Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 20 October	22 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 16:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of players who played only one game in the NHL

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

I still say this is an arbitrary list. Playing in the NHL is a significant distinction. Playing PRECISELY ONE game in the NHL is arbitrary. This list is horrendously fluid; people are continually being added for playing their 1st game and removed for playing their 2nd. Arbitrary list gotta go. p b p 14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. p b p 14:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that this was previously nominated for deletion before, by the same editor, with the result as keep. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous discussion illustrated why this is a notable grouping of players. Significant external sources maintain lists of these players, including HockeyDB and the Hockey Hall of Fame. The list is well-maintained and well-sourced. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The previous discussion lays out quite well why this is a notable topic. The list is kept up to date and sourced. Not at all arbitrary as it is specifically one game. It is a stat that even the Hockey Hall of Fame tracks and is the subject of news articles fequently. Like last time this appears to be an WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguement. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Originally when I created this article, I had put a point that it has to be 5 years from last game to present, to avoid, as pbp mentions, players continually being added and removed. I still feel it is an important list that groups a very specific group of people. Making it to the "show" is a great achievement, even if it's only for one game. Masterhatch (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep per the excellent rationale of Tavix. The list is relevant and useful to our readers. Lightburst (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reading both the first and this one, I am a firm believer that this is notable because with certain hockey resources have this type of resource as one of their pages which might this page eligible for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 03:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me remind everybody that "This is notable" doesn't refute my original deletion rationale, which is based on WP:NOT. Let me also point out how unusual this list is for Wikipedia. Compare 300 save club...the list includes everybody who has 300 OR MORE saves. You gain notability by playing a game in the NHL; you don't lose notability for playing a second game. p b p 13:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed it was arbitrary, people have pointed out how it is not arbitrary. One game is a very defined point. Like a one hit wonder (ie Lists of one-hit wonders). You don't lose notability by playing two games, but you might be more notable for only playing one compared to playing two. Lists are about the group as a whole, not the individual items on the list, so much so that there is no requirement that items on a given list have to be notable enough to have their own article just the subject of the list itself. -DJSasso (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject passes WP:LISTN. Flibirigit (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The list meets our criteria for inclusion; WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really wish people would stop making the claim that I only nominated this because I didn't like it. I nominated this because it flies in the face of how the scope of Wikipedia lists are almost always defined. p b p 22:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it doesn't. I linked to one such list above. I can link you to many many more. This is a very normal type of list. -DJSasso (talk) 10:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarityfiend explained better than I could in the last AfD why precisely one game has particular significance and linked to a number of list articles that focus on precisely one event. And that is backed up in this case by reliable sources that also maintain lists of one game, but not two games or other amounts. Rlendog (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. In fact, playing a game for the NHL passes WP:NHOCKEY. ミラ P 00:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but so does playing two, 537, or any other number of games. The issue I have with this list is that it's limited to playing EXACTLY one game, which is no more notable than playing any other positive number of games. p b p 01:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, poor horse. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from the lists above, there is at least one book that focuses on the topic, which further demonstrates notability. I'll also note that perhaps it would be better served to update after the conclusion of each season (to avoid constant changes), the fact it is seemingly kept updated on a regular basis is impressive. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think the list is arbitrary but it must be prone to some arbitrary upkeep, as when a player makes his second appearance. That isn't enough of a reason to delete it, though, because by definition it passes WP:NHOCKEY. My main reason for keeping it is that it would and should provide a very useful method, right across the whole of sports coverage, of acknowledging single appearance performers who lack the necessary GNG for a dedicated article. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Audition Room

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

A lone review over Hindustan Times and trivial mention over a PR spam (vide this) at Zee News.

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NBOOKS by a few many miles; see this GNews search string. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable book lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:BKCRIT. GSS ^💬 17:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not seem to meet WP:NBOOK, and being about the "casting process and auditioning techniques from the point of view of an Indian casting director" is too narrow a category to indicate a credible claim to encyclopedic significance. More in-depth coverage is needed. SamHolt6 (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yip. Very poor. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 14:12, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:11, 24 October 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. A WP:HEY by Djm-leighpark has met GNG, which was upheld after a re-list. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lansweeper

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

First off - I just reverted this article to an older, shorter (and less promotional) version. This is how it looked as I found it. The only independent references were a series of broken links to WindowsNetworking.com (a blog) to source a series of nonnotable yearly awards given by the blog to this software. Everything else was from the company's own site or from a reposted press release. I've done some looking for additional sources, and I've mostly found more press releases and listings in indiscriminate software directories. Google scholar turns up a couple of hits, but they are brief mentions - for example just the name in a list of low cost software alternatives. I don't believe this topic meets either WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG and therefore this article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: (See revised !vote below)Neutral:keep: deliberate vandalisation of article by nom. I currently don't have time to fix. If you have a negative COI don't muck about with it before presentation here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to address the reason for the nomination, which is the lack of reliable sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might have tried to rescue this but there's simply too much vandalism going on and other smuck. And this is meant to be a security product. I'm going to neutral until people with COI start behaving nicely. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First off - I just reverted this article to a newer, longer (and more informational) version. Secondly, I've adjusted the number of citations to the company's website and added more independent references. While doing so this also countering the deletion reason given above. Ls.EsbenD (talk) — Ls.EsbenD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Blogs and reddit posts aren't independent references that actually help us. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and user-generated content can be a good source of information. Reliability is a diffirent question. Regardless, other reliable third-party source have been added. So, I don't see how your claim holds. Ls.EsbenD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is written like a documentation page. WP:NOTMANUAL. In fact, the article looks like a rehash of this page: [1]. Even assuming that reliable sources that prove the subject of article's impact could be found, everything written in this "article" so far needs to go. They are exactly what an encyclopedia does not want. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with MrOllie - (nsoftware & gng) — Ched (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There was a spate of undisclosed conflict of edit / paid editing on this article (at great inconvenience to the nom. I may add) which has been seemingly brought under control. I have also reworked the article to remove paid editing content. No doubt it may issues but undisclosed paid editing has been removed and it is not an unambigous advert as at Old revision of Lansweeper. A lifespan of 15 years and the appearance of CVEs on the mitre.org database are indicators of product significance. I think when additional references were introduced 22 October 2019 efforts to remove the article moved towards emphasing the coi/paid editing which is fair enough and perhaps I should have clocked it myself earlier. And while not ever reference satisifies WP:RS per WP:THREE I select initially the following as demonstrating both WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG:

Jacobi's PC World review from 2010, I like the fact he is saying Spiceworks is better in at least one aspect.[2].
Rux's Windows IT Pro(now ITPRO today) review from 2009. [3] ... I was nearly tempted to present Schulman's 2005 from the same magazine instead.
Evotec's Przemyslaw's review: [4].

So I believe we have a sold keep. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, seems like Djm-leighpark's rewrite and sources need to be reviewed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:GNG and also improved in other ways after Djm-leighpark's work. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ology (website)

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

Short lived site. Not notable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reached over 4.4 million users over 4 years - is that not a notable number? I don't know. How many million should it have reached? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It being defunct/short-lived isn't really a reason to delete, nor is it having had 4.4 million users a reason to keep. The only relevant question is whether it meets WP:GNG. Based on a review of the article's sources (one press release and a couple primary sources), and some web searches, I would say it does not. Which is kind of a shame, given that it has >50 mainspace links (mostly from articles on TV episodes talking about reviews written on the website). But there just isn't any WP:SIGCOV that we can use to write a verifiable article that's more than a directory entry. Colin M (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iota Delta

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

Non notable, unreferenced local. Naraht (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Naraht (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Same as last time—no enduring coverage with which to write an encyclopedia article. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 14:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be good to get more input on this. Please note that the article in the previous AFD appears to be about a different organization.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This student group appears to have drawn little attention.Strandvue (talk) 12:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fametracker

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

Website without any references or real claim to notability Rathfelder (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A WP Refs search and a Google books search provide many sources that establish notability and can expand the article. AmericanAir88^(talk) 21:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South East and Central Europe PR Organisation

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

It does not seem to pass WP:GNG, it doesn't cite any source, apparently created by SPA for promotion. MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles only source is non-independent. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidence that this is a notable PR corp. is lacking.Strandvue (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Liberty

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

Of the sources cited, only [5] and [6] are even close to being independent and reliable. They still only provide brief coverage and are of dubious reliability. My own searches have not produced better sources so WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE do not appear to be met. SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:12, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable make up artist with sources easily found. Someone should expand the stub, not delete it. Wm335td (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wm335td: sources easily found such as? SmartSE (talk) 19:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the sources I can find are some combination of not-independent, not-reliable, and not-significant. Rockphed (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of the article sources included Reddit, Twitter, a makeup company event announcement... and so on. I have removed them. The Bustle is two sentences. Show me SIGCOV quality sources and I might be convinced, but for now it is delete.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and @ThatMontrealIP:. A makeup artist? That's not likely notable irrespective of any coverage. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:01, 26 October 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. additionally, consensus is to SALT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generali Osiguranje

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

Recreation of Generali osiguranje which was afd-merged and then G7ed according to log. Despite the context of the previous AfD was about the Croatian sister company, while the current wiki article was about Generali Osiguranje Srbija and "Generali osiguranje Montenegro". But it seem both subsidiaries still did not pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Routine mention of change in ownership did not count as in-depth coverage. For the sake of WP:Overlap either the wiki article(s) for the subsidiary should be merge and creating a SALTed redirect. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it seem Generali Osiguranje Srbija was G11 three times and SALTed as well. Matthew hk (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nominator, delete and salt, topic fails GNG/NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BORN Group

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

Promotion for non notable business. Awards are not major. This article is bombarded with sources they are largely churnalism. Routine, listings, primary, press releases, passing mentions. "provides system integration services, easing the adoption of complex systems by e-commerce vendors". That gobbledygook is not supported by the two sources used. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: buzzword-laden advert for unnotable entity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP, HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 5 November 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. As apparently nobody wants to pursue deletion further and the topic appears to meet inclusion criteria even if it is poorly written. A merger would need a separate discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kuttichathan

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

This article used to be pretty lengthy (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuttichathan&oldid=908880868), but most of its constituent material seemed to be "a complete fabrication", so it was rewritten as a stub from scratch by User:Þjarkur. The problem is, in my opinion, this article is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Not only is it a one-paragraph stub, but all three of its sentences (yes, there are only three) are copied directly from an existing public domain source, namely:

Iyer, L. K. Ananthakrishna (1925). Lectures On Ethnography. pp. 197–198.

Þjarkur says that "that is how Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written, we reflect what sources have said", but he is referring to paraphrasing existing sources, not copying them directly. An article containing no original content is not suitable for this website. I'd PROD this again if possible, but site rules say I can't. Thoughts?

(Here is the page history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuttichathan&action=history) 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we have many similar articles on mythological characters, demons, etc. They are often stubs because while the folklore about them may be extensive, there is little said about them in reliable sources. Some systems of folk belief may only ever have been studied once or twice by anthropologists so the sourcing will always be limited, but that's not a reason from excluding properly-referenced entries from the encyclopedia. Mccapra (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mccapra: You see, the problem isn't so much of a notability issue (i.e. I'm not requesting for it to be deleted just because it is not notable enough for Wikipedia). I also don't think this article belongs because all of its content is copied directly from an existing source. Even so, if you still don't think that it should be deleted as I do, I am not opposed to some sort of compromise, such as a merge. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article is extended-confirmed protection, due to Persistent disruptive editing from (auto)confirmed accounts. The protection was applied to the article before it was rewritten; perhaps the disruptive editing has something to do with the aforementioned fabrications? (@Uncle G, Deepfriedokra, MrOllie, and Arjayay: Please inform me on the full story of this; I'm not sure.) 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to say exactly because the disruptive editors weren't very communicative (or skilled in English), but it seems that there were some representatives (or maybe just followers) of a few different area temples who were edit warring about the details of the folklore, particularly about whose temple was the oldest around. - MrOllie (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MrOllie: Is this what certain editors and warnings mean when they say "conflict of interest"? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be fine to merge this article into a larger list of characters in Malabar folk religion, but that article does not currently exist. There's nothing wrong with having stub articles, this one is short but informative. There's also nothing wrong with directly copying content from public domain sources, we do it all the time and we're here to assemble an encyclopedia rather than to practise our college essay writing skills. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Added new entry for Requested Articles: Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion#Other_specific_religions. 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A survey of sources, such as seen in the search links above indicates that the topic is notable. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT – which states clearly that brief starts on a topic are welcome. See also WP:TLDR. Andrew D. (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: By keep, do you actually mean "keep", or are you fine with "a choice between 'keep' or 'merge'", like what Þjarkur has suggested above?^{[clarification needed]} 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The merge targets that people are talking about above don't exist and so are moot. The main issue here is deletion. Once we have settled that, future expansion of this and related topics is a matter of ordinary editing. AfD is not cleanup nor an article writing service. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Pinged here. Don't recall why it is protected. I see a lot pf protection requests, and I don't recall them all. It must have been impressive, 'cause I don't like extended confirmed, and I especially don't like it for this length of time. Now as to the deletion. If memory serves, we can quote heavily from a source if it is suitably licensed and attributed. If not suitably attributed it could be a copyvio, but that is remediable by proper attribution. (There's a template of some sort for this.) Depending on the source, it could argue for keep if it is an encyclopedia (for instance) or book or major work. Also, the size of an article is never an argument for deletion 'cause it may be expandable. Or it may the subject has been covered sufficiently. I would be reluctant to nominate for deletion in case there is a good version buried I the history that we can revert to. Having said all of that, no opinion on keep vs delete-- Deep fried okra 06:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There seems to be more similarly-named articles to "Kuttichathan" than I originally thought there would be. As such, I have created Kuttichathan (disambiguation) and Kuttichaathan (disambiguation). 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 12:47, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thjarkur: Is the equivalent Malayalam article ([7]) a fabrication as well? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:07, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily a fabrication, but it's an article about Chathans (a group of several hundred demons) and not about Kuttichathan (who is a Chathan). Like with most subjects in mythology, they are notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, they just need good sources. – Thjarkur (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thjarkur: Thanks for explaining. Now, do we currently have an article on English Wikipedia about the Chathans? 𝕎𝕚𝕜𝕚𝕎𝕒𝕣𝕣𝕚𝕠𝕣𝟡𝟡𝟙𝟡 (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. But that's not a problem for this discussion as Kuttichathan is independantly notable. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Are we continuing discussion over whether to delete this article or not, or have we all agreed to keep it? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 11:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Joe Weise

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

Extremely over the top promotion of non notable musician. Claimed charts are not goodcharts, award minor, Releases are on a small vanity label Blues Breaking Records, not Tower Records. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Page is bombarded with a LOT of sources but most are primary, listings, non reliable. Environmental Art of Gerry Joe Weise is self published, not a RS. Pure PR from a pair of tag teaming SPAs. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By a quick count, 25 of the 198 sources presented in the article are refrenced to Vimeo. Many are offline. Picking thru whether he's notable will take a lot of work. If by chance any keep !voter wanders by, if you could present WP:THREE for me, that'd be much appreciated. SportingFlyer T·C 13:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on ChrisWar666's vote below, I decided to ignore the massive number of sources in the article and just do my own, fairly broad WP:BEFORE search, which came up with precious little. No news articles whatsoever apart from a medium post. Will be willing to reconsider my vote if anyone comes forward with WP:THREE. Guess I should bold my delete vote. SportingFlyer T·C 00:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think this might have a different problem. The article was pretty much created by two WP:SPAs (who marked almost every single edit as minor) with contributions from IPs, the last AfD had a new account pop up to save the article. He -may- be notable, but that article needs a massive cleanup and sourcing. Having been in 'active' since 1976, he should have -lots- of news or delete. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no sources of note in a search. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 29 October 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Shum

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

No sign showing this activist's notability to warranty a Wikipedia article. Sources are equally not reliable. First is an instagram source coupled with links a firm profile. I will leave it here for the community to gauge his notability 10MB (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb and Instagram are not reliable sources, does not satisfy WP:GNG for my mind. Hughesdarren (talk) 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Nothing in the article itself or in google searches indicates that it gets close to meeting WP:GNG. noq (talk) 11:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source from CNN added for more verification. What other sources would you need to keep this page from being deleted? ^[1] LSJU94305 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)LSJU94305[reply]

Delete Per Noq and being interviewed in one episode of an insignificant CNN documentary series does not qualify for notability. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal - USoA is an Emmy Award winning television show entering its fifth season. Genuinely curious, how does that make it an insignificant series? If sources are currently not acceptable, how can you change a page back into a draft so it doesn't get completely deleted? I've been writing about notable members from the community and would like to continue to add to articles as more arise. LSJU94305 (talk) 03:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC) LSJU94305[reply]

Comment In his case, remove the sources such as IMDb and Instagram. CNN documentary series may pass as a credible source tough.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 12:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete guests interviewed on episodes of a TV show, no matter how notable, do not become notable. Nor do people mentioned as sources for a postion in one article in a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 24 October 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. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Supercult

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

Fails WP:NWEB and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. I found one Baltimore Sun article with sigcov [8] and a few passing mentions on gbooks, but not enough to pass GNG. (The Wired article isn't in-depth coverage of Supercult [9]; I couldn't find the Associated Content one.) Cheers, gnu 57 18:51, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Defunct and not notable. My search for sources yielded exactly the same results as gnu57. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 21:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's only one piece of significant coverage; no multiple items split across multiple reliable sources to meet our notability requirements. Madness ^Darkness 23:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Capitol Cinemas

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

Not notable company. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I can find a considerable amount of ... let's call it light coverage (better than passing mentions, but not really dedicated to the topic) of this company in the context of historical examinations of Botswana's film industry (for example, a paragraph or so in Parsons, Neil (2014). "False Dawns over the Kalahari?: Botswana Film Production in Historical Perspective". In Ukadike, Nwachukwu Frank (ed.). Critical Approaches to African Cinema Discourse. Lexington Books. pp. 135–154. ISBN 978-0-7391-8093-8.). If this were an American or British movie theater chain, and that's the best I could do, I'd be right with you advocating for deletion. But African cinema (and African media, more broadly) is under-represented in online sources; that I can find what I can find suggests that local media would likely have more in-depth coverage. Yeah, yeah, WP:SOURCESMUSTEXIST, I know. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, as per Squeamish Ossifrage. Meeanaya (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huang De-hui

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

Seems to be just another worker blamed for an accident. No other evidence of notability. Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Notability is not temporary. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 10:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A WP:BLP1E connected with the 2018 Yilan train derailment, where Huang is not mentioned. Based on the number of sources currently in the article, his influence on the event is not very large. Vycl1994 (talk) 23:52, 21 October 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. bd2412 T 12:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

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

It seems that this regional insurance company is not sufficiently notable to meet the requirements of our now not-so-very-new WP:NCORP. Yes, it goes about its routine business, and some aspects of that business receive attention (or press-releases?) in the local business press. But despite discussion on the talk-page and the attentions of a (properly-disclosed) paid editor, no solid independent in-depth coverage has been found. Making a loss of $100 million might seem important or even inconceivable to ordinary people, but is not really significant in business terms (Parmalat managed to mislay about $16 billion a few years ago). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep a simple click of the "news" link above shows ample news sources for the company. Google news, etc. Loads of KC Star and such.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have a COI here (Blue KC is a client), so not voting. I would like to note that Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Blue Shield of California all exist under similar circumstances. Of course, I'm not arguing there is any inherited notability here, just that Wikipedia precedent seems to indicate that the subject matter is notable. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or, alternatively, selective merge with Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. In fact, as part of a larger project, I would merge all or most Blue Cross/Blue Shield associations into that target article or, if article length is concerned, to Member companies of Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. I tagged the original version of the present article with a Notability query in 2013 and more recently gave an assessment of its more recent text at Talk:Blue_Cross_and_Blue_Shield_of_Kansas_City#Notability_query, where I indicated my view that the current article references fell under the WP:ORGCRIT "Examples of trivial coverage". For this AfD I have taken a wider look for anything which might indicate notability for the company: again, I am seeing the routine coverage typical of a company going about its business, but nothing to satisfy WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the nominator's case seems to be that the company is so big that a 100 million dollar loss is insignificant, which I would say would be a reason to keep and not delete. Are you guys really thinking about deleting this article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Paulmcdonald: I'd personally favour a selective merge and redirect to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation than to a delete, but to your question, as I understand it, a company's asset size or revenue is of little bearing in terms of notability. What matters is sufficient reliable sources which establish the organization's notability. No firm guideline as to how many, but the Wikipedia essay WP:THREE provides some guidance that is sometimes used in AfD discussions, as well as in page move and merge discussions. As well, even if there is sufficient reliable sources, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be considered such that there are sufficient sources to write more than a perennial stub- or start-class article. In terms of company size, Central 1 Credit Union was recently deleted because, aside from the fact it was written like an advertisement, it generated little, if any, significant coverage by reliable sources, despite it having nearly $100 billion CAD in assets under management.Doug Mehus (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I tagged for notability in 2013 I didn't propose deletion, probably influenced to some extent by size. But really, if all that we can say about a company is that it was founded, offers products to operate in a market and appoints executives, then that is all appropriate for their website but is far from establishing the claim to notability for an article here. That information in the present article also does not really seem appropriate for merger into Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, hence my preference for simple redirect. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The standard: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This has clearly been met just from the sources in the article alone, but as noted above a quick news search shows a large volume of additional coverage that could just as easily build an article to meet the standards. Subject passes both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment on Central 1 there were no independent sources on that article and the only sources were the company website. This company receives plenty of independent third party coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already present in the article. It's a large independent licensee, so it is its own entity separate from the parent organization. It has more than a million people that it insures and a lengthy history. It's a reasonable content fork.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 You and I agree sometimes, disagree other times. Here we sort of disagree, but not completely since redirect/selective merge is a variation on keep. At any rate, the Kansas City Star articles referenced are all trivial and trite coverage (that is, they relate to product or service announcements and corporate/government partnerships). So, those don't count. Haven't looked through all possible sourcing here, but I trust that the nom and AllyD have done their due diligence. Their rationale is sound. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider corporate/government partnerships trivial as they involve public finances and responsibilities. Here's a non-trivial peer reviewed journal article on an innovative way Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City stopped a doctors' revolt over control of treatment decisions by creating an innovative new model for insurance company/doctor decision making: "Kansas City blues discover talk therapy"; Moskowitz, Daniel; Business and Health, Apr 2000, Vol.18(4), pp.21-22. I found that in under two minutes. I am not so confident the nominators followed WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 Government partnerships can be tricky; if it's just strict churnalism, then it's trivial, but if the company is directly related to the botched rollout of Obamacare, for example, then that might be significant coverage. Your journal article appears, at first blush, like it might qualify. So, WP:SIGCOV may be met here, but I remain uncertain as to whether WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Ping me if further sources turn up so I consider changing/striking the delete part of my vote. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have two responses: 1) That's not trivial coverage, that's significant coverage that you (apparently) just don't have interest in (a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; and 2) If it were WP:TRIVIAL then it's still one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as "notability fallacy". The standard is: "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view" and that has been exceeded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect/Selective Merge to Blue Cross Blue Shield Association - Concur with nom and AllyD. Searching through all 11 pages of Google web search results for "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City" revealed only trivial press coverage, mostly in local daily and community newspapers and trade publications—lots of company partnerships, service announcements, executive appointments, churnalism, and directory listings (WP:NOTDIR), nothing which meets WP:SIGCOV. Similar story with Google News search results. Not finding anything that would meet WP:SIGCOV, possibly one source, maybe two, but nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH on which to write more than a perpetual stub- or start-class article which negatively affects Wikipedia's reputation and editorial integrity. -DM
Merge/Redirect, although whether to a "Member companies of Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation." as Dmehus suggested, or to the main "Blue Cross Blue Shield Association" article. Same goes for other member companies that don't have separate notability. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a word of caution: if Wikipedia were run by majority, then the closing decision would be to delete or merge. However, Consensus is not the same thing as majority. Wikipedia has a significant history of decisions and as process that we use. While certainly consensus can change, the place to change long-standing consensus like the general notability guideline is not in this AFD. The standards have been exceeded, this is not the place to change the standards just to delete an article (no matter how many editors !vote "yes").--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Huge company, has served millions, sources exist, article could be hugely expanded. All the BC/BS state-level entities have huge history and impact and are notable, i would think. --Doncram (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Kansas Cities are certainly not some small region with little population. Major company, major presences in the healthcare of Missouri and Kansas, and a thank you to @Diannaa: for fixing this article from its COPYVIO state rather than trying a needless TNT maneuver like the nom is trying here. Nate • (chatter) 04:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: Coverage looks WP:TRIVIAL to me. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, you just took a position in a deletion discussion and specifically referenced Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions‎ as the reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a corp with c. $3 billion in 2018 revenues - if it was freely quoted, it would have a market cap. putting it in touching distance of the S&P500. With 1 million members, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, it makes no sense to delete this or merge into another article. We clearly have many other standalone BKC WP articles for other states. A google search provides hundreds of refs to this CORP. Would a Kansas WP reader expect to find a WP article on this company - of course they would. Britishfinance (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For example, here is the Wall Street Journal with a full article on BKC's withdrawal from ACA in 2017 Exit Leaves 25 Missouri Counties With No ACA Plans for 2018

Keep. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV Wm335td (talk) 22:23, 7 November 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 AFD was mistakenly created. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penshootoutbox2

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

Old unused fork of deleted Template:Penshootoutbox Wikisaurus (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 07:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karim Safsaf

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

Despite passing with his four subs in Ligue 2, I could only seem to find match reports that mention him in the match results with the only real evidence for this player being an interview that he did with footmercato [10] that might give some hope that passes WP:GNG but other than that, probably good to put this up for nomination. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY and the subject is currently playing last played on 16 October 2019.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Career ongoing with an NFOOTY pass, as noted. Ligue 2 apps plus a stint in Morocco's Botola Pro, which is listed at WP:FPL, per [11]; the, on Wikipedia's terms anyway, 'unreliable' Transfermarkt claim 12apps. That will need extra verifying, though any test of GNG will too due to the language barrier with Arabic. As for GNG in regards to a more familiar language, I found this [12] (I'm aware some editors don't like interviews) plus the aforementioned [13] - could be more out there. R96Skinner (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL and likely passes WP:GNG. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 10:38, 22 October 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) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This Is! Ralph Carney

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

Article about a "forthcoming" documentary that shows no sign of being made. The subject is notable, but the film-maker is not. Furthermore, the website about the documentary does not appear to have been updated since 2009. Viennese Waltz 07:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then move This Is! Ralph Carney (album) here. As of Carney's death in 2017, the documentary was still "in the works for years".[14] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unmade film without much coverage in reliable or unreliable sources, for example no entry at IMDb, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 10:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilia Harvey

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

Created by undisclosed paid editor, lacks in-depth news coverage, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources for her research into queen bee syndrome, but they are all based around interviews (which don't count toward notability). My question is, does the extent to which they're based around interviews overwhelmingly count them as only an interview and not count toward notability, or does the independent prose interspersed with the interview material count them toward notability? -Lopifalko (talk) 13:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Undisclosed paid editor"? On what basis? No-one has suggested it on the editor's talk page, or asked whether they have a WP:COI. It's not a phrase to be thrown around lightly. Yes, it's this editor's only contribution, they worked on it in their sandbox and then copied that into a new article, but that doesn't prove they are paid editor. Ask them about COI first? And leave them a welcoming template: WP:AGF. PamD 11:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PamD, I am not sure if I am smart enough. But it is 1,000% paid editing from a big sock farm. It was a proper planned perfect execution, the biggest hint I got with the photo, a private, nice high quality photo uploaded on commons from flickr. So first, a new flickr account created in October 2019, Photo was uploaded on flickr on 15 Oct, uploaded on commons on 17 Oct, page editing started on sandbox from 10 Oct, made over 10 edits, got auto confirmed account and moved to mainspace on 21 October with no errors. Who can do this without knowing everything about Wikipedia, a new editor or someone who is super-expert in it? If you want MER-C can elaborate it even better, who is best among all admins in this. Meeanaya (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources Pass WP:GNG as per WP:NEXIST.--Wakowako (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wakowako, can you please share 3-4 in-depth news articles about her that you are talking about? Just check that the news articles you share are not just mere mentions. Meeanaya (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Interviews can count towards wiki-notability, as they can represent "the world at large" taking notice of a person. XOR'easter (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment hello Meeanaya, fyi, i haven't shared articles. But those references clearly counts WP:GNG WP:BASIC. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent reliable sources thus deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. --Wakowako (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If she is notable for anything then it appears to me that it is only for her research into queen bee syndrome, which has numerous articles from reliable sources. However the degree to which those articles are interviews, or focus on her paper rather than on her, makes this difficult for me to judge her notability based on sourcing. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Russell

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

The page revolves around "Everett Suffrage Club" and not for Ella Russell, no in-depth reliable references were found for her to establish the notability. Meeanaya (talk) 07:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of sources in the article to show notability. She wasn't just known for being the president of a suffrage group, but was known for running for office and her outspoken support of women's suffrage which received country-wide attention. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Megalibrarygirl. Disagree with nominator that the article is more about the club than Ella herself. She is definitely the main focus, and the sources backing it all up are solid. Kenmelken (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Megalibrarygirl, I am seeing the sources already in the article. Jooojay (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In fairness to the nominator, I have substantially rewritten this article and added sources - at the time of nomination, there were only 3 sources relevant to the subject (and one about mayors of her town a hundred years later). The point is, though, that they WP:NEXIST - many on a subscription site, but some freely accessible. The 3 relevant sources that were already in the article are all from the 2000s, which surely suggests that someone who is noted for her actions of 100 previously is actually notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unelected candidates for state senate are not notable. She fails any reasonable politician notability test. We can easily find sources on all politicians, but not all politicians are notable, and so there is no reason to have an article on her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well documented article on historic person.Strandvue (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well sourced, historically notable.--Ipigott (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is properly and fully sourced. It is a useful start point for any research of the suffragette movement or of this suffragette in particular. This sort of article is what WP needs - a useful source of information. The suffragette movement itself is notable, and this is an important part of it, worthy of an independent biography due to the amount of material here, and the contribution she made to the movement. Storye book (talk) 10:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Akkiraju

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

I cannot find any reliable in-depth WP:RS for him, which makes his notability very clearly questionable. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - reliable sources are provided, have received significant coverage, simply googling her name leads to lots of coverage of her work, definitely pass WP:BASIC WP:BIO--Wakowako (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I see significant coverage of reliable sources already here in the article, passes WP:GNG. Jooojay (talk) 08:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nominator didn't even read the article. She is a female academic that clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC. PK650 (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above comments. Pages with sources even close to this shouldn't be nominated. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject clearly passes criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO by any number of different reliable sources mentioned here and on the page, and easily found by searching. Unless I'm misunderstanding this person's job and educational background, which I believe is as an engineer and a manager of engineers, then I actually don't agree that WP:PROF should be expected to apply to them -- and this only makes it much more notable that the subject also clearly passes Criterion 1 of academic notability. - Astrophobe (talk) 03:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- She is a researcher at a research laboratory, which makes a reasonable fit for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I actually did misunderstand what an IBM Fellow is. Thanks - Astrophobe (talk) 06:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. IBM Fellow is I think the equivalent of WP:PROF#C3 or maybe #C5 (although not technically the same as either) and I think her citation record is good enough for #C1 as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If I have counted correctly she gets a GS h-index of 32, which is enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Notable both as an academic and as a contributor to IBM developments.--Ipigott (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as clearly notable from sources, and remind nominator to read an article carefully before nominating for deletion - to refer to her as "him" shows that they are nominating too fast and carelessly. PamD 11:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:05, 27 October 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. It seems like there are good arguments on both the delete and the keep side whether we are discussing WP:GNG-based notability or WP:PROF-based notability, and neither side clearly prevails over the other. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Frome

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

Lacks in-depth WP:RS for her work, it seems to WP:TOOSOON, she has joined Google just 11 months back. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An h-index of only 14 is not yet enough in a super-hot topic WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
- Many of the entries in her GS profile are patents, which I normally wouldn't count as scholarship. Without those it drops to 9. On the other hand, 8 of the 9 have over 100 citations each... —David Eppstein (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to draft~~. The page was created only today, and it looks like it needs more work. She's a 2007 Ph.D., with relatively few papers, but the citations on those few are high enough that she might meet WP:NPROF (or might not). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Frome joined Google a second time only 11 months ago, but prior to that she was at Google for almost 8 years. I added a note here to clarify the information.Jooojay (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ACADEMIC based on the citations of her research. A check of her Google Scholar profile show numerous papers with over a hundred citations. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like just another person with a doctorate. I really don't care for the Google Scholar search results and their cryptic titles; they are not the reason people like Einstein are famous. This person does not seem to have had any impact. flowing dreams (talk page) 10:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete she does not meet a plain reading of the first academic notability criteria. Her level of citiations considering the state of the field she is in is not enough to make her notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (move to draft). I agree with Russ on this. More WP:RS than I expected which mention, or in some cases discuss her. I wouldn't be in any rush to toss this just yet. — Ched (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several considerations. Nominator appears to be a bit confused, as they also nominated a biography I created on a female academic thinking it was a man. This person was employed by Google for over 8 years in total, not 11 months as stated, but that's beside the point. Clearly meets WP:ACADEMIC, and has media coverage on top of that. I find comments such as "Looks like just another person with a doctorate" deeply insulting and chauvinistic. She has had a direct impact over technologies such as street view (being directly responsible for its blurring of plates and faces), and this is backed by both her published work (highly cited) and coverage in the press. As part of the WiR WikiProject and its monthly underrepresented women intitatives I have created several articles about notable women in STEM and other areas. I have faced considerable pushback by obviously male editors with an agenda, and Wikipedia should be truly ashamed of itself. If these women had been male their biographies would most likely not be put into question, and least of all with such wanton and careless arguments. As for draftification, what good would that do? If not in mainspace nobody will work on it and it will fall into oblivion. The sources are out there and the article is in more than decent shape! Why fix something that isn't broken? PK650 (talk) 03:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments, well sourced and notable. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The citation counts are suggestive of notability via WP:PROF#C1, but (because it's a high-citation field, the papers have many authors, and the citations drop off so quickly after the top 10) not conclusive, as XXan's opinion above already hints. So I'd like other evidence of notability as well, to confirm that suggestion. The evidence we have in the article is: an in-depth profile in TechTalks and an in-depth interview in Kaptur, both of which appear to be reliable and independent. Churnalistic press-release-like stories in TechCrunch and Bizwomen (or maybe San Francisco Business Times?) about Clarifai hiring her, about which I have doubts both about the depth of coverage and the independence. And a story in the New York Times that I can't read because I'm too annoyed at the Times' political hackery to sign up for the free subscription that I could get from my employer, but that seems likely from its first few lines merely to name-drop her as one of 25 signers of an open letter. Not included in the article are this story about her featured talk at a women's conference and several reliable-looking but non-in-depth international sources reporting her assignment to a new Google lab in Accra. I think the TechTalks and Kaptur sources are the strongest, and they make a weak case for WP:GNG, but the case is there. So she has a borderline case for two notability criteria, and I think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure these articles make the case for passing WP:GNG. The TechTalks article is substantive, while the NVidia blog post include three paragraphs about the subject (but is primarily about the conference, not the subject's talk). The interview in Kaptur would not normally add to the notability of the subject. Of the three publishers listed here, only NVidia has its own Wikipedia page, raising a question about the reliability and reach of the articles listed in the article. --Enos733 (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. Obviously notable, not so much as an academic but as someone who has had a measurable impact on an importãnt technological development.--Ipigott (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article has gotten some improvements from folks over the past week (though it could use more). David Eppstein has a good point that her weak cases through both WP:GNG and WP:NPROF should be taken together to form a stronger case. In short, the combination of academic and general sources make it look like her work has had a substantial impact on computer vision. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorta Eppstein except that am not convinced. ∯WBG^converse 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No worse than borderline wiki-notability by either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Together, they carry the article over the bar. XOR'easter (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Zack Werner. The content is available under the redirect for anyone desirous of merging it. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haymaker (band)

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

Zero reliable sourcing found. Of the sources given, only the Winnipeg Free Press seems to have any substance. The rest are just passing mentions in the context of Zack Werner, whose own notability is at least somewhat higher than the band's. The only other source is CTV, an archive of which shows it was just a promo fluff piece for Canadian Idol. The only single and album didn't chart; the album redirects to the band; and their only content was never noticed by any critics. "Zack Werner" "Haymaker" turns up nothing on Google News, newspapers.com, or americanradiohistory.com. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Previously AFD'd (by me!) in 2009 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haymaker (country rock band) with result of "no consensus". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zack Werner. Coverage appears to be mainly mentions of the band in articles about Zack Werner ([15], [16]), so a merge there seems appropriate. --Michig (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation of a redirect to Zack Werner. The only notability claim in evidence here is that one member of the band went on to become a judge on a reality show — which makes it fine to briefly mention the band in his BLP, but is not in and of itself a reason why the band would qualify for its own separate article if they didn't accomplish anything that would get them over NMUSIC as a band: even the fact that he was a judge on a reality show had a lot more to do with his success as a record producer and label president than it ever did with this band per se. And for that very reason, I don't see a credible reason why it would be necessary to retain this article's entire edit history behind a redirect — we should just delete this and then create a redirect if desired, rather than just converting this to a redirect but leaving the edit history intact. Bearcat (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Zack Werner and improve that article. If there's no news or charting positions, it's unlikely to be notable. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Zack Werner.4meter4 (talk) 03:22, 29 October 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) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Language Institute

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Chinese Language Institute (2nd nomination)

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

Media coverage that was noted in the first AFD is about the founders, nothing significant about the school. It is yet another unremarkable language school with no claims to notability, failing to meet WP:GNG. It is clearly a business, rather than a public educational establishment, and should therefore meet WP:NCORP, which it fails to do. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for small companies to promote their businesses,WP:NOTDIRECTORY Iamchinahand (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First AfD for this article → Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Chinese_Language_Institute Iamchinahand (talk) 04:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obviously promotion for the high-street-style language cram school. Sources are either dead, repeat the same information, local news only, or student newspapers with low circulation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some minor coverage focusing more on individuals rather on business. Fails WP:NCORP. Generic and non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 14:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -It is not notable, looks promotional. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per the other discussion. If we have two redundant copies of the same article, they don't need to be put up for two separate deletion discussions just because they were technically located at different titles — the first discussion is sufficient grounds. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Hashemzehi (Director)

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

Same article had created on October 7, 2019 under Mostafa Hashemzehi (born 1989) by the same creator which since had been deleted in AfD recently (20 Oct 2019) - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mostafa Hashemzehi (born 1989). (1) Being a son of a politician doesnt automatic grant notability as WP:NOTINHERITED. (2) as a politic consultant and not being a elected politician in major role doesnt pass WP:NPOL. (3) Having play only one role in one film, fails WP:NACTOR. (4) Books/marketing document does not pass WP:NAUTHOR and being a director of a company and not support by SIGCOV of independent, reliable source fails WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources found were not considered to be independent significant coverage. RL0919 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoorius

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

Non-notable company, balant advertising, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously made up by someone with COI. And this article looks like promoting one organisation. Wiki is not place for it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this SIGCOV at Creative Review about the 2007 edition of its design awards (requires you create an account to read). -Lopifalko (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that the major contributor @Bagabondo: didn't come here, and instead answered on their talkpage without following the instructions for replying. I'm unfamiliar with architecturaldigest but 'brandequity' is hosted on the indiatimes website, so might be closer to an WP:RS. I think given more time and more WP:RS this article could be ok. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since possible sources have been brought forward in the last day, giving this another round so they can be properly considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for notability requires that there are multiple references which provide significant coverage with in-depth information on the company. These references must contain independent content which is defined as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. On analysis, most references fail as the content is not independent, relying on interviews/quotations from the CEO and company announcements or content created by connected sources. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:19, 5 November 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. General consensus is that the mentions are largely passing and do not represent significant coverage. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danny El-Hage

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

Doesn't satisfy notability guidelines per WP:NFOOTY. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Check Nehme1499 (talk) Danny El-Hage nationality

Clearly a case of bias. Also Check history of article Danny El-Hage edits. Nehme1499 tried editing the article to make the Player look as if he is solely lebanese ignoring his Polish origins. When that failed he proceeded to draftifying the article. When that was reversed he proceeded to listing the article for deletion. Nehme1499’s are in 90% about Lebanese Player’s. Danny El-Hage is the only Lebanese goalkeeper playing currently in a European first tier, also he is probably first Polish to play for an Armenian Premier League team.Amsport12345 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also check edit history for Lori FC last edit. Nehme1499 edited the player’s Danny El-Hage nationality in current squad from Polish to Lebanese. No for bias, thank you. Amsport12345 (talk) 05:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bias? What are you talking about? My edits' intention were exactly to clarify the player's nationality situation. As can be seen in these edits (1, 2), I have removed the ambiguous "Polish-Lebanese", which is a formula NOT accepted in the lede of a footballer (see this discussion at WP:FOOTY), in favor of a more structured explanation regarding his nationality situation. I have proceeded to move the article to the draft space because I have noticed that the player does not comply with WP:NFOOTY, as he has neither played for a senior national team nor for a team in a professional league (neither the Lebanese first division, the Swedish fourth division nor the Armenian first division are fully professional). As I didn't want to full-out delete the article I preferred to move it to the draftspace to conserve it in case he where to satisfy the notability guidelines in the future. However, my move was reverted as, in the case of a notability issue, the correct solution is to go through AfD. Finally, I edited Danny El-Hage's flagicon from Polish to Lebanese at Lori FC as he has played for Lebanon internationally at youth level. If we really want to be talking about bias, we should be looking at Amsport12345 who's 20 or so edits are all exclusively about the player in question. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 07:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Player is notable as per Wikipedia notability (sports) basic criteria Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Basic criteria.

He has been subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources that can be found in the Article references both in Arabic and English Language.

Being the only Lebanese Professional Goalkeeper in a first tier European League is of huge relevance as well.

My edits for the page were all referenced and aimed to update the article with current information. Amsport12345 (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Giant Snowman the article doesn’t fail WP:GNG Amsport12345 (talk) 09:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Search in google provides sources for WP:GNG both Arabic and English,[17],[18],[19],[20],[21]. Also references provide sources for WP:SPORTBASIC notability. As well as ongoing career in first tier European league. Was in squad for senior men’s national team for Fifa international friendly according to soccerway. Only Lebanese Goalkeeper to be currently playing in first Tier European League. Amsport12345 (talk) 11:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Playing" (he still hasn't made his debut) for a first-tier European league isn't enough, if said league is not fully professional. Even being called up for the NT isn't enough: the player has to actually play a match for them. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are supporting arguments, but as I mentioned above, sources make the Player notable as per WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC. Amsport12345 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 18 refernces largely in Arabic in the Arabic Wiki article here may scrape through WP:GNG will go through it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article in Arabic isn’t updated. More recent sources in arabic here,[22],[23],[24]. Amsport12345 (talk) 03:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also here [25],[26]. Amsport12345 (talk) 03:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please take some time to inspect the sources if they assert notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラ P 03:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – fails WP:GNG. The sources posted here and in the article all appear to be trivial mentions; not in-depth significant coverage as required by GNG. – Levivich 20:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – five articles written just about the player talking about his career and all of his football career stations, and many more details about him are not trivial mentions as well as all other mentions in references.[27],[28],[29],[30],[31]. Amsport12345 (talk) 04:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the sources in Arabic Amsport12345 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This AfD is a mess. He technically fails WP:NFOOTY, and I am basing my delete !vote off that - players who fail NFOOTY are likely non-notable. He's played, per Soccerway, eight Lebanese Premier League matches. None of the sources in Latin script come close to passing WP:GNG, and the Arabic articles are either match reports or don't appear to load properly? I am not a firm delete because I am not able to assess the quality of the sources in Arabic script, and I kindly ask the closer to take this bias into consideration when closing the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 12:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am basing my vote due to the fact that the player has not played in a professional league with appearances in Lebanon and the Sweden 4th tier which isn't eligible via the WP:NFOOTY standards. The references also seem enough to be routine which confirms my vote as a delete. HawkAussie (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article certainly fails WP:NFOOTY because of the professional league requirement. While it has a tentative claim to WP:GNG, I think it falls short of significant coverage but that could be remedied if the Arabic sources were translated. Having said that, it would seem from the narrative that those sources are not offering much above routine. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PTron

AfDs for this article:

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

small company,$7 million in sales; the references are either trivial announcement of individual products or PR, DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It passes WP:GNG and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is analysis...

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
News 18	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Indian news website which is reliable mentioning about the company and its sell.
Telangana today	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	News paper of Telangana, Indian state, is giving coverage to future plans to expansion by this company.
The economic times	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	ET is of course reliable and independent.
Business line	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Two mentions by business today, first one is quite promotional type but ok in other
The Asian age	N	N	Y	Y	N	Tech columns are not independent in general and it covers product.
The Indian Express and Times of India	N	Y	Y	Y	N	More than company it was about product launched by firm.
Total qualifying sources					4	There might be some other multiple qualifying sources too but not cited in the article.

We don't pass WP:NCORP based on less or more turnover but by Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 13:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable Indian company which has coverage across various newspapers. Telangana Today is a reliable source which describes the company well in detail. Economic Times and The Hindu Business Line describe the company's overseas venture. There are other sources which I did not add to the article such as this tech magazine. More sources can be found. Converting sales revenue from rupees to dollars will make it look like a small company because of India's currency value. Among Indian companies, this is one of the top brands for mobile and electronic accessories. For example, Deccan Chronicle says "PTron, a brand that needs no introduction in the mobile accessories space" [32] and India TV calls it "India's fastest-growing mobile accessories brand" [33].. Ibiza Gnome (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

India has billionaires, and also very large enterprises. We can make some adjustments, but not so far as this.

As for the Deccan Chronicle quote, any newspaper article which includes the line " a brand that needs no introduction in the mobile accessories space" is advertising, even if the nature of public relations is such that newspapers can be induced to write it in a news story. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can make some adjustments, but not so far as this. Which adjustments are you talking about? Is there any specific policy which says only billionaire company can have article? -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed product announcements and added more sources that describe the company in detail. Ibiza Gnome (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If I am being honest it was the chart above. GNG met. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The analysis provided by Harshil169 incorrectly omits to check for "Independent Content" and incorrectly applies the criteria for "Significant". Checking for "Independent" does not simply mean checking that the publisher is "independent" from (i.e. has no corporate links with") the company but that the *content* is also Independent. WP:ORGIND defines this as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So when you see that Harshill69 has indicated that (for example) this news18.com reference as meeting the criteria for "independent" and yet the article is based on an announcement from the company and largely consisting of a quotation from the CEO of the parent company, you know the analysis is bad. So, here is the analysis redone to correctly account for Independent Content, in-depth coverage (of the company) and "significant" coverage (which also states the article must be "Independent of the subject" (i.e. Independent Content):

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
News 18	N	N	Y	Y	N	This reference is entirely based on a Company Announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Telangana today	N	N	Y	Y	N	Entirely based on Interview with CEO or Based on company announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND
BTVI	N	N	Y	Y	N	Entirely based on Company Announcement and Interview with CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND.
The Economic Times	N	N	Y	Y	N	ET is of course reliable and independent but the article is neither Significant nor Independent, based as it is on a company announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Business line	N	N	Y	Y	N	Two mentions by business today, first one is based on a company PR announcement and the second is also based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
Silicon India	N	N	Y	Y	N	This article is simply PR, fails WP:ORGIND.
Digital Terminal	N	N	Y	Y	N	This article is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
SME World	N	N	Y	Y	N	This article is based on "an email interaction" (i.e. an interview) with the CEO and fails WP:ORGIND
Total qualifying sources					0	Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability

Keep the article passes WP:GNG making an SNG - NCORP WP:CORPDEPTH argument moot. Actual policies WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD WP:NOTPAPER Wm335td (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Response How can an article pass if there are no sources that meet the requirements for establishing notability? There is a common misconception that NCORP is *different* than GNG but it is not - NCORP explains GNG in the context of companies/organizations. "Wishing" NCORP as irrelevant is naive and unsupported by our own guidelines. If you wish to argue for keep then the onus is on you to put up references that establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, company lacks in-depth sources to pass WP:GNG, balant use of platform. Meeanaya (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - There are a couple of decent sources like Telangana Today and ET which have significant coverage of the company. Dee 03 16:37, 11 November 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 with just a tad of withdraw ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew V. Corry

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

Simply being an ambassador for a country does not confer automatic notability - see WP:DIPLOMAT. As per WP:ANYBIO the individual requires significant coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. The first reference is merely a record of his birth and death and the second reference is a summary of his diplomatic career. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I wish to withdraw this nomination as sufficient secondary sources have now been provided which satisifies WP:ANYBIO. Dan arndt (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 03:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I said when I deleted the prod, there are plenty of articles about Ambassadors where the only information in the article was about their Ambassadorship, including one of the gentlemen he replaced. So, based on your argument, you should go through every ambassador article from every country where that is the only thing discussed and then have them deleted. Should take you a while.

Besides, in my edit summary I mentioned it might be a nice thing to give an article marked with a stub more than approximately 24 hours for editors to expand the article. Since I figured you were going to be quick to nominate this for AfD, I delayed taking my medication and eating for the first time in more than 24 hours to fill in some of his career history. You have an issue with the citation? Fix it. Wiki is a collaborative effort. I’ve never cited a reference from Google Books before. If you think it can be done better, than feel free to change it to the way you would like to see it presented. Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Arguing just because other similar articles exist is not sufficient grounds for retaining the article. Most of the other articles you point to have have provided significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources & the individuals are notable for reasons other than being an ambassador. I'd strongly suggest that you just focus on the article at hand. It is not my responsibility to go through every ambassador article from every country and I don't intend to do so.

Secondly, the reason I placed the PROD notice was to enable you seven days in which to improve the article. By deleting the PROD notice without making any improvements the only alternative, as per your own suggestion was to take the article to an AfD - which I have done.

Thirdly it is not my responsibility to fix the citations that you have provided. I actually tried to check the source but am unable to locate which Department of State newsletter you are relying upon. Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added 3 more sources. To find digital sources about a subject who was born in 1904 is not easy as it was pre internet era. I believe there are more paper sources out there besides what were added. 11:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - thoroughly sourced and clearly passes WP:GNG. Thank you Postcard Cathy for taking the time to improve the article. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 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) 09:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hutong School

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

Yet another unremarkable language school with no claims to notability, failing to meet WP:GNG. It is clearly a business, rather than a public educational establishment, and should therefore meet WP:NCORP, which it fails to do. Reviews/awards from local newspapers do not constitute in-depth coverage. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for small companies to promote their businesses,WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Iamchinahand (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another spammy article of a language school of no significance. -Zanhe (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously promotion for the high-street-style language cram school. Sources are mainly the school's own site, language travel sites, or sites of limited importance. Nothing which confers notability per WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unremarkable language school with no claims to notability, failing to meet WP:GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 08:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Raisa Räisänen

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

does not meet Crimeand OneEvent--no apparently lasting significance. DGG ( talk ) 01:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Police are still, after 20 years, investigating leads and this has frequently been mentioned in national news. --Arla (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep continuous in-depth coverage in national press for 20 years. Sources out there are well above WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article in Finnish Wikipedia lists thirty sources. All of the sources (except Find a Grave) are major Finnish newspapers and news sites, and are not just trivial mentions, so the subject of the page meets WP:SIGCOV. Not a very active user (talk) 05:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of continous in depth coverage. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rescue Me characters

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

WP:FANCRUFT pure and simple. Unsourced since 2011, not an iota of out-of-universe context. Lists of characters are not always needed to gain a better encyclopedic understanding of the topic, and Rescue Me (American TV series) gives sufficient coverage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dexter's Laboratory characters as proof that an article can exist just fine without a character sheet. We are not TV Tropes. If any of this information somehow does need to be salvaged, then it can be merged into the parent article or just WP:TNT and start over. Because as it stands, all the article is doing is turning into some big Katamari Damacy blob of ever-growing fanwank. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Rescue Me (American TV series)#Cast and characters, which does cover the sufficient contents. ミラ P 03:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no inherent need for a character lists. This is an overly bloated mess. The main article and episode lists should be able to handle all necessary context. TTN (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Communist Party of New Zealand. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Communist Party

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

No evidence of notability. No citations to show the party even exists. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect to Communist Party of New Zealand as a plausible search term. No evidence that a group of this exact name ever existed.-gadfium 08:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. It seems interchangeable with Communist Party of New Zealand [34]. I can find nothing notable for the referenced 2020 election party and would put that in the “Not Yet” category. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Redirect as per Dushan Jugum NealeFamily (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to show notability, and that it is (or is no longer) (overly) promotional Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deliv

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

Likely fails WP:NCORP. Run-of-the-mill company. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Treadgold, Alan; Reynolds, Jonathan (2016). Navigating the New Retail Landscape: A Guide for Business Leaders. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-19-874575-4. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Halzack, Sarah (2014-12-12). "Will the same-day delivery war be won by a competitor you've never heard of?". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Rao, Leena (2017-05-10). "This Startup Wants to Deliver You Your Groceries". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Griswold, Alison (2019-09-19). "What happens when delivery startups use employees instead of contractors". Quartz. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Bose, Nandita (2019-02-11). O'Connell, Vanessa; Tobin, Edward (eds.). "Exclusive: Walmart, Google-backed Deliv end online grocery partnership". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Bose, Nandita (2018-12-13). Benkoe, Jeffrey (ed.). "Deliv signs up 20 new U.S. retailers for same-day delivery". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Carey, Nick; Saito, Mari (2016-02-24). Cooney, Peter (ed.). "With Deliv investment, UPS hopes to study same-day delivery market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Said, Carolyn (2019-06-22). "Deliv switching California couriers to employees — 'start of a wave'". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Gagliordi, Natalie (2017-08-16). "UPS-backed logistics startup Deliv expands print delivery service". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Manners-Bell, John; Lyon, Ken (2019). The Logistics and Supply Chain Innovation Handbook: Disruptive Technologies and New Business Models. London: Kogan Page. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-78966-008-1. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Goodison, Donna (2013-12-14). "Get your mall buys delivered". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Hofmann, Erik; Osterwalder, Florin (2017-11-04). "Third-Party Logistics Providers in the Digital Age:Towards a New Competitive Arena?" (PDF). Logistics. MDPI: 14–15. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Lacy, Peter; Rutqvist, Jakob (2015). Waste to Wealth: The Circular Economy Advantage. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-137-53068-4. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Bensinger, Greg; Stevens, Laura (2016-02-24). "Same-Day Delivery Startup Deliv to Get Funding Boost From UPS". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-24. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Nassauer, Sarah (2018-10-30). "Startup Deliv Raises $40 Million in Home-Delivery Arms Race". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.

Sources with quotes

Treadgold, Alan; Reynolds, Jonathan (2016). Navigating the New Retail Landscape: A Guide for Business Leaders. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-19-874575-4. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Case 8.3 Deliv—Crowdsourced Same Day Fulfillment

Deliv (deliv.co, 'Delivery. Shortened'), based in California, aims to solve the so-called last mile delivery challenge with a crowdsourced model by which it connects retailers to self-employed local drivers that act as same day delivery drivers for purchases made in-store or online (then delivered to the store) with a wide and growing range of highly credible non-food retailers. Retailers using Deliv include Bloomingdales, Brooks Brothers, Crate & Barrel, Macy's, Nordstrom, Staples, Williams Sonoma, and Walgreens. Deliv drivers only need to have 'a vehicle, a smart phone, and a friendly, professional work ethic'.¹⁶ Deliv began operating in 2012 in the San Francisco Bay Area and has subsequently expanded into other major metro areas across the US, including Chicago, New York, Seattle, Miami, and Los Angeles.¹⁷ In mid-2014, Deliv joined IBM's Smarter Commerce ecosystem of, at the time, '41 certified pre-built partner solutions with integrated cloud, mobile and social capabilities'.¹⁸ Several major shopping centre owners, including Simon and Westfield, partner with Deliv so that the service is available to traders in their centres. The Deliv operation is 'white labelled' so that the delivery service does not intrude into the relationship between the retailer and the shopper.
Halzack, Sarah (2014-12-12). "Will the same-day delivery war be won by a competitor you've never heard of?". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
When Daphne Carmeli launched Deliv in 2012, her pitch for a same-day delivery service didn’t often get the warmest reception. “The stupidest idea ever,” she was told.
...
In other words, customization is king here. Deliv’s model is geared toward a generation of shoppers who want service that is both predictable and flexible. It’s designed to accommodate a shopper who wants his purchase to arrive in the two-hour window between his haircut appointment and his kid’s soccer game. It’s for the shopper who schedules a 6 p.m. delivery, but needs to push it back to 6:30 at the last minute when a conference call at the office runs late.
Deliv is vying with Goliath-size competitors for same-day delivery supremacy. Amazon.com is racing to build out a vast network of distribution centers to support its same-day efforts in more than a dozen markets. (Jeffrey P. Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon, owns The Washington Post.) Google has been buying up delivery vehicles and hiring workers for its Google Express offering, which executives are reportedly prepared to spend $500 million to expand.
But Deliv is not making such massive investments. Its model doesn’t require them.
Deliv relies on a crowdsourced network of on-demand drivers, a set-up that carries few expenses: no inventory, no fleet of vehicles, no fuel costs and a small permanent workforce. And while larger rivals are trying to entice consumers directly, Deliv is selling to retailers and mall operators. The stores and malls then decide for themselves how much to charge shoppers for the service.
Rao, Leena (2017-05-10). "This Startup Wants to Deliver You Your Groceries". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
For the past five years, Deliv has focused on handling same-day delivery for big box retailers like Macy’s, PetSmart, and Best Buy. Now the Silicon Valley upstart is eyeing food companies and grocers.
On Wednesday, Deliv debuted a new service called Deliv Fresh, a delivery service for grocers, meal startups, and other food companies that want to get their perishable food to customers the same day that it is ordered. The new push is a natural extension of the company’s existing logistics network that can quickly get products from a warehouse to a customer’s doorstep, explained CEO Daphne Carmeli.
...
Deliv uses contract drivers, who pick up orders from stores and then drop them off with customers. The company, backed by shipping giant UPS (“UPS”), operates in 100 U.S. cities on behalf of 4,000 retail partners. Deliv makes money by charging these retail partners a fee for its services. Carmeli declined to reveal revenue but said that sales have grown at least 300% over the past two years.
...
Deliv’s new service competes against Instacart, Amazon.com (“AMZN”), and the delivery services operated by the grocery companies themselves such as Safeway.
Griswold, Alison (2019-09-19). "What happens when delivery startups use employees instead of contractors". Quartz. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
He spent a few years ferrying packages around Sacramento, California, for Amazon before switching to Deliv, a mid-sized same-day delivery startup, in late 2017. Deliv makes deliveries for retailers like Macy’s and Walgreens, and MacLeod liked that about it. He liked seeing the same people every day and chatting with them when he picked up packages. He liked it a lot more than dashing around with a trunk full of Amazon boxes.
So when Deliv announced earlier this year that it would change its model in California from independent contractors to employees—including a limited number of full-time driver positions—MacLeod knew he wanted a full-time slot.
...
Deliv founder and CEO Daphne Carmeli wants to be clear: Deliv is not an on-demand company. The company was founded in 2012 in Menlo Park and has raised $85 million—peanuts by today’s standards—from investors including Alphabet, General Motors, and, as it happens, UPS. “Our world is about scheduled delivery,” Carmeli says. “The insight that we had is predictability trumps speed. Because what you really want to avoid is the dreaded yellow sticky on your door that you’ve missed your delivery.”
Focusing on scheduled delivery means Deliv has always done things differently from other delivery companies, like have its couriers work shifts. Even when they were contractors, Deliv workers like MacLeod had to log onto their app every Tuesday night to choose hours for the following week. Signing on too late could mean getting the least popular shift or no hours at all. Deliv also designed routes that focused on having drivers deliver the most packages over a set period of time. Carmeli likens Deliv to an airport shuttle: it takes longer than a taxi, but moves a lot more people.
Bose, Nandita (2019-02-11). O'Connell, Vanessa; Tobin, Edward (eds.). "Exclusive: Walmart, Google-backed Deliv end online grocery partnership". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Walmart Inc and logistics firm Deliv pulled the plug on a key same-day grocery delivery partnership, dealing a setback in the retailer’s race against rival Amazon.com Inc to deliver groceries to customers’ homes.
...
Deliv, which was one of Walmart’s earliest partners with pilot programs in Miami and San Jose, served the retailer with a 90-day termination notice, and the two companies stopped working with each other in late January, according to two people familiar with the situation.
...
People familiar with the Walmart partnership with Deliv said the Deliv drivers had to frequently wait 40 minutes or more to collect grocery orders when they showed up at the store. One reason for that, they said, is because Walmart gives a priority to customers over delivery drivers during regular hours, which complicated the partnership.
...
Deliv offers scheduled same-day deliveries through gig drivers, a model which can work well with faster order processing and a better ability to predict demand and robust volumes.
Deliv operates in 1,400 U.S. cities, tapping into networks of local freelance drivers to deliver packages same-day for a fee for a range of retailers, from Home Depot Inc to Kohl’s Corp.
In October, it raised $40 million in a new round of financing from investors, including Alphabet Inc’s Google and United Parcel Service. In December, it signed up 20 new U.S. retailers including Nike Inc and Nordstrom.
Bose, Nandita (2018-12-13). Benkoe, Jeffrey (ed.). "Deliv signs up 20 new U.S. retailers for same-day delivery". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Deliv Inc, which uses contract drivers to deliver online orders from stores and malls for a fee, said on Thursday it is partnering with twenty new U.S. retailers including Nike and Bed Bath & Beyond as demand for same-day delivery surges.
Deliv handles last-mile delivery to homes and businesses, for malls and retailers like Walmart Inc, Macy’s Inc, Kohl’s Corp and Best Buy Co Inc.
...
Deliv serves traditional brick-and-mortar retailers with contract drivers using Uber-like crowd-sourcing technology as more retailers use their stores as distribution centers for online orders. The strategy allows them to compete with the likes of Amazon Inc, which offer delivery in as little as an hour.
Carey, Nick; Saito, Mari (2016-02-24). Cooney, Peter (ed.). "With Deliv investment, UPS hopes to study same-day delivery market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
United Parcel Service Inc is investing in Deliv Inc as a way to study the same-day delivery startup’s business model and see how that segment of the market evolves, the world’s largest package delivery company said on Wednesday.
...
UPS will lead a $28 million funding round for Palo Alto, California-based Deliv, although the company would not disclose the size of its investment. UPS will take a minority stake in Deliv and sit in on board meetings.
Deliv is an Uber-like startup that uses a fleet of contract drivers, thus avoiding healthcare and other costs, to pick up online orders from stores and malls for a fee.
...
Satish Jindel, a logistics consultant and president of SJ Consulting Group, described it as a “smart move” for UPS.
“For what is a few nickels and dimes for them, they get to see how this model works, and if there’s any validity to it they can apply it in their own business,” Jindel said. “But for Deliv, this is like letting the fox in the henhouse by allowing UPS to see how their model works.”
Said, Carolyn (2019-06-22). "Deliv switching California couriers to employees — 'start of a wave'". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
San Jose resident Lynne Richardson drives her Volkswagen Jetta around the South Bay to pick up cupcakes, flowers, wine, electronics and clothes from stores and bring them to consumers via Deliv, a Menlo Park startup that works with stores to get goods to people the same day they buy them.
...
Starting in August, she’ll have similar tasks, pay and scheduling but with a crucial difference: She will be an employee with benefits such as coverage for workers’ compensation and unemployment, paid sick leave, access to a retirement plan and health/dental/vision coverage.
...
Deliv appears to be the first prominent California gig company to change its business model — but it won’t be the last.
...
“I think it very well could be the start of a wave,” said Tiffanny Brosnan, a partner at Costa Mesa (Orange County) law firm Snell & Wilmer who specializes in employment law for management.
Gagliordi, Natalie (2017-08-16). "UPS-backed logistics startup Deliv expands print delivery service". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Same-day delivery startup Deliv is expanding its on-demand print service for small businesses.
Deliv is described as an asset-free logistics network, meaning it doesn't sell anything via a marketplace. Instead, Deliv offers its crowdsourced drivers to retailers and e-commerce companies to make last-mile deliveries.
UPS invested in Deliv's $28 million Series B round in February 2016 and in doing so gained a seat on the startup's board of directors. The shipping giant also used the investment as a way to peak behind the curtain at Deliv's same-day delivery operations.
With this latest collaboration, Deliv is serving as the delivery arm for UPS' small business clients, specifically when it comes to their print orders. The on-demand print partnership kicked off with a pilot back in January and is now expanding to all of Deliv's 19 markets nationwide, or approximately 977 UPS stores.
Manners-Bell, John; Lyon, Ken (2019). The Logistics and Supply Chain Innovation Handbook: Disruptive Technologies and New Business Models. London: Kogan Page. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-78966-008-1. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The book notes:
On a far bigger scale was UPS's US $28 million investment in Deliv in February 2016, one of the best-known on-demand delivery networks. Working specifically within the US e-retail and multichannel sector, Deliv provides the platform with same-day crowd-shipping delivery solutions. Among its customers it names Best Buy, Walgreens, Macy's and Office Depot.
...
The investment also gave UPS a seat on the Deliv board, which critically allows the company to understand its operations. Beyond this, UPS has also rolled out Deliv services to its small- and medium-sized customers through its UPS store network. This has proved particularly popular for print on-demand customers looking for the rush delivery of orders.
Goodison, Donna (2013-12-14). "Get your mall buys delivered". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
California startup Deliv has jumped into the same-day delivery fray, offering the service to malls through crowdsourced drivers.
...
Founded in 2012, Deliv has raised $7.8 million in venture capital funding from companies including Cambridge’s General Catalyst Partners.
Deliv generates revenue from fees paid by the retailers and malls — currently $5 to $15 per delivery — who can opt to charge customers or offer free deliveries, according to founder and CEO Daphne Carmeli.
Hofmann, Erik; Osterwalder, Florin (2017-11-04). "Third-Party Logistics Providers in the Digital Age:Towards a New Competitive Arena?" (PDF). Logistics. MDPI: 14–15. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Deliv is a start-up focusing on crowd-sourced last mile deliveries. Deliv uses private drivers with cars to pick up and deliver shipments from retailers and small stores to consumers. This allows drivers to earn money for delivery and enables retailers and stores to establish a home delivery system without their own infrastructure (through a partnership with Deliv). Communication is offered via an online platform and mobile applications on smartphones.
The article also notes:
A first indication of the increasing professional significance of C2C transport sharing platforms can be seen in the business model of Deliv, which uses private drivers for B2C home deliveries from stores.
Lacy, Peter; Rutqvist, Jakob (2015). Waste to Wealth: The Circular Economy Advantage. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-137-53068-4. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The book notes: <bblockquote>Deliv is a platform that lets retailers use "crowdshipping" as an alternative to traditional delivery services. Deliv partners with mall operators and retailers to provide a low-cost, high-quality, same-day delivery service via its quality-controlled fleet of crowdsourced drivers. Deliv is essentially the Uber for retail delivery.
Bensinger, Greg; Stevens, Laura (2016-02-24). "Same-Day Delivery Startup Deliv to Get Funding Boost From UPS". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-24. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Same-day delivery startup Deliv Inc. is getting a funding boost from an unlikely source: United Parcel Service Inc.
The Palo Alto, Calif., company fetches goods from brick-and-mortar retailers to bring them to customers’ homes nearby, one of a crop of such firms hoping to win the day in so-called last-mile delivery, typically the priciest leg of an order’s journey.
Deliv is set to announce the $28 million funding round, led by UPS, on Wednesday with existing investors including Upfront Ventures, RPM Ventures and mall operators General Growth Properties Inc. and Simon Property Group Inc., among others. This round brings the four-year-old company’s total funding to $40.5 million, though a valuation couldn’t be learned.
Nassauer, Sarah (2018-10-30). "Startup Deliv Raises $40 Million in Home-Delivery Arms Race". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Deliv Inc., a startup that provides same-day deliveries for Walmart Inc. and other retailers, has raised $40 million in funding that values the company at less than $500 million, according to a person familiar with the matter.
...
New investors in the latest Deliv funding include Alphabet Inc. ’s Google and rental-car firm Enterprise Holdings, Deliv said. Previously Deliv raised over $40 million from investors including mall owner GGP Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. at a $71.6 million valuation, according to PitchBook Data Inc. The latest round values Deliv at several hundred million dollars, the person said.
Deliv, based in Menlo Park, Calif., has carved out a niche in the competitive landscape by not emphasizing its brand with shoppers, instead working behind the scenes to provide logistics software along with a crowdsourced fleet of drivers to make deliveries.

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

Cunard (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and did not find it promotional. I found it to be a factual article and to be neutrally written. I can remove any promotional content from the article if it is pointed out.
Cunard (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I made a minor change to the article to neutralize it. The current version does not seem promotional to me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough notable sources such as WSJ and TechCrunch and service in 1400 cities is significant to be notable. Also, article does not sound promotional and only seem to stick to most notable facts.Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:12, 31 October 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.

^ https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/05/29/usoa-408-ron-1.cnn

[1] ttps://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2019/05/29/usoa-408-ron-1.cnn

[1]