< 15 August	17 August >

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taleeb Noormohamed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously proposed for deletion about eight years ago. Editors elected for a borderline keep. It does not seem the article has improved since. It relies predominantly on dead links, primarily to promotional and other WP:ROUTINE coverage. Usually, candidates for office and prior unsuccessful candidates are not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Notwithstanding that, a politician may be sufficiently notable if they meet WP:GNG. Of course, usually routine coverage does not count against towards that. I note that this article includes buzzwords, and has been marked as reading like a resume since February 2017. If the community agrees it does not meet our general notability guidelines a redirect to the relevant list of 2019 candidates may be appropriate. Wherever the discussion goes, I think it is worth having. I find these sort of discussions, seem to come up every election cycle.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I disagree with the initial assessment. The existing references, albeit dead, show that the subject meets WP:GNG as they are significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are some ROUTINE entries, but not all are. The more recent references just expand the concept. As a candidate, the subject does not meet POLITICIAN though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To be fair, the problem here isn't really that the references are dead links — we are allowed to cite stuff to unlinked print-only coverage, so dead links aren't the end of the world if the content can be recovered from an archiving database like ProQuest or newspapers.com. Rather, what's more definitive here is that virtually all of the reliable sources in the article are covering him specifically in the context of the candidacy itself — everything else the article says about him, in terms of trying to demonstrate that he had preexisting notability for other reasons before being an unsuccessful election candidate, is parked on primary sources (and a local-interest magazine listicle) rather than reliable or notability-making ones. And no, the fact that a few pieces of campaign coverage happen to exist does not in and of itself hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, either — every candidate in every election can always show a few pieces of campaign coverage, so if that were all it took to exempt a candidate from NPOL then NPOL would be inherently meaningless since no candidate would ever have to meet it anymore. So to actually qualify for an article, what he would have to show is a lot more reliable sources covering him in the context of his business career itself, and that's not what these sources are. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An interesting person who has been engaged in the community, but nothing suggests the subject passes WP:GNG. The existing sources do not mention the subject or include either quotes or passing references. The campaign coverage is not sufficient to pass WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate. While I believe campaign coverage can assist in determining the notability of a subject, but the usual expectation is that a subject must pass WP:GNG prior to or independently of any campaign coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons given in the nomination. I know plenty of people that are engaged in my community, but that doesn't mean they deserve a Wikipedia entry (WP:GNG). Tkbrett (✉) 22:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons given above. He is not notable. EncycloCanuck (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails Notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been noted on the Political parties and politicians in Canada project talk page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because We Care: A Benefit for the Children's Hospital of Orange County[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable album. I would support a redirect or merge to the hospital, but it doesn't have an article and I'm not sure if it is notable. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that the album actually has an AllMusic review: [1], and the hospital got some notable bands to help out. A fine effort by everyone involved, but the album is a minor curiosity and the one review at AllMusic doesn't quite add up to enough notability. I can find nothing else beyond typical directory listings and some periodic efforts by the hospital to sell more copies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge : It will be better Andy Kearns (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with what? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Kearns has been blocked and also uses the names Rasi56 and Hafiz ansi among others. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking comments by blocked sock puppet. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of coverage. Cute cover art though. Aoba47 (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to too little coverage to demonstrate notability DocumentError (talk) 06:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above , not notable little coverage . Alex-h (talk) 12:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. A charity benefit album can be (or become) notable - see Susan Boyle's Music for a Millennium Celebration, Sounds of West Lothian - but it has to be more than this compilation of run of the mill bands with a couple of notable bands performing their work live. Bearian (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This article is sitting in a little bit of a grey area with respect to notability. The argument to keep rests on the subject meeting the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities. However, that section is essentially a summary of WP:NSPORTS, not an independent guideline; so I'm going to defer to what NSPORTS has to say, which is: "subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". If that's what we apply here, notability clearly is not demonstrated, and so I am closing this as "delete". If people want to haggle over the potentially ambiguous differences in those pages, this isn't the place. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

StrongSide (video game player)[edit]

This project page was nominated for deletion on 27 October 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This project page was nominated for deletion on 31 December 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

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

This has gone through two previous AfDs, neither with any clear consensus. I'm inclined to argue that Cavanaugh is not notable due to a lack of significant sources about him specifically; in searching for materials I found some more prominent coverage in sources like [2][3] but I don't think they rate being 'independent' (he was signed with an MLG umbrella team, and he worked at Prima right around the time of the interview.) As such, leaving aside the question of whether he'd meet WP:ATHLETE, I don't think he meets WP:GNG as required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable game player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reading through the past two AFD, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities is clearly met: "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition". [4] and elsewhere do mention him being in these tournaments, notable professional gaming teams he has been on, all of which have their own articles by the way, and he is mentioned elsewhere although briefly. Dream Focus 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The second part of that notability guideline is and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There's no indication of significant coverage of the article subject alone, hence why I listed it. (I'd also frankly argue about applying "major" to most professional esports competitions, as until recently and still for many games they do not generate anything like the attention and press of 'traditional' sports. What's "major" for esports would not be considered "major" for a cricket player or football player, etc.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The "presumed to be notable" is all that matters. As for how popular video game tournaments are, [5] " The 2018 Mid-Season Invitational tournament, a League of Legends tournament hosted by Germany and France, was the most watched eSports event, with a recorded 60 million unique viewers." Not sure how many people watched the Halo tournaments though. But you can't just dismiss it claiming it can't compare with traditional sports. Dream Focus 15:55, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Dream Focus above. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough coverage to show that he meets WP:GNG and as there are no criteria for gamers it is almost impossible to apply Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities as there is no international federation to classify competitions as being major. The tournaments he participated in are not in the list found by Dream Focus. And just as a reminder notability is not inherited so having been on a team that is bluelinked doesn't make him notable. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dom from Paris. There is not enough coverage on this individual to pass the WP:GNG, as the few reliable sources that do mention him are extremely brief and passing mentions. And, Dom puts forth a strong argument as to why the article can not be kept on the basis of Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release Me (Tevlo song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. Won a non-notable competition hosted by a music software company to produce a demo record using its software, and that's about it. No indication that this song has been talked about anywhere except on the software company's website and on the usual music streaming sites like Soundcloud and YouTube. Richard3120 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's reasoning, or Speedy Delete per WP:A9 because the singer does not have an article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete speedy deleteAndy Kearns (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote by sock puppet, now blocked GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet WP:NSONG - can't redirect because the artists mentioned, Tevlo and Veela, don't have articles and the FL Studio article does not mention the song - no evidence of notability; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2J The Richest[edit]

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

Non notable musician fails WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search shows nothing to help the subject meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO on the first five pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP A quick search shows this subject meet WP:GNG & WP:MUSICBIO on the first five pages. Lele Wills (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lele1231 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Striking comment from newly created account and obvious copy of above comment. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No adequate sourcing or coverage to pass WP:MUSICBIO. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bose Soundbar[edit]

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

Advertisement, fails WP:GNG Störm (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, +1 Störm. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep as there seems to be no support for the proposal. Snow is normal in this place. (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed United States purchase of Greenland[edit]

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

The article is misleading. THere is no proposal per reporting. Just Donald Trump asking his aides into looking for some. WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article details internal proposals of 1868 and 2019, and an external proposal of 1946. A series of events spanning a time period of 150 years and covered by sources dated over a period of 30 years (the earliest direct source in the article is a 1991 report by the Associated Press [6], the most recent is a 2019 report by BBC News [7]) are not, by any logical reading, covered by WP:NOTNEWS.
"THere is no proposal per reporting. Just Donald Trump asking his aides into looking for some." The most recent proposal, by Trump, is three sentences of a six paragraph article. This is like deleting Royal Family of the United Kingdom because Archie Mountbatten-Windsor happens to be mentioned in it. Chetsford (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You have a section called 2019 proposal. That is totally misleading. THE WSJ says no such thing. What we have here is an example of WP:COATRACK. A misleading notion attached to some prior history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, I don't have any sections at all; Wikipedia articles are created, maintained, and owned by the Wikipedia community. Second, the section is called "Reported 2019 proposal". Third, deletion is not cleanup. Chetsford (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is clearly about several proposed purchases, both of which appear to be notable Seasider91 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The US has made and expressed interest in acquisition, more than once. It is widely reported there is currently interest in acquiring. Claiming that is misleading and needs to be deleted is disingenuous. If the US is to acquire the territory, your minor ~~whining~~ quibble trying to censor an article that mentions it on wiki, won't stop the us from making itself better, if such an acquisition improves the situation for the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.12.107 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is "whining". The nom filed an AfD on legitimate, policy-based grounds and it can be discussed without making accusations against each other. Chetsford (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

changed to 'quibble' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.12.107 (talk • contribs)

Keep multiple attempts have been made to purchase it, and they clearly meets the GNG. + as stated by Chetsford, deletion is not cleanup: if a section is misleading, and you have reliable sources on your side go and fix it then. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GEOSCOPE. This proposal has received widespread international coverage. See [8][9][10][11] —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 20:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 'deletion is not cleanup' articles are persuasive - this is clearly a notable topic, WP:TNT does not seem to apply, and concerns about the current content can be addressed by editing not deletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At first blush, this looks like WP:COATRACK, as WilliamJE says. But really, even ignoring the current claim, the 1867 and 1946 proposals are sufficient to make this notable. They are interesting, worthy of historical study, well-documented, and covered in multiple reliable sources. In short, it's a great candidate for an article. We'll need to be careful that it isn't used to coat-rack in Trump ridicule, but that's an entirely different question. The fact that it's only coming to light as a result of the Trump thing does not disqualify it from being as a notable and article-worthy subject. TJRC (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily, then, this isn't news. And the only thing that is coming to light here is that Wikipedia didn't have any of it, not even as a result of the great tussle over bilateral relations articles years ago. History books have this. Indeed, they have it far better than the newspapers being cited here, do. I recommend the history books, as Gustav Rasmussen's response to the U.S. via its ambassador, which most definitely is known, is in them. ☺ As is a lot more besides. This does not even mention Henrik Kauffmann yet. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to a more sophisticated, timeless, scholarly, title (even a plural would be an improvement, as there have been more than one proposals). We should not necessarily create articles, nor name them, based on the White House's latest eructation and inevitable frenzied news spike that follows. Trump will inevitably tweet something next week that will cause a thousand newspapers to rabidly print iterations of the same story to get those precious mouse clicks, and Wikipedia will inevitably lurch to keep up with the drivel. Let's keep a broad picture in view. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sage counsel. Chetsford (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is nothing news-like about the 1867 or 1946 proposals to purchase the territory. The sources regarding the former proposal date from 2015 and 1940. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep though possibly re-title per Animalparty. That this isn't a one-off Trump obsession, but something the U.S. has seriously pursued before, surely makes this articleworthy. Trivialist (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a long history of American attempts to aquire Greenland going back over 150 years. It has never fired the american mind as Cuba and a few such places, but it might soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Vatelot[edit]

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

I'm not entirely sure that the subject passes WP:GNG, given that the references are mostly passing references focused on the winery that he bought or primary sources, such as patent applications. I also have WP:PROMO concerns given that both this article and The French Wiki article were both created this month by the same SPA, who has conveniently left out the only real coverage that I could find of Yves Vatelot-which was that he was sued for false advertising by the Union of Grand Cru Classés. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and agree with Nom: There is too many issues that could only be solved by blowing the article up and starting all over again, if notability could be established. A big red flag, other than the essay writing, is the advertising that violates policy. "[T]he vineyard regained its place among the best Bordeaux wine producers" that is not sourced and is clear wikipuffery. The "Early career section" is not sourced and without that it screams original research. Part of the In the consumer electronics industry section is unsourced so more WP:OR. The article red links a section heading, a disambiguation page, and again the same red link as the heading that is also unsourced. Although WP:TNT "may not usually be a good argument for AFD" I observed all of the above without getting to the sources so would offer that an only solution is to "get rid of the promotional junk". Otr500 (talk) 22:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After note: This is a BLP and a mandated "higher standard", in my opinion, requires more than can just be corrected with editing what is presently in the article. Otr500 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.None of the references serve to establish that this man is notable. And as noted it is clearly a paid-for lump of promotional guff; editing out the bubbles would leave almost nothing. OFF WITH IT'S HEAD!TheLongTone (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked out the French sources and I'm sitting on the fence here. A good part of them don't actually mention the subject but the sale of Chateau Lascombe to an insurance company and the claim "In 2001, with the American international investment firm Colony Capital, Yves Vatelot bought Château Lascombes" seems to be an embellishment of the truth, he had an undisclosed participation in the operation. According to this source [12] he was appointed as a consultant for the domaine but not General manager nor technical manager nor oenologist. So the claim "With the help of Michel Rolland and Dr. Alain Raynaud..." that gives the impression that he was the driving force behind the success is more than misleading. This source [13] says that the chateau was put back on the rails by Dominique Befve and no mention of Vatelot. There are no mentions of Valelot's particpation in the Buffalo Grill operation in any reliable sources but he was named on the Conseil de surveillance [14] as a representative of the shareholders. I am on the fence because of these sources [15] [16] [17] [18]. He saw his fine in the Reignac advertising affaire reduced to a suspended one of €8,000 from €15,000. The advert was seen as being very cheeky and thumbed its nose at the Grand Cru Classés and went a bit too far in legal terms. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to University of Ottawa. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Ottawa Library[edit]

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

Can't find any independent sources, and doubt it is independently notable from the university it belongs to. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC) (article has been significantly updated since nom. See comment ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not notable for stand alone article. Merge to University of Ottawa. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with CASSIOPEIA. The subject is not notable enough. It needs to be merged with the main University of Ottawa article. Lefcentreright (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
merge for now. There probably is enough available for a separate article, butt there's no point in having one until someone wants to write it more substantially. DGG ( talk ) 05:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The content is modified with more description added. As a beginner, I thought that I could create a page first and then add and modify along the way. Yooylee 30 (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC)creator of the page[reply]
Comment Following the recent changes to the page, I'm somewhat on the fence now. It's a bit reliant on primary sources, but not to the extent I'd delete it. ~~ OxonAlex - talk (nom) 15:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I agree with CASSIOPEIA. It's better to merge to University of Ottawa the article is not notable as is now Alex-h (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Comment, I tried to add more third party sources to make the article more notable. Yooylee 30 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No result. OP indeffed as a sock; nobody else has offered a substantive opinion. As such this AfD is irrelevant to the future fate of the article, and should be ignored entirely. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hridi Haq[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

unsourced, not notable enough to be here! Rasi56 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Rasi56 ~~please submit only one !vote - your nomination serves as a "delete", and you then submitted a second "delete".~~ Netherzone (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment #2 to Rasi56 - in Articles for Deletion, we always try to preserve all actions/edits in the debate. Instead of deleting a mistake (as you did in your second !vote), use the "strike out" code to cross-out a mistake or a change of opinion. Only cross out your edits you wish to change, not others. That way the conversation and debate is preserved. See here to see how it is done. Hope that is helpful info. Netherzone (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: bro you told me that I voted two times,thats why I removed duplicat vote. I did nothing or strike out this, this strike I see now after your mention. But what can I do now please tell me.-Rasi56 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Live and learn. Only the perfect don't make mistakes which narrows the candidates to "zero". When my cursor crossed your user name I saw the perfect explanation "Human make mistakes, I'm not different from others!", and that certainly includes me. Otr500 (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note User:Rasi56 and Andy Kearns have been blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Kearns--DBigXrayᗙ 12:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powstro[edit]

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

Not seeing more then trivial mentions of a minor accessory supplier. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually not trivial. The shop of eBay is full of Powstro chargers. And even if it were, is that already a reason to erase the article? --Handroid7 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They actually have 100000 followers on AliBaba. --Handroid7 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Fails GNG – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 15:00, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable company. Fails notability guidelines for firms. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 15:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject fails WP:NCORP. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to not be notable at all. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Move to my user namespace then. No harm done. --Handroid7 (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: Because had I created that article as a draft or in my own user namespace in first place, that would not have made any difference, but it would never have been nominated for deletion. And from the perspective of others, it does not make a difference whether deleted or moved to my own user namespace. --Handroid7 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG Kdm852 (talk) 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They have over 100000 followers on their AliBaba shop. --Handroid7 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The sources provided by those arguing to keep are not terribly convincing, but the OP has been indeffed as a sock, and the only other "delete" !voter had provided no substantive argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Kabir[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, not enough notable Rasi56 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rasi56 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Rasi56 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable enough. Lefcentreright (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, considering he seems to have been in the forefront of defending media freedom (e.g. [19]), having had both his legs broken in the process [20] I'd say there were enough English language online sources to support an article. Sionk (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Sionk: first link you gave "Nurul Kabir to continue his defence on Dec 20" it doesn’t prove his notability. second link, Asia Media forum award is non-notable award,there have thousand of this type o awards. If it notable award then there have many people who gets this type of award then everyone should inculde in wikipedia. -Rasi56 (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand notability. A simple Google search will come up with plentyh of coverage about his court appearances. The Asaia Media Forum award was presnted by Kabir to the winner, I gave this as an example because it gives a section of biographical info about Kabir (and the reasons he was respected enough to be presenting). Sionk (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: court case doesn’t prove his notability, there have many cases by journalists and writters, you can found in internet. and asia media forum is non notable forum. We need strong independent evidence of his notability. Rasi56 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting tedious. We clearly disagree so should wait for input from others. Whether or not you think Asia Media Forum is non-notable, the lengthy news article is in Sri Lanka's The Sunday Leader, so is international news coverage. Sionk (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: Yes for sure wait for others. But nothing with the newspaper. Newspaper is verified but asia media forum isn’t, I just mention that above. Rasi56 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note User:Rasi56 and Andy Kearns have been blocked at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andy Kearns--DBigXrayᗙ 12:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have just updated the references. As the editor of a major English language national daily, Nurul Kabir has been really in the forefront of defending media freedom in Bangladesh despite the persecution he faced both legally and physically while others usually succumb to pressure as we saw during the rule of the military-backed Caretaker Government from January 2007 to December 2008. He is notable enough not only as an editor but also as a writer since he authored several books. The Red Moulana by him is the only comprehensive and authoritative biography of Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani in the English language. - S M Maniruzzaman (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITTF Africa Cup[edit]

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

Unnotable, undersourced. De-proded without explanation. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 14:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into African Table Tennis Federation. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with this. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hai Their is no need for the deletion of this page since it as been improved on.

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angélique Vialard[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Snooker player notable for reaching a quarter-final in an amateur competition. Generally only professional players are notable, and doesn't seem to be backed up by any sources to confur WP:GNG Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Having read the cue sports wiki project as seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cue_sports/Notability this player does not appear to be notable as they have never been professional, or have they competed at a major amateur event Seasider91 (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need more than a player profile to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not professional Andy Kearns (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote by sock puppet, now blocked GirthSummit _(blether) 13:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Single Tax Party[edit]

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

Article was to be deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Land Party (United States) but either never was or was recreated in violation of policy. Toa Nidhiki05 12:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@78.26 and Graeme Bartlett: 78.26 closed the original AfD but doesn't appear to have deleted the article; Graeme Bartlett removed the AfD notice from the article without apparent explanation. I don't think another AfD is necessary here and the article should just be deleted per the previous AfD close. GoldenRing (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I restored the page due to a request at WP:REFUND . It should have a record in the log of who asked for it. The previous delete was a soft delete so reversible on request. I have no opinion on whether this should be kept. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I can't see that the page was restored, because I think GoldenRing is correct, it didn't get deleted. XFDcloser has hiccups occasionally, and I'm not very good at catching it when it happens. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Same thing happened with the American Vegetarian Party, which was similarly deleted and brought back with the justification "topic has merit". I was never notified of this. Toa Nidhiki05 01:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now it's back at AfD again and the previous Afd had no input at all. It's impossible to believe that a national party that contested two US presidential elections wouldn't be notable. Because of the difficulty of finding sources from the 1920's, I'd say this is ripe for clean-up and improvement, rather than deletion. Sionk (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They received only 5,000 votes (0.02%) in 1920 and I see no indication they ran for anything in 1924 or received any votes. Simply saying you ran for office does not make your party notable - you need to meet WP:ORGCRIT, which means significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Simply existing doesn’t warrant a page. Toa Nidhiki05 20:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm well aware of WP:GNG, but it's recentism gone mad to hold things that existed 100 years ago to the same standards as today, with modern online news available at the click of a mouse. A little common sense is required. The CLP certainly stood in 1924 [21][22]. Sionk (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - To the contrary, a party that won 5,000 votes in probably not notable in general whether it existed today or 100 years ago. Toa Nidhiki05 21:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~- Due to lack of sources. There needs to be significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If someone can find them, maybe I'll change my vote. Otherwise the WP:BURDEN is on the person adding the content to find the sources. Notability is not assumed to exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN refers to verifiability, not notability. And the article aready cites a book source and an article in Time magazine. Sionk (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mere mentions don’t warrant an article. WP:ORGCRIT requires substantial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 12:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are they mere mentions? I can't believe how people on Wikipedia go out of their way to manufacture reasons to delete articles about anything before 1990. Well, I can't fight a one person battle, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because I found sources of varying quality. [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]. Want more? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The previous close said plainly that WP:REFUND applies and that is what has been done. There is therefore no procedural error and so the nomination's objection is resolved. The topic is documented in detail in sources such as Others: Third-party Politics in the 1920s and the numerous clippings provided above and so so we have a reasonable start on the topic per WP:IMPERFECT, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per new sources found above. Does anyone intend to actually improve the article?--Rusf10 (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No! I do not want more sources...LOL. You have won Me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ventura Filmes[edit]

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

Seems promotional. Created by same person who wrote the autobiography André Valentim Almeida so appears as if their three edits are purely promotional, for both themself and their film company. Also fails WP:NME. Willbb234 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From a (quick) look online I could not find sources to establish WP:Notability. Ktrimi991 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Fails WP:GNG ,WP:NCORP and WP:NMEDIA.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate and references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 100 Women (BBC). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Medufia[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. All the sources are based on her being named on a BBC list that "includes leaders, trailblazers and everyday heroes". This I do not believe meets the significant award criteria. We are more on the lines of a WP:BIO1E Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect (to 100 Women (BBC)) - Unfortunately I feel I need to agree, there isn't enough coverage in them to satisfy Sig Cov (particularly once the paragraphs about how good/important the BBC 100 list is). I couldn't find any more suitable secondary coverage. ~~No obvious redirect target.~~ Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting, to stay in line with the rest of the list I'm not sure how much content should be added, but a small level could be added regardless of the result of this AfD, though nothing near a proper merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ~~List of Ghanaians~~ or some other suitable target. Although I added a source, I still feel the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth per WP:WHYN: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." ----Pontificalibus 13:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That list seems to require an individual to be independently notable to be included (otherwise there'd be more than 5 or so non-blues) - if we merged this, it would stop qualifying for it. I'm not against merging if the list has a broader set of rules or there's an alternate target. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would be against merging into this list because it is clearly for notable people as per the WP definition so the inclusion would need a blue link (I'll have a look at the redlinks already there.) If there were a page for the BBC 100 women then that would be the logical place but that might be just listcruft. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Massive apologies to @Pontificalibus:, I thought I'd written it on mine, which makes no sense since I didn't propose merge. Mea maxima culpa Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as it is I would be happy to merge to 100 Women (BBC), and am noting it down here so it's clear you are not objecting to this new target.----Pontificalibus 09:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See 100 Women (BBC), where she is listed and linked. Did anyone try a "what links here"? Inclusion in that list, along with the profile in Medium and speaking at international conference, seem sufficient to confer notability. PamD 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC) (expanded 14:47)[reply]

I'm happy for that to make a more logical merge target, but I still don't think, on its own, it can provide enough coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge target but I too also fail to see how being chosen to feature on this list as one of what I can only presume are the "everyday heroes" makes her automatically notable. This is not IMHO a significant award as per WP:ANYBIO. This documentary series deliberately mixes notable and anonymous women that the documentary makers find inspiring. We have already discussed such lists (Forbes etc) and concluded that they do not confer notability without more in depth coverage in other sources. If we accept this as conferring notability then being featured in any documentary in any capacity will suffice so long as it's reported elsewhere. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd missed the extension. Surely speaking at an international conference would fall afoul of the same lack of independence that disqualifies the interview part of an interview article? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tonica fugata[edit]

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

Non-notable software. I am unable to find any substantial independent coverage of it in reliable sources so WP:NSOFT is not met. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No adequate sources or manuals found to support the article. As a result, a failure of WP:NSOFT applies. AmericanAir88^(talk) 17:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Fenton[edit]

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

Not notable outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of his news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1 week passed, no !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 06:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Any renaming can be discussed on the talk page (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes and the Making of Caribbean History[edit]

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

Needs a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. No evidence that this needs a separate article from Atlantic hurricane and many of the statements are just wrong. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I find myself arguing that a rewrite would do an article good no matter what, but in this case I don't think anything can improve this article past the criteria for deletion because even the title is non-encylopedic, and any variation of the title will remain that way. Doesn't even deserve a redirect to Atlantic Hurricane Season because of the non-encyclopedic nature of the title. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is this whole article WP:COPYVIO from the couple of books used in the references? Govvy (talk) 09:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would note that the topic of this article is focused on one area only of the areas affected by Atlantic hurricanes. Having looked at the Atlantic hurricane article, I also note that it is either misnamed, or biased towards the north-west Atlantic coast, as there is no mention of hurricanes affecting European countries (eg the Great Storm of 1987 or Hurricane Ophelia (2017)). I have consolidated the references in this article, so it's easier to see how many distinct sources there are. I would have thought that, with two book-length sources and other articles specifically on hurricanes in the Caribbean, this topic would meet the WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic. We don't seem to have any articles detailing the social, economic and environmental impact of tropical cyclones, and this impact is likely to vary considerably from one region to another, justifying region-based articles on the topic. Needs renaming, if anyone has a better idea than The social, economic and environmental impact of hurricanes in the Caribbean. ----Pontificalibus 12:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree notable topic I'll work on this and I agree with a rename --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This definitely seems to be a notable article. Title suggestion Impact of hurricanes on Caribbean life. Mcavoybickford (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Propose the simple name Impact of hurricanes in the Caribbean, which seems to be a notable scope, in line with the general thrust of provided sources. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Mcavoybickford's renaming. As an alt, how about Impact of hurricanes on Caribbean history. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Some sources were added but there has been no engagement since to evaluate them, and only minimal participation in general after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Political Science Students[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 21:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Meatsgains!
The reason cited for the deletion of the page is "Non-notable organization lacking significant coverage in reliable sources". IAPSS is the largest association for political science students around the world and it partners with bigger associations like International Political Science Association and so on. But you're right, the association doesn't have enough coverage.
Maybe we could simply put a notice at the beginning of the article to indicate that some references are missing instead of deleting the entire thing?
Looking forward to your reply!
--PoliWrites (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The deleted version of the article had such notices for six years, from 2013 onwards, to zero effect. An AFD discussion is the time to actually show some sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again!
Changes have been made to the page and sources have been added and there were contributions made other users. It'd be great if we could keep the IAPSS page.
Let me know what you think and what else should be done!
--PoliWrites (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not cite your sources? You wrote a 14KiB article and so far have cited sources for two of its sentences and some table entries. What were your sources for the rest of the article? And why did you not put them in to start with? Uncle G (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The comments lean to Keep but given the limited participation and few sources surfaced, I don't see a clear consensus here, and it has already been relisted twice. RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angela's Christmas[edit]

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

Short film which does not pass WP:NFILM. Press is simply on sites which are like TV Guide, or Leonard Maltin's guides. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is valid because it has references from Decider and Hot Press. Thornstrom (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ugh. I don't know. There is the coverage of the movie on Decider [45], but that is the only reliable WP:SIGCOV I was able to find (there is also The Daily Free Press review at [46], but it is a student paper]. Besides that, I am finding WP:ROUTINE announcements of it launching or the multiple same posts on different websites linking twitter users' reception. Some passing mentions at The New Zealand Herald [47], Time (magazine) [48], Zimbio (a branch of Livingly Media) [49], and Los Angeles Times [50]. Unless someone find more in-depth sources about the movie, I am voting delete. There is a WP:ATD redirect possibility at List of original films distributed by Netflix, but this isn't a Netflix Original, they just have distribution rights. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I am seeing a reasonable amount of coverage in otherwise reliable/mainstream print sources (for example the pieces in The Times [51] and the Irish Independent [52]) to suggest that GNG is met. I would note that much of the coverage was almost certainly precipitated by the studio's PR effort around the several Daytime Emmy and Emile Awards nominations. But there would seem to be enough of it to warrant a keep. It's not overwhelming. Hence "weak".... Guliolopez (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ferry[edit]

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

No WP:RS, no sign of any sort of notability, easily fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the bestselling book checks out. I'm not sure if that's enough coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this author had a book on the New York Times Best Seller list for 2010. "Life by Design". This subject passes WP:GNG. The article could use more WP:RS. Lightburst (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. The sources present are just PR and non-WP:RS (e.g. RE/MAX, realtor.org). Churning out a high sales volume of a book in one particular week does not make an author notable. Fails WP:AUTHOR as work has not "won significant critical attention". ----Pontificalibus 08:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - once the pure PR, interview and self-written sources are removed there's nothing that satisfied all the requirements. I was surprised not to be able to find some decent reviews of either book, but was not able to do so. He appears for a few mentions in reliable publications but isn't sufficiently covered. No obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources, excluding self written sources, are just PR. Taewangkorea (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Kumar (marketing)[edit]

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

The references appear to me mainly mentions, with a few press releases put in. The individual's jobis in marketing, and WP is not the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article must not be deleted. DGG states that all the resources in this article are press releases but i don't think so. All the resources used in this article are reliable and on trusted news websites. These are not press releases. Abhinav Kumar is also a notable personality in India. Every Indian family knows him as "Trivaago Guy". He is not only in marketing job. His notability justifies due to his ad film of Trivaago. Divah768 (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Divah768 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
- Wht do you consider the best reference. Perhaps it is the Business Standard, but reading it, it's a press release, not responsible coverage. And why shouldthere be any better: Kumar's position is to appear in advertisements, and that's what all the references report, mostly in puree notices. DGG ( talk ) 22:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While considering this I went from 'delete' to 'keep' and finally back to 'delete'. The better sources cluster around the end of 2017 and focus on his sensation as "Trivago Guy" but there is not, in my opinion enough coverage to pass NACTOR or enduring enough for GNG. He pretty much can be considered in light of WP:BLP1E, which is what brought me back to 'delete'. The later coverage, his board appointment, all looks, as DGG notes, to be press releases which seek to capitalize on his earlier notability.
I have not looked at the foreign language sources so if they show more/better coverage I am willing to reconsider my !vote. Jbh ^Talk 18:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per JBH and DGG. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DGG and JBH.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vida-Flo[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. Nearly all the references do not mention the company/product - they are about IV hydration in general. This article was rejected multiple times at Draft:Vida-Flo (IV hydration therapy) for lack of notability, but the article creator just bypassed the AFC process to create it in article space with the same content. Peacock (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Just because there is lots of references, doesn’t mean its notable. None of the references mention the subject in their title. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 20:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is for an organization established in 2012. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the Wikipedia rules against having a page for an organization. Notability has been shown by adding several reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmedelmissiri (talk • contribs) 18:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC) — Ahmedelmissiri (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike sock comment[reply]

Comment: Ahmedelmissiri has been indefinitely blocked for editing this AFD with sock accounts. Peacock (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' Added 2 references with the Page's name in their title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tackydoc (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC) — Tackydoc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Strike Sock !vote[reply]

Comment: Tackydoc has been indefinitely blocked for editing this AFD with sock accounts. Peacock (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. Lots of sources but nothing indicate to support the WP:NCORP of the subject. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion, references fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to AKD Group. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Capital[edit]

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

No sources, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 02:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to AKD Group This article is one of a number of articles such as AKD Investment and AKD Trade created by the blocked user "Corporate cat" who was clearly an undisclosed paid editor. The article is basically an advertisement and should be deleted under G11, or preferably redirected to AKD Group. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above to AKD Group. Although I have my doubts as to the notability of even that article but since it survived my AfD nomination in December 2018, it makes sense to redirect all related articles to there. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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