< 21 August	23 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Art of the West (magazine)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Non-notable magazine. SL93 (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find anything on this magazine - the only mentions were on the websites of artists who had been featured in the magazine, no reviews or writeups of the magazine itself - doesn't meet WP:NPERIODICAL - I would say Redirect to List of art magazines, but it does not appear in that list and the list does not allow redlinks - Epinoia (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:21, 29 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. MBisanz ^talk 01:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CompletelyNovel[edit]

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

The sources here are primarily press releases or passing mentions. A lot of them are 404 and not easily findable in archives. The article was created by a user who is a name match for an author publishing via this company. Guy (Help!) 21:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom - I am unable to locate any references which meet the criteria for establishing notability. The references that are available are either PRIMARY sources or articles which rely extensively on quotations/interviews with people connected with the company, failing WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:08, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Knox490 (talk) 20:30, 29 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 Bambaloo. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bambaloo episodes[edit]

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

This "list of episodes" page is just pure garbage. For some reason this was created outside the main article, which itself is also a stub, but even this would have been ok, if it didn't list only 7 episodes out of the 45 episodes listed, or 65 episodes, depending on which article you check. And of course this has no sourcing at all. I'd say merge to parent article, but really, there is nothing here worth merging (as even the "list" doesn't use standard style/templates). Gonnym (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, though you really could have just WP:BOLD merge/redirected it... Reywas92^Talk 23:28, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Redirect to Bambaloo. Bookscale (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bambaloo. Honestly, an obvious WP:SNOW merge where the information in this article can be used to expand the target. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Bambaloo. There is no good reason to keep this a separate article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:23, 29 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. Tone 18:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sol Leshinsky[edit]

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

Incredibly this bio has been here since 2005 but has no sources. I have searched and found only mirrors of this article, and searching in association with the Tyne-Tot Weaning Cup doesn't help either. It may be a memorial page and I'm not even seeing a real claim of notability in the article. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without sources we cannot even know how accurate this is, but none of it adds up to a claim of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely nothing reliable on him on google searches. Tried all kind of keywords in hope to find something and add sources for verification. Exploreandwrite (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , A page without sources cannot be regarded as an article, nothing found on google. Alex-h (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is essentially written like an obituary rather than an encyclopedia article, and it makes no claim of notability that is strong enough to survive the total lack of any reliable sources to support it. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without any sources, and none to be found in search, it is obvious the subject is not notable. Taewangkorea (talk) 00:58, 29 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 Antiwar.com#Antiwar Radio. Tone 18:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Horton (radio host)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet the notability guidelines for creative professionals. Horton seems to be relatively prominent in certain circles but I can't find any evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. (I prodded this earlier today and it was deprodded, but unfortunately the deprodder seems to have got the wrong end of the stick and hasn't provided any rebuttal to the rationale for deletion.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable radio personnality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Antiwar.com or Antiwar.com#Antiwar Radio where he is mentioned - Epinoia (talk) 23:57, 28 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. Tone 18:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Bülent Paksoy[edit]

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

Non-notable historian. I feel like a WP:TNT is appropriate if the article does pass notability guidelines. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 16:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Willbb234^Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 16:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Superficially, the page appears to be well referenced but on closer examination everything falls apart. A lot of promotional stuff (in fact a borderling WP:G11 situation) and WP:OR here, with various unsubstantiated inferences and claims. Lots of deadlinks with unclear publication details (Refs no. 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21). Lots of references that are items published by the subject himself. Several third-party references are given to substantiate the subject's influence but in fact do not mention him at all, e.g. refs no. 3, 4, 5, 6. Reference no. 8 does discuss the subject in some detail but it is essentially a press release from Texas Tech University, where he worked at the time, so not an independent source. Refs no 15, 16 are pdf scans of Uzbek newspaper clips from 1990s that do seem to mention his book. That's something but not enough. Overall, too little here that is verifiable, and not enough to show noitability per WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with thanks to Nsk92 for a very thorough analysis. Mccapra (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable historian. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:29, 28 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. Tone 18:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bradtke[edit]

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

Non-notable American diplomat. Was not able to find any RS about him. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES, ambassadors are not inherently notable. Natg 19 (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added some citations-- leaning towards keep, but I'm not sure how much of the coverage on him qualifies as non-routine. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything covering him specifically per WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Our subject is found in quite a few books. I also find many passing mentions. Foreign Sources. Express, Mojahrvatska, News AM, Many passing mentions like; Radio Free Europe, Total-croatia-news, News.am, Asbarez, Lightburst (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of these "significant coverage"? It makes sense that he would be mentioned in lists of ambassadors or in sources relating to relations between the countries he was an ambassador to. But they may not contribute to GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does this count WP:POLITICIAN? It is an international post. How do people get appointed? A lot of politics involved surely. Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Croatia. Category:Ambassadors of the United States shows a list of all the nations there are American ambassadors sent to, and each one of them has a lot of articles in it. Has this sort of discussion come up before somewhere? Dream Focus 03:30, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My vote of keep is a vote for for Jury nullification of WP:POLOUTCOMES - standing consensus can overrule as it does with WP:NFOOTY notability. WP:NOTPAPER An Ambassador belongs in any encyclopedia. Most of the other Ambassadors of the United States to Croatia are on WP as Dream Focus pointed out (and they should be). Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Croatia. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but where an SNG isn't met the person must WP:GNG to do so, and I don't believe he's done that yet. Neither of the Croatian sources pass WP:GNG (the Vecernji one's a 404). A search of Croatian sources only gives passing mentions, like the local news from Šibenik when he visited Šibenik. Most of the time he's just referred to as the American ambassador, just someone filling a role. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lightburst's argument here is to change the notability guide to include all ambassadors into Wikipedia. Do you know where the discussion is that concluded that ambassadors are not inherently notable? Natg 19 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ambassadors are functionaries not politicians. THere is not enough sourcing to pass GNG here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Discussion about ambassador notability., More discussion Lightburst (talk) 00:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking up those discussions. To summarise, a now-ancient discussion from 2009 in which Fram of all users makes an excellent point against, and an unclosed RfC from 2014 with all support !voters, but which didn't seem to have any substantive impact in the last five years. I still don't think Mr. Bradtke is notable on WP:GNG grounds, and I would not support a future RfC which declares all ambassadors inherently notable - to get another data point apart from this article, I did a random before search for the current ambassador for the last country I lived in and found zero secondary sources for him, even though the trade partnership between the two countries is fairly large. At least the people of Šibenik welcomed Mr. Bradtke once! SportingFlyer T·C 04:34, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this discussion in 2015 relating to ambassadors and diplomats. Natg 19 (talk) 18:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability claim, no matter how important it may sound, ever exempts a person from having to have media coverage to support an article with. We're not looking for passing mentions of his existence; we're looking for coverage which is substantively about him, written by real journalists and not just press releases from the affiliated governments — even an actual president of the United States would not get a Wikipedia article if he somehow managed to hold the role without actually getting over WP:GNG on his media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Bearcat! ...even an actual president of the United States would not get a Wikipedia article if he somehow managed to hold the role without actually getting over WP:GNG on his media coverage. hyperbole much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightburst (talk • contribs)

It's not hyperbole at all. I'm not saying it's likely that an American president would ever actually be in that situation — but it's absolutely still true that if one ever actually were, he would not be exempted from having to have any reliable source coverage just because he existed. Even a person who was actually the literal Second Coming of Jesus Christ wouldn't get a Wikipedia article until media had covered him in that context, in enough depth and volume and range to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are getting carried away. Even the president's spouse is inherently notable. But Jesus? I am not sure... he may need the NY Times to write about him. Many people do not believe in God. Lightburst (talk) 22:39, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The president's spouse is "inherently" notable because she gets media coverage, and would also not be "inherently" notable if she somehow didn't. "Inherent" notability does not confer an exemption from having to have any media coverage; it is extended precisely because of the depth and range of media coverage that a person has, and is not granted to people (no matter how "important" their role may sound on the surface) who don't have media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 13:25, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret inherent notability as meaning for an entire class of subjects, there is sufficient, substantive, independent sourcing. For professional athletes, there is a presumption that there exists independent coverage of each player in a professional game, for state legislators, there is a presumption that there exists independent coverage of each lawmaker who served in office. For many classes of subjects, including local elected officials, diplomats, or candidates, as a community we don't presume those sources exist. We know that the position of ambassador plays a different role across countries. We know that not every candidate receives coverage of their campaign (even for the US Presidency). Because we don't know that coverage exists within a subject classification, we want to know that a person meets WP:GNG so the article meets WP:5P2 (neutrally written and verifiable, citing authoritative sources). --Enos733 (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per the essay on diplomatic notability. The community consensus currently is that someone who serves/d as the "head of mission" is not "inherently" notable and must either pass WP:GNG or another subject specific guideline to merit an individual article. In this case, the sources are not present to pass WP:GNG. The sources in the article include an interview, s reprinted press release, a short article that only covers the views of the subject, and a mention in a Washington Post article. Because GNG is not met, the article should be deleted at this time. --Enos733 (talk) 21:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ambassadors are not necessarily notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:28, 28 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) 17:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Amrullah[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article was soft deleted in prior AfD, and was restored following a REFUND request by an IP. No improvement in sourcing.

The subject is a founder of a small start up (AfD discussion) - fails WP:GNG. Not much that is in-depth on our subject. In terms of sources in the article, the first ref is a deadlink. The second one is in Guardian's network blog and is a video of our subject speaking. Ref3 - techinasia - is comments from our subject on his startup. Ref4 is a deadlink, and is a blog regardless. Ref5 (challengefuture.org) has blurbs from our subject in a group interview. Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 16:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only because it seems to utterly fail passing GNG with online sources. I did not check to see if he passes some other BLP notability criteria, key award maybe? Nothing popped out, mostly some mentions of his software projects relating to fitbit trackers on military bases. OhioShmyo (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. unable to find other news or information than what is already in the article, which is already short. I don't think it passses GNG. robertsky (talk) 01:42, 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. Even after improvements have been made to the article, the overall consensus is that the subject does not meet notability guidelines and that the coverage is typical of routine local news, insufficient to be of wider interest. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ricca[edit]

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

Article is clearly promotional in its current form, and bordering on a hoax. It is maintained by one user, who has reverted any attempt to challenge its content. The three images in the article are also uploaded by the same user, which are sourced to a Flickr account by the article subject.

As for its sources, many are user-submitted through contribution programs (HuffPost, Entrepreneur, ThriveGlobal), user-uploaded (YouTube, Spreaker) or a database entry (TheHistoryofWWE). The website of his alleged promotion, Showtime Wrestling, is a clear hoax by looking at its talent section and social media feeds. There are two genuine sources, from Courier-Post and Press of Atlantic City, which cover his daughter winning a gymnastics championship—though the former is duplicated and misrepresented as USA Today. I'm unable to verify three sources—the 1990, 1992, and 1998 articles from local news organizations—but those do not seem to be enough to establish notability. Prefall 13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Prefall 13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Prefall 13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Prefall 13:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the minimum WP:GNG. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 11:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity article and in spades. Just one match with the then WWF where he got in no offense at all and I think the Hammonton News wasn't even being published in 1992 upon a search for it. He has wrestled so it's not quite a hoax, but there's way too much embellishment here. Not a notable wrestler at all. Addicted4517 (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my "hoax" comment is regarding him signing a three-year contract with the World Wrestling Federation in 1993, and founding the Showtime Wrestling promotion. Prefall 12:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Minimum will be added to meet requirements. Article does have sources from local and regional newspapers that are offline that are made available in public libraries. The Hammonton News has been a Newspaper for more than a half a century. Commenting that it wasn't even being published in 1992 demonstrates not knowing how long The Hammonton News has been printing for. Please call them to put factual information on a discussion for a page to be deleted. "Hoax" comment for the three-year contract with the World Wrestling Federation was published from an offline publication but I'm unable to find it but did find another one from October 28, 2015 displaying on the front page him holding a Championship Belt from his promotion Arena Kaged Wrestling, now Showtime Wrestling. This will be added to the page as this can be found in The Hammonton News. Providing offline newspaper articles can be located that are not available online. All offline articles are reliable sources from different writers.Georgivac (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have notified the primary editor of the page of potential COI. Looking at their edit history [1], they have been editing for almost 5 years, and have done zero edits that do not directly relate to this topic. The page was also created by Riccabrothers, a clear COI, who has not edited other than about themselves [2]. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 12:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The page was created by Riccabrothers and would be a COI but not because only edited other than about themselves as stated already. My contributions to the page is not a COI. It's clearly knowledge from people that discuss the individual that have worked in the wrestling industry with him and sourcing what is found online and offline from newspapers and online articles for the page. I will be making edits to correct what shouldn't be there. He is a notable wrestler, just look at him on Cameo.com, he's at the top of his categories. I'm not saying that's a source but very relevant to his notoriety. He's wrestled and promoted since he started and has sourced information about him that might not meet the requirements but will be removed and the required sources will be added so the page doesn't have to be deleted. Reply with any questions.Georgivac (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions look very much like COI on the grounds that you appear to be well acquainted with the subject. That is a COI if you are editing effectively for him - on his behalf if you like whether he knows about it or not. Cameo.com is not a reliable source for wrestling and even though you haven't used it in the article you need more reliable and independent sources to prove notability. At present, he is not notable and you have no proven him to be so with your consequent edits. You need to provide much better proof of his Pharoah character including notable instances of his work in the ring, and you also need to provide proof of his promotional work in the same terms. Addicted4517 (talk) 03:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might not be reading my comment before yours. You claim I appear well acquainted with the subject which is your opinion but not factual. Because I fact check and review a couple of pages, which is good for contributing, doesn't mean I'm acquainted with anyone or a COI. I stated this in the comment above yours. I also stated that cameo.com is not a source but you have brought it up that it's not a reliable source but I have already said that. You have stated earlier about The Hammonton News quoting you here - "I think the Hammonton News wasn't even being published in 1992 upon a search for it" these are your words. Incredible as it was found very fast. Here's your answer and the link http://www.njpa.org/njpa/member_newspapers/atlantic_county_newspaper_group.html. Wow, established in 1924. The paper is still there. If you're questioning the sourcing, I need to question yours as you removed content that a claim you made is untrue. I've added some content and a couple of sources earlier, I'm not sure if that is a problem. Your opinion is different. He is notable. He was just on the Jersey Shore Vacation. It was easy for me to find the Hammonton News facts online and you took away the content and the sourcing because you wanted to. You're not supposed to do that on here. It violates the rules. I like to contribute. If you have a problem with a source, use the talk before doing anything. Your opting for deleting the page while more sourcing is being produced. Please undo what you have removed on the page since you now have learned when the Hammonton News was established. If you don't, it shows you just want the page deleted. Georgivac (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Hammonton News in 1992. It was the Daily Journal. That is what I found. If the paper was published from 1924 it changed it's name to the Daily Journal at some point, and changed back later. The sourcing was removed because it is faked. That is a legitimate reason. You need to provide proof otherwise - the link you gave is not enough. You have not proven he is notable. Your word is not enough and neither is your evidence thus far. I also frankly do not believe your denial of COI in the terms I mentioned. The onus is on you to prove me wrong. The removal I made remains removed and you can not put it back as it goes against WP:BLP as an unproven claim and controversial. Addicted4517 (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect stating "There was no Hammonton News in 1992. It was the Daily Journal." Do you know that the Gannett Company owns the Daily Journal and The Hammonton News. Both are news papers for the areas that they cover. You just made a false statement. You can find this online. Your claim about the Hammonton News not being a paper in 1992 is false, as you claim the sourcing was removed because it is faked. That is a violation in itself on this website by you. Don't make false statements and remove something without doing research. By stating "I made remains removed and you can not put it back as it goes against WP:BLP as an unproven claim and controversial." I will not go against WP:BLP. You say I need to prove you wrong. I'm not going to take it from social media pages but if you look close enough it's there and the paper shows it's The Hammonton News. Maybe other members in the community will produce the paper? It will go back up once it's produced and shows my source is accurate and you removed it because you said it's fake. It's doesn't have to but it will have to be proven. Not for you but because you already seem to be biased and it needs to be seen to show that the Hammonton News was there in 1992 and the article I sourced and prove you wrong. I've seen some of your comments to others as it can be seen as being obnoxious. There's no consensus with you. Communicate with facts not false claims when removing content. Contribute the right way. Again, no COI. Many have contributed to the page as I have too and you can see too. You seem to just want it to be removed. That's why someone can click the Watch this page box. Vandalism is a problem and some already on the page would not go for it. HaHaHa, just on the Jersey Shore and you say not proven notable. The sourced newspaper that you claim wasn't there will show it and show he was the Pharaoh in the article.Georgivac (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version of the article does not seem promotional to me. A search in Google books reveals that the Hammonton News has been in print since 1923 (see here) and that the 1992 issues can be consulted in microfilm (see here) availability is listed as 1924+ that indicates continuous publishing during that period, so I don't see any valid arguments to sustain the claim that the article is almost a hoax. The third argument was that the images added by the main editor of the article are sourced to a Flickr account by the article subject. This is also no problem. they don't contribute to establishing notability but there is no problem in adding content published by the subject of the article as long as it was published under the right CC license. As far as notability, I see no reason to assume that the offline references are fake and unless proven otherwise WP:GNG would be met as there are multiple independent reliable sources with in depth coverage and the article does not violate WP:ISNOT in its current version. I think WP:AFG prevails. That an editor has a WP:SPA, I think, should not be used as the only argument to assume a WP:COI.

@Georgivac:: If you want other editors to asume good faith you should extend the same courtesy to them. Please carefully read Wikipedia:Etiquette, and keep all your comments centered exclusively on content avoiding any personal remarks.

As far as the article is concerned, you should add more details to some of the offline citations as a few lack the article title, exact date or page and if possible, the place where an archived copy can be consulted to meet WP:V. Some quotes may also be useful. If those are provided I see no valid reason to delete the article. If you don't know how expand the citations please post the information in the talk page of the article or in my talk page and I can add it myself. If you can't provide any of the additional information required I would not be able to keep my !vote. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon:: I have located where the sources are archived. I should be able to have that information if available tomorrow from where they are archived and will provide them. Georgivac (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Non notable local wrestler. Hammonton News is a local suburban newspaper with limited circulation see here for proof that it's local which does nothing for notability. Agree with nom about promotional article. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:8826:7EAA:B135:5C72 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— 2001:8003:5999:6D00:8826:7EAA:B135:5C72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not won any major awards or trophies or had any significant media coverage - definitely promotional about his daughter - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Requested information has been added for the references by Georgivac, except for one still pending. I have helped in formatting them and neutralized the article by removing excessive details. WP:GNG is met as there are multiple independent reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. Reliable sources are local, but the guideline does not require that they be at national level. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is in much better shape, good job. With that said, Ricca is still not a notable person. His main claim to notability is a single, minute-long squash match that aired on television. He did not have any other noteworthy matches or periods of work in notable organizations. WrestlingData only has records of five matches he participated in, while the other all-inclusive databases Cagematch and Internet Wrestling Database do not have records of him at all. WP:PWBIO is merely an essay, but it suggests three months of appearances, or 30-plus days of holding a championship, in a notable promotion to be considered notable themselves—Ricca does not come close to meeting these. I'm not sure local news coverage makes up for a general lack of significance. Prefall 19:18, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Prefall. As WP:PWBIO states, even if the first criteria is not met, the subject is considered notable if it meets WP:GNG. For inclusion the subject must meet one or the other or both. The only stated requirement for local sources in WP:PWBIO is that they are clearly independent of the subject. Our primary guideline for determining notability is WP:GNG and since it has been established (by the changes made to the references during this AfD) that the subject has received in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources independent of the subject (even if they are local) and since the article has been neutralized and it does not violate WP:ISNOT, I see no remaining reason based on our policies for deletion. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it stands now, this could easily be closed as delete, but I'm relisting to allow people time to review Crystallizedcarbon's recent updates.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of the sourcing is old paper sources it is harder to analyze the sourcing like I normally would. I would expect WP:THREE sources that support WP:SIGCOV. Based on what I can tell right now, some may and some may not support that. Its hard to tell if these are detailed articles or just blurbs, so I am doing my best with the headlines. Here is my analysis.

^[1] - Sounds to me like he is probably a passing mention
^[2] - WP:ROUTINE - Cannot be used to support GNG
^[3] - WP:ROUTINE - Cannot be used to support GNG
^[4] - Sounds like its WP:ROUTINE to me
^[5] - About wrestling school not him
^[6] - Reads like its about the event not about him
^[7] - Sounds like its WP:ROUTINE to me
^[8] - My understanding is Huff Po as a WP:NEWSBLOG it can be used to verify certain information, but its not used to support notability.
^[9] - Its a little hard to determine what really is happening here. Who produced them? What attention in the media. Did he produce them himself and call the press to let them know they were available? Was he just one of 100 wrestlers listed? Without more details I can't say this supports GNG
^[10] - Writing an article does not count toward GNG
^[11] - Potentially could be used to support GNG. He is interviewed but its more about what he is doing than him
^[12] - Sounds to me like it focuses on the daughter, not him, so doesn't support GNG
^[13] - Sounds to me like it focuses on the daughter, not him, so doesn't support GNG

Based on a full analysis the article still fails to include three sources that support GNG. There is 1 source that is about him that to me supports it, and that is just not enough. If you disagree with my assessment please let me know why. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 16:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Toner, Noreen (11 November 1990). "Wrestling with ways to help troops in gulf". Atlantic County Library: The Press of Atlantic City - Sports, Page B3.
^ "WWF TV-Taping @ Worcester". Wrestlingdata.com. 21 July 1991. Retrieved 22 August 2019.
^ The History of WWE http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/91.htm
^ Castone, Bill (18 June 1992). "'Brawl' brings furious action to St. Joe". Atlantic County Library: The Hammonton News - Sports, Page 15. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ DeCicco, Mickey (17 June 2017). "Powerslam area's only wrestling school". Atlantic County Library: Hammonton Gazette - Business Headline, Page 9.
^ Meritt, Ben (31 August 2000). "Powerslam Ricca bringing 'caged' professional wrestling to downtown Hammonton". Atlantic County Library: The Hammonton News - Headline Front Page, Page 6. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Fiocchi, Dennis R. (14 February 2002). "Spanky 123 retains AKW crown". Atlantic County Library: The Hammonton News - Sports Headline. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Fine, Melanie (31 December 2017). "10 Things You Might Not Know About Former WWE Pro Wrestler and Promoter Tony Ricca". Huffington Post contributor platform.
^ Streahle, Jodi (28 October 2015). "ACTION FIGURE". Atlantic County Library: The Hammonton News - Headline Front Page, Page 3A. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ Ricca, Tony (11 December 2017). "This Pro Wrestler Turned Cannoli Baker Shows How Small Businesses Can Leverage Themselves Against the Competition". Entrepreneur.
^ Lowe, Claire (21 February 2019). "Group working to identify Hammonton's Little Italy". Press of Atlantic City. Retrieved 21 August 2019.
^ Steckler, Jared (28 July 2014). "Hammonton girl adjusts, wins gymnastics title". Courier-Post. Retrieved 11 December 2014.
^ Brunetti, Michelle (13 July 2014). "Everyone Has a Story: Ex-wrestler dad helped young gymnast grapple with fear". The Press of Atlantic City. Retrieved 11 December 2014. ((cite news)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" Just from the titles of the articles it's hard to assume that that is the case. I can access the online sources from the Press of Atlantic City as they are blocked for EU viewers.

@Georgivac: Can you please add some quotes here or explain what do references 1,4,5,6,7,9 and 11 say directly about Tony Ricca? Please do so one by one, stating whether they are a trivial mention or not and why. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon: Here are the following as requested.

Reference 1 - “Tom Ricca, of the Hammonton Hitmen puts an arm bar on one of the Lords of Darkness” This is a feature photo of him that’s captioned on the main Sports page. “Tom Ricca from Hammonton will be wrestling independently as The Hammonton Hitman” This is a Non-trivial mention as it introduces his pro wrestling debut.

This is promotional judging by that quote and therefore not permitted.

Reference 4 - “The first main event matched Hammontonian Tom Ricca (The Pharaoh) against Glen “Madman” “Osbourne. The Pharaoh began his assault on Osbourne with a multitude of forearms and then brought him to the floor with a stifling drop kick to the chest but then the tide changed and the Pharaoh became the recipient of Osbourne’s punishment. The Pharaoh gained back his momentum and pinned Osbourne after a spectacular flying back flip of the top rope” “Ricca, a 1986 graduate of Hammonton High School in his debut as the Pharaoh”. Non-trivial. The Pharaoh debut and main event that included photo of him cornering his opponent on the front cover of the sports page.

This is also promotional in the same terms.

Reference 5 - Pictured photo of him “ Tom Ricca, the owner of Powerslam Wrestling School, has wrestled independently against some big names in professional wrestling.” “Ricca had wrestled some of the greats like ‘Hacksaw’ Jim Duggan, the Legion of Doom and in a large number of matches all over the East Coast”. “Powerslam officially opened during the Red, White and Blueberry Festival as the mayor cut the ribbon”. Non-trivial mention. Provides quotes of him as a professional wrestler and owner of his Powerslam Wrestling School with the mayor cutting the ribbon for the official opening of it.

Also promotional and blatant embellishment re The Legion of Doom.

Reference 6 - Front page photo of him in the wrestling ring surrounded by caged ceiling, walls and guard rails with studio lighting with an entrance for wrestlers and TV screen above it. “Tom Ricca of Us Studios Productions/AKW Arena shows off the wrestling cage he plans to use in special programing connected to the Internet on Vine Street in Hammonton.” “ Tom Ricca, owner of Arena Kaged Wrestling and US Studios” “Ricca wrestled with World Wrestling Federation early in his wrestling career and also as “The Pharaoh”” “Each match is going to be a month of tapings as each event will include five to 10 matches and at a 10 p.m. time slot and aired on MCN Market Connect Network available on cable systems in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia”. Non-trivial mention. States that he wrestled with World Wrestling Federation and also wrestled as The Pharaoh. Photo of him in his promotion Arena Kaged Wrestling. Cable televised matches on MCN Market Connect Network that are previously taped during matches.

Yet again, this is promotional per the previous content.

Reference 7 - “The AKW Wrestling is owned by Hammonton’s Tom Ricca” “Some of the AKW matches to be used in possible wrestling movies” “The venue included Captain Lou Albano, Dick Woehrle, Disco Inferno, Pitbull No 1, Big Vito and Daffney to mention a few” Non-trivial mention. Indicates AKW Wrestling is owned by Ricca. AKW matches to be used in possible wrestling movies included the above mentioned wrestlers.

Once again, this is promotional.

Reference 9 - Front page photo of Ricca with his AKW Championship Belt on his shoulder and photo of his Action Figure. “Tom Ricca of Hammonton is pictured with one of his Arena Kaged Wrestling Championship belts” “Do you remember The Hammonton Hitman? What about the professional wrestler Tony Ricca or The Pharaoh?””Now is your chance to collect a piece of local celebrity memorabilia. A WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment) retro action figure series was recently released of Hammonton resident Tom Ricca, who wrestled professionally under the ring name Tony Ricca””A retro action figure of Tome Ricca, who wrestled in the WWE under the ring name Tony Ricca, is now available” Non-trivial mention. Featured front page picture with one of his AKW championship belts and mention of it. Notes him as The Hammonton Hitman, Tony Ricca and The Pharaoh. Shows a photo of his action figure. Very in-depth article.

Blatantly promotional for the action figures.

Reference 11 - This is under the business section online and Headline in the Front page in their newspaper. Photo of Ricca near signage of a group project he started. “Tom Ricca of Hammonton and possible others involved in the effort to promote “Little Italy” in Hammonton” “Tom Ricca is a lot of things: a proud father, a hardworking business owner, an energetic former WWE wrestler, and now, a champion of his town’s Italian heritage””For the past year, Ricca, 50, has been leading a crusade to create a Little Italy in the heart of one of the state’s most Italian towns””Ricca is hoping to change that with a concept that includes signs and banners, a website and an interactive map of the area”. Non-trivial mention. Article includes a photo of a Little Italy Sign with Ricca’s photo on it and mention of him. His wifes business, Cannoli World is located in the building near it. Article shows photos of Ricca at different areas of Little Italy. It shows his community involvement to identify Little Italy. There is a small mention of him as an energetic former WWE wrestler. This is located in the Community section of his page.Georgivac (talk) 22:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the business section is promotional by default. All of the above additions have been made by me, and prove that this person is not notable due to no allowable sources. I withdraw my observation about the Hammonton News as it appears that at the time it was a small local paper that slipped under the radar of regular sourcing. Addicted4517 (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Georgivac for the information. ~~I think you might be confused on the meaning of trivial, as~~(Clarified and changed above by Georgivac) the quotes above are clearly more than just trivial mentions. WP:GNG states that:

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

As shown by the quotes, the information sourced by the references above are not just trivial mentions. They do address the topic directly and with sufficient detail to be able to source the current content of the article without the need of original research, so the significant coverage requirement by multiple sources seems clearly met for this article. A reference in which the subject is not the main topic but includes non-trivial coverage that can be used to source the content does contribute towards establishing notability. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Crystallizedcarbon for noticing as I had meant put for the references that they are non-trivial mentions. I recently revised them. Georgivac (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article meets WP:GNG. Article should include more of what the references show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubleomarks (talk • contribs) 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Doubleomarks (talk) is a new account that has made few edits before participating in this AfD. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI has been lodged for this account. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed !vote from confirmed puppet of Georgivac (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgivac).--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Has no sign of notability, fails WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addicted4517 please undo your last edit. As I explained in the edit summary you should not interleave your answers within another editor's comment as per WP:TALKO:

Generally, you should not break up another editor's text by interleaving your own replies to individual points; this confuses who said what and obscures the original editor's intent. In your own posts you may wish to use the ((Talk quotation)) or ((Talkquote)) templates to quote others' posts.

You also incorrectly removed the indentation in one of my answers to Georgivac. Please undo your edit and add your comment bellow mine citing the reference numbers that you want to comment on.

Before doing so I recommend that you review again WP:PROMO which you quoted, you will notice that it applies to the content of our articles, not to the content of the reliable sources. Please read WP:BIASED:

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

Positive reviews from WP:RS, as long as they are independent, are perfectly valid and do contribute towards establishing notability to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkto does not apply as this is an exception to that general rule. You need to re-read WP:PROMO as each article quoted from is clearly promoting the subject or the promotion he owns and/or runs. Do not instruct me how to respond to comments. That is uncivil and does nothing to achieve consensus. I will not undo my edit - however if you point out specifically where I erred on the indent of your comment I will fix that.

Bottom line - Tony Ricca is not notable. My reasons above have not changed and nothing added has convinced me otherwise. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Addicted4517: Please explain why is this an exception to that general rule and how it does not fit what is quoted. It does not seem to fit any of the examples listed bellow in WP:TALKO. If you can not justify the reason for your claimed exception based on our policies, I request again for you to please correct it.

Regarding your claim of being uncivil, please remember to asume good faith. I am requesting that you follow policy only because I feel that the way you added your comments obscures the understanding of how the discussion is developing and who said what. I do value your contributions to this debate even if I don't share your views. When I make a mistakes I appreciate that other editors take their time to correct me. You should not take my comments as a personal offence, I am definitely not trying to be uncivil, I am just trying to point out the right way to contribute to the discussion.

Regarding indentation. I was first to answer to the Georgivac's comment in which you have incorrectly interleaved your replies. It had an indentation to show it was answering that comment. You have put your answer above mine and removed the indentation of my reply. Again, that is not correct.

Finally as I tried to explain before WP:PROMO is part of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and should be applied exclusively to Wikipedia articles themselves, applying any part of ISNOT to sources is clearly a mistake. Our policies for the reliable sources cited above are explained in WP:RS. The correct policy in this case is WP:BIASED which I quoted and clearly states that independent reliable sources with positive comments are perfectly valid and if they have non-trivial coverage (whether it be positive, negative or neutral) do contribute towards meeting WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable. Szzuk (talk) 09:47, 30 August 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sierra Resort (Mammoth Lakes)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NORG. No SIGCOV, article appears purely promotional in character. Individual properties might be notable on their own, but the parent company is not notable. Rogermx (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages or a platform for promotion. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:MILL development where no adequate sourcing was found. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:20, 29 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. Consensus is that, if someone finds better sources, this can be recreated, but at the moment those sources just aren't there. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:15, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kedatuan of Dapitan[edit]

Advanced search for:
"kingdom of Dapitan"

In books/documents
Google Books · Questia Internet Archive · WorldCat

In the news
Google News: recent · archives Questia · New York Times Los Angeles Times Wall Street Journal · Washington Post Financial Times · BBC News The Age · The Hindu News Limited · Fairfax Media

In academic/legal journals and reference works
Google Scholar: academic · legal Microsoft Academic: new · original Oxford Reference · JSTOR PUBMED Central · Questia HighBeam · Internet Archive

World Wide Web pages
Google Web Search · Advanced Search Searx 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 Bing · DuckDuckGo · Startpage Yahoo · Yandex · Gigablast

Images (free)
Google · Flickr

More
Wikipedia Free English newspaper sources The Wikipedia Library

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

I can't find any reliable sources. The first is a travel site, the 2nd just a name and a year, the third doesn't mention the subject - I downloaded it from Project Muse. Doug Weller talk 14:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is in the "suspected hoax" category, and indeed, for the quality of the sources, it may well be. Bishonen | talk 15:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
… except that it isn't.
It it were not for the author's insistence at Talk:Kedatuan of Dapitan#Name that this was not a kingdom, you would have found sources by now. I don't know how the reliability of Ferdinand Marcos as a source is perceived, but the Kingdom of Dapitan is on page 107 of xyr 1976 History of the Filipino People, volume 2. Zeus A. Salazar also mentions it, apparently, according to a footnote in another source; although I haven't tracked this down. It may not have been a true kingdom, but there are definitely people other than the Wikipedia editor who submitted this talking about people who used to live in the strait off Bohol, using ″kingdom″ as the name.
The obfuscation supplied by the Wikipedia editor who created this is in calling it something else. Look for ″kingdom″. Uncle G (talk) 15:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to the aforementioned footnote, this mentions the Ternate-Dapitan war that this article talks about:
Salazar, Zeus A. (1999). "Ang 'Real' ni Bonifacio bilang Taktikang Militar sa Kasaysayan ng Pilipinas". In Bonifacio, Andres (ed.). Bayani, Manunulat, Pangulo ng Haring Bayan at Pinunong Militar. Quezon City: Limbagan ng Kasaysayan.
Someone else will have to read that. The ″another Venice″ remark by Alcina you can attribute to the aforementioned page 107 of Marcos' History. As well as, indeed, to page 30 of Ramon N. Villegas' Tubod: The Heart of Bohol. Sources are, it seems, possible to come by. Uncle G (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is also 'Dapitan Kingdom of Bohol by Athena Garcia on Academia.edu and Dapitan Kingdom: A Historical Study on the Bisayan Migration and Settlement in Mindanao, circa 1563 by Jonathan B. Catubig. Mccapra (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This University of Chicago Press source citing several Jesuit missionaries doesn't call Dapitan a kingdom but does describe an independent settlement of approximately a thousand Bisayan families who seized a defensible rugged hill on Mindanao and were led by Datu Pagbuaya and had 7000 Christian inhabitants in 1656. Lach, Van Kley (1998) Asia in the Making of Europe, Volume III. This source indicates this is not a hoax and that Dapitan was an historically significant settlement, whether the description as a kingdom is appropriate or not. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs serious sourcing work though. Zero^talk 19:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adds: nominate for deletion again if it hasn't improved for a few months. Zero^talk 21:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Mccapra: is that first one published anywhere? I don't know if your second source meets RS. I knew Dapitan existed, that isn't the issue. This article is about a Kedatuan and is a mess. Anyone can create a new one about a kingdom or settlement, but that's no reason to keep this one. Doug Weller talk 19:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Doug Weller: I can’t see that it’s published anywhere, no. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this article given that the creator has just been indefinitely blocked, so if the consensus is to delete it and allow a properly written article on the same topic to be created at a later date, that’s fine by me. Mccapra (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Wiki entry in its current state needs some really major overhauls, especially with such a title. Kedatuan does not appear in the very few sources that I have identified thus far. I personally prefer the deletion of the Wiki entry with the title "Kedatuan of Dapitan" and re-create a new one (perhaps with a better title which should be a name used in the academic sphere) when a new editor with better sources finally appears. I am also contacting people for sources so I hope in the future I can participate in either fixing the article (if the deletion doesn't go through) or re-creating the page (when the sources do come up). In the meantime, I suggest deletion of "Kedatuan of Dapitan" but I support a re-creation of a page with a better title and better references. Stricnina (talk) 11:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just not seeing the reliable sources to support this article, and much of it appears to be completely unsourced. There may well be a valid article that can be written on this subject (either with this title or with a different one), and the sources unearthed above suggest there might be, but that's not what AfD is supposed to be about - we're here to decide whether this current article should be kept, not whether we should have an article about the subject. I would support Stricnina in an attempt to create a properly sourced article, but the current one is a big no for me - it needs to be deleted, and started again. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while Kedatuan of Dapitan may have existed, the information in the article cannot be confirmed - there is just too much unsourced material here - better to delete the article than have false information or original research - I did a search of the de Jong Journal and could find no mention of the information it is cited as supporting - if the article is deleted now it can be recreated in the future if better sourcing is found - Epinoia (talk) 14:38, 29 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. There's consensus to delete all four articles. Haukur (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doublefaced[edit]

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

Self promotion article, questionable notability, most sources from his own website, major contributors have only contributed to this article. As of today, this article has been written almost entirely by four accounts: Susanne Hyberneth, Hansi-Klump, Cichacoco, Hamm-Ging. All four of these accounts belong to a ring of 33 sockpuppets blocked on the German Wikipedia after an extensive investigation. This block has been applied globally. All 33 sockpuppets were found to be operated by one person. As some of these accounts have been used to uploaded pictures by Bieniek himself to Commons, it stands to reason that Bieniek has written this article all by himself, using fake identities over the course of almost ten years, spamming 44 different language versions of Wikipdia. Policies against sockpuppetry and COI editing aside, this article is a big balloon full of hot air. The majority of statements are sourced to Bieniek's website, mentions on 3rd party media are treated as if the article concerned itself only with Bieniek, his 5 minutes of fame are extended ad nauseam. The text is nothing but blatant self-advertising and puffery. After deleting the main entry Sebastian Bieniek after a clear vote through AfD, it makes sense to apply the same logic to his other self-promotion articles. Minderbinder (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC) I am also adding the articles[reply]

Bieniek-Face
The Gamblers (2007 film)
Silvester Home Run

to this AfD, where the same reasoning applies. The creation by sockpuppets has been documented on each og the Talk pages of these articles. --Minderbinder (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage for Doublefaced all happened over a couple of months in 2014. Similar short timeline for Bienek-Face. The two film articles do not have inline references, but rather a set of links in the EL section. Not a notable artist per the recent deletion discussion. Many COI issues. Doublefaced achieved some minimal and temporary coverage, but what we have here is puffed up notability. GNG fail. It's very tiring to deal with such promotion: these are articles 2,3,4 and five int he Bienik promotional garden. none of them have obvious notability, but all share promotional puffed up claims and language. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doublefaced. Source number 1 is a presumed non-reliable source talking about 50,000 Facebook likes, which is not enough to support the claim of it being "a sensation via the Internet and one of the best-known memes of the year 2013/2014". All of the claims of significance in the article are with regard to which magazines featured it. The first 5 sources say that the work was featured in magazines; and sources 6 to 12 describe magazines that reported on the series being "plagiarized in the music video for Pharrell Williams' song "Marilyn Monroe"." -Lopifalko (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silvester Home Run, a short film with no claim of significance or important and no sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Gamblers (2007 film) as does not satisfy WP:MOVIE. Has no valuable claim of significance and does not have sources to support it. External links are all in regard to festival showings. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This manifestation of the Bienek self-promotion bomb should be deleted. The film is non-notable, a minor work by a non-notable artist with a massive COI and sockpuppetry footprint. Does not pass WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to this AfD, I propose that Sebastian Bieniek be creation protected per WP:SALT, given that it has been deleted three times already by now. See AfD. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Seconded.~~ Jo-Jo Eumerus, you deleted Sebastian Bieniek the last time around; how about it? -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC) Changed my mind. (See below.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that two PRODs are a good salting reason, one because PRODs are supposed to be a lightweight deletion and second because I am not sure if the second PRODding was actually correct - WP:PROD only allows one PROD deletion per page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Jo-Jo Eumerus: if I'd looked at the reasons for deletion, I'd have noticed this. (Personally I think that most titles deleted at AfD should be salted, but my opinions are by the way.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doublefaced, Bieniek-Face and Silvester Home Run as unnotable in either the Wikipedia or the normal sense. I shan't pass judgment on The Gamblers (2007 film), not because I think it needs to be preserved (I don't) but because I've already devoted enough of my time to Bieniek and can't stomach clicking the links and skimreading what I find there. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Gamblers (2007 film) as well. There is evidence that it was shown, but this is an unremarkable achievement. I see no discussion of it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:19, 29 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. Tone 18:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Valin Shinyei[edit]

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

Non-notable child actor that doesn't meet WP:BIO. Most sources do not have him as the main topic and those that are (e.g. IMDb) are not reliable. 2407:7000:A2AB:D00:42A:8418:5749:69F9 (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFD created on behalf of IP --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was NEVER approved for move from article for creation but it was moved by User:B https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Valin_Shinyei&diff=next&oldid=552792108 despite the previous IP user commenting "promo, and ripe for AfD". --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reason addition: Also, I don't think he pass WP:NACTOR cause i couldn't find third party coverage of him. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep? Deleting just because it wasn't approved in AFC isn't valid, as even with AFC the page creator has a right to try their luck with a straight posting. Concerning Shinyei, the coverage is turd, so it comes to whether his filmography passes WP:NACTOR, meaning he is "likely" to be notable if he "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Maybe? I don't want to be a snob and dismiss films just because they are directed at a very different target demographic than myself, and he has several quasi-notable roles in films with Wikipedia pages (arguably notable, therefore). It looks like A Christmas Story 2 might have been a deal for certain folks. OhioShmyo (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OhioShmyo, well the person moving it wasn't the page creator. And I find it a bit surprising with the straight moving after the denial. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A winner of a Young Artist Award is notable. Of course, the article is in bad shape but still... FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FoxyGrampa75, well WP:NACTOR says "Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."

So the actor himself should have to be notable and not just win awards. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tyw7 A Young Artist Award win satisfies WP:ANYBIO 1: "received a well-known and significant award or honor". A person needn't meet NACTOR for the award to count towards notability. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FoxyGrampa75, it's debatable if Young Artist Award is a notable award. I can't find too much coverage about the award. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANYBIO is not automatically passed by just any award that exists — the degree to which any award constitutes an ANYBIO pass is strictly coterminous with the degree to which the media cover that award as news. In other words, it is passed by awards that get media coverage, and not by awards that do not. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Don't care - but for the record, I did not move the article into the mainspace. Rather, I fixed a copy/paste move where someone had done a copy/paste move from AFC into the mainspace. --B (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
B, gotcha. I thought you prematurely moved the page. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when his notability and sourceability improve. "Notable for having roles" is not automatically passed just because the article lists roles — every actor has always had roles, because having roles is the job description, so merely listing roles is not the magic ticket. Rather, that knife cuts on the degree of reliable source coverage that the actor has or has not received for having roles, and not just on the list of roles itself. And as I noted above, ANYBIO is not automatically passed by just any award that exists, either, so just saying that he won a Young Artist Award is not an instant notability freebie if your source for the fact is his own IMDb profile rather than a news article about his winning of a Young Artist Award — that knife, too, still cuts on the depth of media coverage it did or didn't cause the actor to receive. But eight of the ten footnotes here are primary sources or blogs, which are not support for notability at all, and the two which are real media outlets just glancingly mention his name without being about him to any non-trivial degree. Some of these things would be valid notability claims if the article were better-sourced, yes — but literally none of them are "inherent" notability freebies that would exempt him from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ImLive.com[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, broken links, just another website. Alexa rank, 18,099, not covered by mainstream media, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NWEB. Also, creater of this article User:Download has been already banned for paid editing. Störm (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable website. --Wyatt2049 | (talk) 12:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable source. Barca (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of any notability, Can't find anything on Google, Fails CORDEPTH & NWEB. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 22:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voltage Musique Records[edit]

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

Non-notable record label per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: only 5 hits on Google News despite existing since 2003, and none of those seem to be more than promo pieces. The claim that they've had 500 tracks that charted seems to be the WP:OR that was flagged in the article, and I can't find a reliable source for that. --Slashme (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that was added after the notice. And the label has not existed since 2003. It was wound up in 2018. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This company seems to have gone from birth to death without anyone independently documenting it, outwith company directories and the like. The parallel article on the German Wikipedia was deleted for being only self-documented in 2015. Uncle G (talk) 13:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search for independent, reliable sources turned up one instance of the briefest passing mention, fails WP:GNG. No roster of notable artists, fails NMUSIC #5 inverse logic. No indication the label has had any influence on any genre or regional culture. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To add to the previous comments, the article is the creation of an SPA editor who has the same name as one of the artists listed in the article, presumably an attempt to confer importance to their own music. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:15, 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. In the non-advert version, that is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pantaloons Fashion & Retail[edit]

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

Advert; long time no sources; not obviously notable. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that it read like an advertisement is that, as is sadly too common, on three separate occasions over the past two years the prior Wikipedia article had been blanked and replaced by advertising blurb taken either straight from the company itself or from this ("Copyright © 2019 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd."). The apparently last good version from 2017 stands now. It has significant sourcing problems, but it's not an outright straight copy of corporate advertising any more. Uncle G (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. The topic is clearly notable, and even though the article as it stands now isn't very well sourced, it isn't so blatantly promotional as to require TNT. --Slashme (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This article passes WP:GNG but should be improved. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 14:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Aditya Birla Group. The company was taken over by Aditya Birla Group and renamed Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail in 2014. This company is a defunct company and was likely notable in its own right so a redirect/merge is the best outcome. Without prejudice to someone who may wish to create a standalone article on the new company (traded under ABFRL) in the future. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above arguments, but I'm mainly here to oppose the merge proposal above. Firstly, based on its website, Pantaloons is still trading under this name, in which case it's not defunct at all, it just has a new parent company. Secondly, a merge would only be a preferred outcome here if Pantaloons was insufficiently notable in its own right and, as established above, that's not the case. Hug^syrup 11:51, 27 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 deleted by an admin per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Chan[edit]

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

Self Promotion previously created by a sock puppet User:Frankie De Pyae for non notable individual, and deleted with G5. Now...recreated by User:Ko Ko Chit Chit, still fails WP:NMUSICIAN. In the majority of the references he is mentioned, but they are not about him, lacks in-depth coverage. Shin Khant (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Mingalarpr Erstwhile User:Frankie De Pyae deleted G5 with this article. Ok. now look User:Frankie De Pyae page.He is now block user Ok. Now "Lil Chan" Article is erstwhile and now nothing. all change reference and writing. So i want to say dont delete this article. Put on wikipedia this article. I am myanmar people. So my en lang is low scale.Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninja chan nyein (talk • contribs) 06:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant coverage in given references and fails WP:GNG. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 12:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. Could only find this. If more exists, then I'd reconsider. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:14, 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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:50, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sharmin Sultana Sumi (singer)[edit]

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

The subject has no notability outside of the band. Previously redirected to band but has been restored by article creator, twice. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename What we have here is one overbearing editor who apparently refuses to listen to reason. I had a run in with him in a recent case so I was left watching his talk page. He called me a troll as he deleted my words of advice. Since, I have seen him steamroll other newbie editors, as I said, overbearing but more importantly incorrectly. The newbie who created this understood there should be an article about this singer and did an improper end-around. The original article just under the singer's name should be the proper place for this, without the unnecessary, unilaterally imposed redirect. Before that action, maybe an AfD or other form of mediating discussion could have taken place to solve this. That is what the collegial atmosphere of wikipedia should be.
That said to the subject of the article: I have added sources showing she has written what appears to be a hit for other artists. I think 2 million youtube views might count for that in the Bangladeshi marketplace. She has (as already in the article) won several individual awards. Also now sourced, the Ice Cream video makes no mention of her band. She also, independently is a Playback singer. Those would qualify her under WP:NMUSIC and WP:COMPOSER. Plus she is the founder, leader, lyricist, singer and front person for the band.
This could have come up in a reasonable discussion. I realize those are hard to get at AfD. They are even harder when the discussion is not initiated by a high power editor who should know better, but instead just knows it all. Trackinfo (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Who are you referring to? I do not believe I have interacted with you.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 07:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They are hard to get only because rationales like this disregard the Project:no personal attacks policy. Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vinegarymass911, it isn't you. I avoided naming names to avoid making a personal attack. Point being, I have shown independent notoriety with sources. Any editor worth their google could have done the same and avoided this. We do not need to abuse our ESL newbies and the products of their work. They don't know how to deal with these situations and in this case behaved improperly. Now we have this article as improved. Stop the AfD, move it to the original namespace, remove the redirect and we should be on our way. Trackinfo (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, She is a notable singer. She is a playback singer, Creator and lead vocalist of a Bangladeshi famous band Chirkutt. She won many several awards. And Thank You Trackinfo for properly describe this matter. ChotoBhai (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the original edit history is at Sharmin Sultana Sumi and that the current article is a bogus copy and paste of the same. There is a discussion of the first redirect at Talk:Sharmin Sultana Sumi and AFD is not the place for disputing redirects. AFD is for deletion. The second redirect was a reversion of a reversion. Discussion of all this belongs on the article talk page, where it already was, and this duplicate edit history should not be continued. Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing nomination, in light of new sources found.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Vinegarymass911. I will take redirect out of the proper name Sharmin Sultana Sumi and replace it with the content (and new sources) from this version. And I will change this title to a redirect. This AfD is no longer needed. Trackinfo (talk) 04:11, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Manila (1405)[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as the sources provided don't establish that this conquest ever even happened. The first source is a secondhand reference, prefaced with uncertainty, to an already vague description of a fleet sailing to Manila. The second source makes an even more vague reference to "visits", "attempts", and "pretense of sovereignty". The third source literally has one sentence about this: "Ming emperor Yung Lo sends expeditions to Philippines, establishes Chinese trading posts." The fourth source is a blog by a non-expert, and vaguely states that Luzon was claimed. It refers to the fleets, but there is no mention of them traveling in force to Luzon or conquering any part of the island. The fifth source is also a blog from a non-expert, and vaguely refers to attacks and "attempts to subjugate Luzon".

In summary, whatever may be written about Chinese expeditions to Luzon, this article has no relation to it. The sources provided are either unreliable or offer only brief, vague statements about what might have happened. They certainly do not support the text or even the title of the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funny, I could have sworn this article was sent for deletion about six months ago. Perhaps there was another possible conquest of Manila lost in the mists of time and I’ve mixed them up. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is one, by the same author I think, called Conquest of Manila (1365). Deb (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ah yes that was it, thank you very much. Sorry to drift off topic but COULD AN ADMIN LOOK AT THIS PLEASE? There was a deletion discussion that closed on 18 June 2019 which resulted in 'Delete' with the author agreeing there were no sources to support the article. The same author has now apparently recreated the article as Conquest of Manila (1365). It may be that there are new sources or better scholarship to support it than there was back in June, but perhaps someone could check? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 10:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have recently analyzed the Wiki entry in the talk page and I have concluded that it has the same issues that led to the deletion of the previous Battle of Manila (1365) like for example original research, incapability of sticking to the source, and worse, outright unsourced claims. I suggest a separate discussion as to what to do with that Wiki entry. I don't understand why Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. revived the article already deleted by consensus with subpar alterations. Stricnina (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I have speedied that one. Deb (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure If there's any evidence that such an event occurred, I'd like us to keep and rename appropriately, eg. "1405 Manila incident". I feel like I don't have enough understanding of the issues to decide, based on what little I know. Deb (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article suffers from original research (and also notability, as will be discussed later), with conclusions and other claims that are not present from the original sources. The only two provided sources worth looking for is the first source The Relations of the Chinese to the Philippines Islands (1905) and Edgardo E. Dagdag's Philippine-China Connection From Pre-Colonial Period To Post-Cold War Era, the latter of which is part of the Ho Khai Leong's book "Connecting and Distancing: Southeast Asia and China".

1.) The first source didn't mention any conquest or battle happening in Manila during the year 1405. When the year 1405 is mentioned in page 257, only the account from the Ming Shi is mentioned about the Yongle Emperor sending a "high officer" in "Luzon" (N.B.: NOT Manila but "Luzon"), which resulted in the establishment of a Chinese embassy there. There is no mention of conquest or battle in the relevant page. The page is also clear that the Ming Dynasty was interested only in "extending its fame over land and sea to the farthest extremities of the world", not about conquest and occupation. In the next page (pg. 258), there is a mention of "old Spanish accounts", and in particular of the account of a certain Father Gaubil recounting that a thirty thousand fleet was sent to Manila at various times, although there was no mention what was the purpose of sending the fleet there. There is also no mention whether the fleet visited Manila in the year 1405 or whether they were instructed to conquer Manila. The user Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. used these sources to prove that a "conquest" happened but the information at hand didn't explicitly mention any conquest, but only "visits". Also, word "conquest" only appeared three times in the aforementioned source, with the first two mentions referring to the Spanish conquest, and the third mention of the word "conquest" was about the "conquest of Terrenate". Again, the user extracted his own conclusions that a conquest occurred using this first source that did not mention any 1405 conquest or battle of Manila.

2.) The second source didn't mention any conquest or battle. At best they were "visits". From the source itself: "The fleet visited (emphasis mine) Lingayen in Pangasinan, Manila Bay, Mindoro and Sulu. These visits took place in 1405–06, 1408–10, and 1417." The relevant page (page 33) did not made any explicit mention of "conquest" or even "battle" or "invasion" of Manila with such a fleet, but only "visits". It can also be argued that the fleet was only there for intimidatory purposes, like in the case of the Perry Expedition between Japan and the United States. Unfortunately, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. used this source to infer that a "conquest" happened despite the source itself not being precise and detailed enough to specify what exactly happened during the year 1405.

3.) The fourth and the fifth sources are not reliable. One is self-published blog entry by a certain Paul Kekai Manansala, which is an unknown in the academic sphere, while the other one is an opinion piece from a news website Globalita. The user Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. is probably using these two sources to strengthen his re-interpretation of the first and the second source.

I also want to add that there is no significant academic coverage of the 1405 event between Manila or Luzon and China, so the notability of the event in question is questionable. In summary, the reinterpretation of source materials and coming to conclusions which were not explicitly mentioned in source materials (i.e. original research) and the questionable notability of the 1405 event make the article eligible for deletion. I therefore support its deletion, and the subsequent migration of some relevant information to already existing Wikipedia entries (like the Yongle Emperor, Ming Dynasty, etc.), as the current sources at hand are not enough to create a separate Wiki entry about this "supposed" 1405 "conquest". Stricnina (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Stricnina's excellent analysis. FOARP (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Someguy1221 and Stricnina have pointed out, there is insufficient sourcing for the content of the article. TimBuck2 (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the analysis by Stricnina and my own search. I had unpleasant encounters with Paul Kekai Manansala on the Usenet group sci.archaeology many years ago when he was pushing Gavin Menzies. Note I've taken another article by the same editor, Kedatuan of Dapitan, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kedatuan of Dapitan. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see that the article author was indefinitely blocked earlier today so perhaps this is all moot. Some of their other contributions may be equally doubtful. Mccapra (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the talk page. As someone who was involved with the previous Battle of Manila (1405) discussion, I can vouch that while the content of the articles has changed, the underlying OR problems remain. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is totally made up propaganda. It never, ever happened. There was a tiny (starting with less than 100 households) Chinatown in Manila starting about 1594. That's not an invasion, much less a conquest. I've personally been there with my Filipino partner. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any chance of closing this now as SNOW DELETE? There doesn’t seem much point in letting it run any longer. Mccapra (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale given above. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:26, 28 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. czar 03:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ninthwave Records[edit]

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

Record label of dubious notability although they have released music by some notable artists. Not finding independently sourced coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Nominating with some regret, as I'm a synthpop fan and own several releases from this label. --Finngall ^talk 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 23:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Did some searching and found a couple more references and put on talk but not much and only 2 that are not really inherited notability. One that I had put in the info box a long time ago, that probably belongs in the prose if keep and one that is slightly more than a brief mention in billboard. Unfortunately it's hard to see either is that strong. PaleAqua (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the merger I also wonder if BuGoudi House might be worth searching for as newer sources might use that name. Bing news returns one result for BuGoudi House, and Google news a different one but neither seem to mention Ninthwave. PaleAqua (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails to meet the GNG criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:29, 28 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.