically in all reliable news sources over the last 5 years. He not easily pass WP:GNG and deserves a speedy keep. AS User:Mkativerata has said at this undeletion review, The case for notability here is blindingly obvious: BBC, Bloomberg, Bloomberg profile, Financial Times (UK) profile. Here are a few sources if you dont agree (These all news links are covering Ritesh Agarwal in-depth and not just his company, No articles in this list are written by any contributors/guests, they are written ONLY by staff)
  1. Ritesh Agarwal's journey from being a SIM-seller to the helm of OYO Rooms (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/entrepreneurship/ritesh-agarwals-journey-from-being-a-sim-seller-to-the-helm-of-oyo-rooms/articleshow/48322588.cms)
  2. 45 Indians in Forbes list of achievers under the age of 30 (https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/forbes-list-of-achievers-indians-under-the-age-of-30/story/227768.html)
    (https://www.ndtv.com/business/oyo-rooms-founder-in-forbes-list-of-achievers-under-30-1262283)
  3. Will the real Ritesh Agarwal please stand up? (https://www.livemint.com/Companies/7CN7u5d4i3bfYgBAZLdLpM/Will-the-real-Ritesh-Agarwal-please-stand-up.html)
  4. Oyo founder Ritesh Agarwal to triple his stake with $2 bn share buyback (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-to-buy-back-shares-from-early-investors-for-2-bn/articleshow/70292114.cms)
    (https://www.livemint.com/companies/start-ups/oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-to-triple-his-stake-with-2-bn-share-buyback-1563529810359.html)
  5. The 21-year-old building India's largest hotel network (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-34078529)
  6. Making an impact in hospitality industry (https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/making-an-impact-in-hospitality-industry/article7621313.ece)
  7. The Real Story of Oyo Rooms' Ritesh Agarwal (https://gadgets.ndtv.com/internet/opinion/the-real-story-of-oyo-rooms-ritesh-agarwal-783004)
  8. At 21, He's the Mind Behind Multi-Million Dollar Start-Up OYO (https://www.ndtv.com/people/at-21-hes-the-mind-behind-multi-million-dollar-start-up-oyo-1204353)
  9. Ritesh Agarwal: Finding room for growth (http://www.forbesindia.com/article/30-under-30/ritesh-agarwal-finding-room-for-growth/42163/1)
  10. Want to start your own business? Know what helped OYO’s Ritesh Agarwal start his own company! (https://www.businessinsider.in/want-to-start-your-own-business-know-what-helped-oyos-ritesh-agarwal-start-his-own-company/articleshow/47718013.cms)
  11. How OYO's Ritesh Agarwal transformed the business of budget accommodation (http://www.forbesindia.com/article/8th-anniversary-special/how-oyos-ritesh-agarwal-transformed-the-business-of-budget-accommodation/46971/1)
  12. From SIM Card Seller to Multi-Millionaire: A 24 Year Old’s Incredible Journey (https://www.thebetterindia.com/133859/ritesh-agarwal-oyo-dropout/)
  13. Bejul Somaia taught me how to hire right: Ritesh Agarwal, CEO, Oyo Rooms (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/people/bejul-somaia-taught-me-how-to-hire-right-ritesh-agarwal-ceo-oyo-rooms/articleshow/59953562.cms)
  14. OYO Founder CEO Ritesh Agarwal felicitated for work in India’s hospitality sector (https://www.indiablooms.com/finance-details/6337/oyo-founder-ceo-ritesh-agarwal-felicitated-for-work-in-india-rsquo-s-hospitality-sector.html)
  15. THE 23-YEAR-OLD OWNER OF OYO ROOMS TALKS ABOUT BEING A YOUNG ENTREPRENEUR (http://www.vervemagazine.in/people/ritesh-agarwal-oyo-rooms-on-entrepreneurship)
  16. OYO would see a further reduction in losses this year: Ritesh Agarwal (https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oyo-would-see-a-further-reduction-in-losses-this-year-ritesh-agarwal-117120500044_1.html)
  17. Oyo Rooms CEO Ritesh Agarwal narrates his Odisha story (https://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/startups/oyo-rooms-ceo-ritesh-agarwal-narrates-his-odisha-story/53882529)
  18. Ritesh Agarwal had a fascinating success story at 22 (https://e27.co/he-built-his-first-startup-in-2012-shut-it-down-started-another-in-14-got-softbank-to-back-it-and-turned-it-profitable-20160511/)
  19. Oyo's Ritesh Agarwal finds backing from Mizuho, Nomura (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/oyos-ritesh-agarwal-find-backing-from-mizuho-nomura/articleshow/70339335.cms)
  20. Why Ritesh Agarwal's $2-bn deal to hike his stake in Oyo to 30% is a riddle (https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/why-ritesh-agarwal-s-2-bn-deal-to-hike-his-stake-in-oyo-to-30-is-a-riddle-119072200028_1.html)
  21. At 24, OYO founder Ritesh Agarwal becomes youngest entrepreneur in India, says Hurun India Rich List (https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/at-24-oyo-founder-ritesh-agarwal-becomes-youngest-entrepreneur-in-india-csays-hurun-india-rich-list/story/283043.html)
  22. https://www.arabianbusiness.com/travel-hospitality/423828-too-many-entrepreneurs-give-up-says-oyo-ceo-ritesh-agarwal
  23. http://www.forbesindia.com/article/cross-border/ritesh-agarwal-building-a-muchloved-company/53605/1
  24. https://www.livemint.com/Home-Page/mOub1Fgn8EDw9gtYigaqHN/How-24yearold-Ritesh-Agarwal-built-Oyo-into-a-5-billion-s.html
  25. http://www.forbesindia.com/article/tycoons-of-tomorrow/ritesh-agarwal-making-affordable-cool/51379/1
  26. http://www.forbesindia.com/article/india-rich-list-2018/oyo-theres-room-at-the-top/51697/1
  27. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/greater-clarity-required-on-data-sharing-cii-on-draft-e-comm-policy/articleshow/68688326.cms?from=mdr
  28. https://www.ey.com/in/en/about-us/entrepreneurship/entrepreneur-of-the-year
  29. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/sim-card-seller-college-dropout-millionaire-at-22-boy-from-naxal-area-scripts-incredible-story/articleshow/64678808.cms
  30. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/new-cayman-base-to-bring-funds-to-oyo/articleshow/70253747.cms
  31. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/meet-oyo-rooms-ritesh-agarwal-the-dropout-who-dined-with-peter-thiel/articleshow/48536789.cms
  32. https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/sme/ritesh-agarwals-oyo-softbank-set-up-investment-vehicle-seek-cci-approval-for-increasing-stake-in-oravel-stays/1645590/
  33. https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/oyo-hotels-plans-300-million-push-in-us-market-ceo-ritesh-agarwal-119061901257_1.html
  34. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/oyo-founder-in-talks-to-buy-back-1-5-billion-shares/articleshow/70121644.cms
  35. https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/oyo-hospitality-ritesh-agarwal-american-dream-us-market-investment-new-york-los-angeles-san-fransisco/story/357882.html
  36. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/wicket-just-eased-up-for-a-5-trillion-chase-ritesh-agarwal/articleshow/70101094.cms
  37. https://www.financialexpress.com/industry/this-is-how-24-year-old-ritesh-agarwal-built-oyo-rooms-a-5-billion-hotel-chain-in-just-five-years/1327354/
  38. https://www.cnbctv18.com/entrepreneurship/how-ritesh-agarwal-a-college-dropout-built-the-5-billion-oyo-empire-3185041.htm
  39. The most powerful people of India 2019 (https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/the-most-powerful-people-of-india-2019-full-list-1574021-2019-07-26)
  40. Meet the billionaires in the startup world (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/newsbuzz/meet-the-billionaires-in-the-startup-world/byju-raveendran-the-freshly-minted-billionaire/slideshow/70432535.cms)

He is also the co-chairman, Confederation of Indian Industry for National Committee on Tourism & Hospitality and Chairman, Confederation of Indian Industry National Committee on e-commerce. In 2016, NDTV's inaugural Unicorn Awards recognized Oyo Rooms as their Dream Chaser of the Year. In 2017, he was honored with the “Gaurav Samman” by the Government of Haryana. The award was given to people of Haryanvi origin residing outside of Haryana who have made significant contributions in various fields. In 2018, he was named Best Entrepreneur by International Institute of Hotel Management in cooperation with International Hospitality Council. He was also listed in Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award- Services Dataquest magazine named him IT Person of the Year at their ICT Awards.

He has been named on several young leader lists and awards including: The Economic Times 40 under 40 (2016); Fortune 40 under 40 (2016); Forbes 30 under 30 (2016, 2018); Barclays Hurun India Rich List for Youngest Entrepreneur under 40 (2018); and CBC-TV 18 India Business Leader Award for Young Turk of the Year (2019).

Restore it to this version and lock it for extended user edit for one year. Meeanaya (talk) 04:15, 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) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brentwood Bank Robbery

Brentwood Bank Robbery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Coverage in local sources but no widespread coverage to indicate enduring significance. Per WP:EVENTCRITERIA "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes)...are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." Polyamorph (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:32, 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Publish and Be Damned

Publish and Be Damned (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources are cited to show that the topic is notable. In fact, no sources are cited that mention the topic at all. This may be the same topic previously discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Publish and be damned, which was unanimously agreed to be deleted in 2005 and was deleted again in 2006. —BarrelProof (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the identified sources, which apparently took some effort to dig up (by someone who thinks the article should be deleted), are just minor promotional material and routine announcements of what's happening around town. The only source linked in the article is identified as an "event notice" and is only 12 sentences long (and has an ungrammatical sentence). Clearly this was a pretty minor event. We should not have articles about every little fair that is held at the local high school gymnasium church crypt, which seems to be roughly what this article is. This article is doomed to perma-stub status and should be deleted. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I object. I find it very objectionable. If something is so non-notable that even after looking for sources we can't find anything that really discusses the subject in detail, and if that situation looks like it is never going to change (e.g. because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct, so that no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication), then we should not maintain a perma-stub about it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be used as a vanity press, obscure fan site, or personal blogging site. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is always a good idea to look at the most recent updates before opining. And, when sources have been found, doing a fresh WP:BEFORE search can be enlightening. I speak as an editor who often changes my opinion after someone sources a page that my initial WP:BEFORE could not source. E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is plenty written about this event. I did a simple article search in my library's article database for the event and its curators and found seven (7) references, e.g. Zappaterra, Y. (2006). Punk publishing. Design Week, 21(30), 36-36. I find the dismissive tone above "about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct" objectionable. Wikipedia is the ideal venue for such information. It is what many people come here for. Emphatic Keep. Gerntrash (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, it was cited in this doctoral dissertation: Sullivan, Molly E. The Multivalent Platforms of Alternative Art Publications as Agents of Authentic Cultural Change, University of Southern California, 2010. Gerntrash (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*WP:HEY nice job of sourcing by User:Gerntrash. And a reminder that the fact that a book fair is now defunct is not an argument for deleting it, we have thousands or defunct things in Category:Former entities, thousands more in Category:Defunct media and other similar categories. Contrary to Nom's assertion that "because the topic is about some little annual workshop series that is now completely defunct... no one is likely to ever write about it in detail in the future in any reputable publication" people do continue to publish copiously about many small defunct events.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 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) 15:08, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aybars İbak


Aybars İbak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The sources are all very short pieces that have no by-line in sources that seem to be mostly user-generated such as imdb, haber life, kimnereli where you can email your bio for publication etc etc. The sites seem to have no staff. This is a case of way WP:TOOSOON. Nothing in a before search of interest Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 14:08, 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) 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethical banks

List of ethical banks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although I accept that 'ethical banking' is a real phenomenon, this list is inevitably problematic.

  • The nature of the title gives it an innate POV slant that is going to be very difficult to overcome (and are we saying that banks not included in this list are not ethical?).
  • The criteria for inclusion are unclear, all banks presumably consider themselves 'ethical'.
  • It's a pretty broad term that is impossible to objectively assess. Just look at the section in the main article about judging what is ethical. If Mill, Kant and Aristotle can't agree then how will Wikipedia editors?
  • Finally, what one source might describe as 'ethical' will vary from what another might.

A redirection to Ethical banking could be an option but I oppose that on the grounds that there is currently no such list in that page, and I would avoid ever creating one for precisely the reasons given here. Hugsyrup 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
​Nope. Read the second half of my sentence. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, how are we to know that those articles are referring to a 'specialized financial meaning'? None of the three links you provide refer to any objective specialized meaning, they simply describe a bank as ethical without further explanation, or describe it as a strategic positioning of that bank. Indeed, the Ecologist article notably places ethical bank in scare quotes every time, which rather illustrates my point. Hugsyrup 07:51, 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle Gear

Cycle Gear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can not find any sources that indicate subject meets WP:ORGCRIT Tropicanan (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.--Nahal(T) 12:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 20:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 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) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Ryukyuan and Okinawan Studies

International Association of Ryukyuan and Okinawan Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Michael Cichy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Flowmaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. Hugsyrup 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]
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

Trevor Bruess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Dominik Bielke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Dharmasdrasinhji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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). Dee03 08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dee03 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]
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. Dee03 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]
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

Alisha Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Novoland: Eagle Flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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]
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]
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

Rind Snacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Druk Trowa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

D. Gamit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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:

S. K. Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
P. Kadam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
P. Balsara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Y. Angalia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
MS Bham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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]
  • 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]

 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

N. Kumara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. Dee03 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. Dee03 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

MarJon Beauchamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

The House Between (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Judgeship of Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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:

District Court, Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
E-Courts Project in the Judgeship of Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rayagada Bar Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rayagada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

§§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

  1. ^ 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]
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

WordPlay T. Jay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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

Fanny Neguesha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Nvidia Tesla Personal Supercomputer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

DZMR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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]
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

SaintCards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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

Govt ENT Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Jonathan M. Busch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
  • 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]
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

Government TB and Chest Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]

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)

Pablo Ramirez (skateboarder) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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]
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

Visibly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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 [10], [11], and [12]. — 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

Natti Ronel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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. ƏXPLICIT 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]
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

Sachin Mani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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

Joel Stepp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(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]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_August_8&oldid=909930034"