< 7 June	9 June >

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Foxes: The Musical[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a musical that appears to have had one self-produced amateur production. The only reporting was human interest coverage in the local newspaper (Canberra Times) as it was created by local teenagers, but this does not constitute significant coverage in reliable independent sources. The article reference listed as Sydney Morning Herald was not actually published in the Sydney Morning Herald, it's just a quirk of the Fairfax website (which owned both papers). The previous deletion discussion was no censensus but there wasn't extensive participation. Boneymau (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nominator. There is no indication that this show is notable. The creators, cast and director are all non-notable, the run was very short, and press coverage was local. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree its not notable, but disagree that the Canberra times is a "local" newspaper it's the daily newspaper for the Australian Capital. Gnan garra 18:46, 11 June 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 BT Broadband. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ADSL Max[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Has been tagged for failing WP:V for 13 years. My own searching failed to come up with anything significant which wasn't BT marketing literature or related material. Given that this product was apparently retired 5 years ago, it's unlikely that any new sources will appear.

In short, ADSL is certainly notable, but individual product offerings which use the technology are not. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asymmetric digital subscriber line - no evidence of independently meeting WP:GNG, but it should be kept as a redirect to a related topic. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to BT Broadband, as a BT proprietary product, where it is mentioned. I am not in favour of a redirect to a generic article where this product does not merit inclusion. Just Chilling (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Political positions of Pat Buchanan[edit]

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

Most of the content on this page is primary sourced text and/or bad text sourced to op-eds and non-RS. Any well-sourced noteworthy content can be merged with the Pat Buchanan main article. The main article does not suffer from size constraints. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I definitely agree to only merge important, reliably sourced topics. Trillfendi (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; an appropriate sampling of some of these topics can and should be covered in the main article. Articles like political positions of Fred Thompson should also go too. Neutrality^talk 22:12, 9 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palgeocheon[edit]

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

Can't find much evidence that Palgeocheon is a notable river. Then again, it may be in Korea, but I cannot find any English articles covering it. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 18:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 18:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it does exist, it is probably worth merging into Geumho River or List of rivers of Korea. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possibly even speedy delete under A11 I applied WP:BEFORE, but I failed to see any sources that talks about it. I looked at the given citation and it's an encyclopedia where people can create articles about things, just like Wikiepdia. Looks like it's made up, which would mean it violates A11. Nevertheless, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. INeedSupport ^:3 18:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Searching for 八莒川 (as given on the grandculture.net site) in gbooks gets three results, but machine translation is not coming up with anything intelligble. SpinningSpark 19:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it appears to exist and have a name and there's a source to show it exists and based on what Spinningspark says, there's likely other sources out there that anglophones just have trouble understanding. This is pretty firmly in the zero harm is done in keeping and time is wasted by deleting class of articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't bring me into it, I implied no such thing. If that's what I thought I would have !voted keep. The source you link is apparently user generated and therefore not RS, possibly even created by the same person as our article. The gbook hits could mean anything; part of another word or a completely different context. Without a Korean speaker to assess them they mean nothing. Having said that, it likely does exist, but the picture shows it is a ditch+ so finding sources will be hard. SpinningSpark 23:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spinningspark, I never said keep per you, I said there are likely other sources based on what you say. I was drawing my own conclusions from your comment, and I apologize if you took it as my saying you were supporting keep. Anyway, on the substance, this AfD is a waste of time. People generally don't make up creeks and streams and the like, and if it is on ko.wiki (which based on the recent PRODs it is...) it very likely exists, has a name, and can probably be found on some Korean language map and other sources. That is enough for us to keep a North American stream/creek/river/whatever. It should be enough for Korea as well. That, and this is literally doing zero harm to anyone in the state it was in, so I have no clue why we're here. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to pull this AfD because after checking the Korean Wikipedia (it did not have an article on Palgeocheon, but it did have one on Geumho River, where Palgeocheon is one of its tributaries) as well as searched on Google in Korean, I learned that 팔거천 apparently does exist as a tributary to 금호강. TonyBallioni is right; this AfD is a waste of time. I am embarrassed for that and for being too hasty, so forget about deleting it. Nevertheless, I feel that this article could be redirected to Geumho River, where it lists Palgeocheon as one of its tributaries. Keep it or redirect it, Palgeocheon should be included. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 02:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just in case this needs another keep vote - needs significant cleanup, but it exists and there's English-language references to it being a stream in Daegu. SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't understand why this was nominated for AfD, other than it is about a Korean river on the English Wikipedia site, which doesn't seem to be a valid reason. If you look at the reference, there is a photograph of the river with a sign in the picture displaying the river's English name. I can't see a stronger reason for keeping an article about a land feature. PhobosIkaros ✉ 21:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This article may be of interest for anyone here who speaks Korean. I don't, so it's difficult for me to see how much this stream is actually discussed in the article. I don't think it seems notable, but this may help advance notability depending on how much the subject is discussed within. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 08:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am surprised that this discussion is still ongoing. I proved with my previous edit that the river exists, and even asked for this AfD to be closed. Maybe it deserves its own article, or maybe it should be merged with Geumho River, but this tributary should be on Wikipedia. End of discussion. ~~Gamingforfun~~³⁶⁵ 00:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Agreed! This article should never nave been nominated for deletion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Randykitty (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sekalli le Meokgo[edit]

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

Film with questionable notability where I can't seem to find any reliable sources at all. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day and Night (2006 film) Wgolf (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 13:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as it's a copyvio of the film festival mentioned in the article, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC) striking as it is not a copyvio Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Atlantic306:, well I have found TONS of these short articles by this creator-all made in early to mid March of 2012. I have found most of them using the category search, quite a few of them are not notable, while it is possible more of them have done copyright issues as well (some of them were listed under the wrong title, wrong year, ect. One I wasn't sure about notability but apparently was a Sundance film but didn't have that mentioned, one had the wrong country listed even) you can always check some of the ones he created, it might take you a while though! Wgolf (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wgolf, Atlantic306, there's OTRS permission in place for the copied text, so at least we don't have to worry about that. One less thing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that, will look for more sources, I agree that the creator has been problematic, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was presented at several film festivals: Gijòn, Oberhausen, Durban, where it won a prize, and at BAM.188.216.192.206 (talk) 07:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Described as a "an elegant, ghostly love story set in Lesotho's Maluti mountains" in this Framework article. It also gets mentioned in this history of South African Cinema 1896–2010.188.216.192.206 (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep moved to keep in view of the additional sources identified above which seem reliable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 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. Note that "lots of mentions" generally does not add up to notability. bd2412 T 02:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Waits[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted in 2010. Not seeing enough in the article or online to justify an article. Edwardx (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are a lot of mentions about his success in multiple third-party sources: [Featured in Las Vegas Weekly here], [by Nextshark here], [The Las Vegas Sun here], [Called a game changer by Nightclub & Bar here], . . . Orville1974 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly passing mentions in company release, and no concentrated coverage in major media. I do not see GNG I see promotional. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan (talk) 18:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniella Vitale[edit]

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

The only source that might count towards WP:GNG is the Elle one, but that is an interview. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really wish people would acclimate themselves with reliable fashion sources (e.g. Business of Fashion and WWD). Trillfendi (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's the CEO of a very well known company. Her article does need some work, though. She's on boards at UNICEF and Wharton (prestigious business school), she was featured in an article in [Elle], interviewed about Barney's in [the WSJ], and is [starting to make waves for selling cannabis accessories through Barney's (WSJ)] and here [New York Times]Orville1974 (talk) 23:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the article needs some work with citing sources but as CEO fo Barneys for 2 years now I would bet the sources are out there and whoever published the article just hasn't done the work to find them. I would say this would likely be a keeper if the author did the work to find more sources. I did a simple google search and came up with plenty of other sources in the first 20 results. Also WWD is definitely a citable and reliable source, likely more so than even Elle in this subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceAdvisor (talk • contribs) 02:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry about that.. I do usually sign my comments.. must have been an oversight. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE or merge/redirect into company page

WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE specifies the CEOs of Fortune 500 companies are notable, not those of smaller companies. They are often merged into their company, with their bio redirected there. You may not have noticed but their prior CEO does not have a page, and well… nobody noticed.

My initial reaction after reading through the first two pages of google results and all of the cited references (NB I couldn't read the subscription-required pieces), is that because she hasn't received significant or in-depth coverage, there isn't enough material to write a biography page, so the subject fails WP:SIGCOV.

WP:CORPDEPTH It's worth reading 'Significant Coverage' along with the examples of trivial and significant coverage below it. Trade publications often have complicated relationships with corporate entities.

Charitable work or board memberships don't qualify for notability. I note that Bloomberg's profile of her hasn't been updated since she was promoted. That's not an indicator of notability.

The article as it is currently written has the problem common to this type of case, while there are numerous articles out there, most fall into the category of blandly supporting the subject, press releases, CV data, etc… and consequently, there isn't anything to write about the subject. And what do we have on this page? A CV and some charitable work. If there isn't anything else to write about her then the page should be deleted or merged/redirected into the company.

The other issue is that a lot of what is written is actually about her company and her former boss. On the company page, she's really a footnote, with only two dry mentions. So I don't see her meeting WP:BASIC or even WP:ANYBIO at this point (and reading [7] in this category is also worthwhile). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman (talk • contribs) 04:44, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I did the same thing and forgot to sign my name. Maybe it's something in the water at this page. ogenstein (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep some semi-notable positions and awards. The Board seat on Unicef is borderline. With NY Times, may be just barely enough sourcing. Lubbad85 (☎) 17:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:39, 8 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yan Perchuk[edit]

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

UPE Promotion for Non notable musician. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Lists lots of "works" but does not say what he done for each. Look at the large list of film and tv work. Compare with the very small amount listed in the sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. Passing mentions,Wikipedia mirror, primary, shop, event listings and other crappy sources. Pure PR complete with official promo shot. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously a paid article. Nothing more than a CV. All her articles should just be deleted regardless of merit. - hahnch e n 13:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hahnchen: On that note, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 142#Amandadoyle543. --Izno (talk) 17:10, 11 June 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. Unanimity that this organisation fails our notability requirements. Just Chilling (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glendon Association[edit]

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

no evidence of notability--no substantial third party sources--part of a promotional campaign for articles relating to Robert Firestone DGG ( talk ) 20:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The best source I can find is this article from the Santa Barbara Independent, and even that barely gives any coverage to this organization itself. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A worthy cause, but that doesn't mean it meets WP:SIGCOV. Marquardtika (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appreciate what good they do to the society but it does not meet GNG Alex-h (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mícheál Ó hAodha[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:BASIC, WP:NAUTHOR, and WP:NACADEMIC. The only source I could find discussing this author is this interview from an online writing magazine. As it stands right now, the article is completely unsourced outside of direct plagiarism from Ó hAodha's website; moreover, it appears the article's creator and primary maintainer has a conflict of interest ("Edited some text at the request of Mícheál") that wasn't disclosed until late 2018. Note: This is not the only Mícheál Ó hAodha. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination as Weak keep per criterion 4(c) of WP:AUTHOR. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As icing on the cake, the article links to Ó hAodha's website within the prose, and Ó hAodha's website prominently links to the Wikipedia article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In its current state the article lacks indeed sources and the proof of notability. However, Mícheál Ó hAodha appears to be notable, though. There exist a number of reviews of his works in academic journals:

Clear, Caitriona (2007). "Reviews". Irish Economic and Social History. 34: 99–100. JSTOR 24338869. This review is about two works (citations taken from Caitriona Clear):

Cauley, William; Ó hAoda, Micheál (2006). Canting with Cauley: a Glossary of Traveller's Cant/Gammon. Dublin: A. & A. Farmar.
Ó hAoda, Micheál. Parley with me: a Compendium of Fairground Speech. Dublin: A. & A. Farmar.

Quote: “These two short but fascinating works by Micheál Ó hAodha, of the University of Limerick, should be essential reading for the sociolinguist, the historian, the sociologist or the general reader who is interested in minority cultures and language.”

Ó Dúill, Gréagóir (2013). "ÉIRIC". Comhar. 73 (6): 26–27. JSTOR 43499373. This article reviews two books, among them his début collection: Ó hAoda, Micheál. Slán le hÉirinn. ISBN 978-0-9557217-1-7. (Citation taken from the article.)
Carson, Liam (2013). "From the margins". The Poetry Ireland Review (109): 115–119. JSTOR 43958657. This review covers two books, among them: Ó hAoda, Micheál. Slán le hÉirinn. ISBN 978-0-9557217-1-7.

And Comhar, a leading Irish-language literary journal published four of his poems: Ó hAodha, Mícheál (2017). "Geimhreadh (Huddersfield)". Comhar. 77 (4): 27. JSTOR 26386636. There are also portraits of him in Irish newspapers. One example: "Cnuasach nua filíochta ar aistear na himirce". The Irish Times. 3 April 2017. I stop here, it is easy to find more reviews of his work. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, to make it clear: The editor of Voices from the Easter Rising who is named Mícheál Ó hAodha which is refered to above with the remark “[t]his is not the only Mícheál Ó hAodha” appears to be the very same person of this article as this work is listed on the refered to website. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that this is not the only person with the name appears to be true though. Along with the subject (born 1969) we have a playwright active in the 1950s [1] and under the Anglicized version Michael Hayes (disambiguation) (where this article should probably be listed as he also published under that name) there are nearly a dozen more. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, you are talking about Mícheál Ó hAodha (1918–1998), author, broadcaster, chairman of the Abbey Theatre and until his retirement in 1985 assistant controller of programmes for RTÉ Radio. He published multiple books, among them biographies of Siobhán McKenna and Micheál Mac Liammóir. (See "Death of Mícheál O hAOdha". Limerick Leader. 31 January 1998. p. 2.) --AFBorchert (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As nominated the article was unsourced and promotional. I have tried to cut out the promotion, and added a half-dozen or so in-depth sources about his books (mostly reviews, with one book chapter; thanks to AFBorchert for several of these). With the added sources I believe he passes WP:PROF. But there are still significant aspects to the article that are lacking sources. AfD is not for cleanup, but if they can't be sourced they should be removed. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the article looks much better now. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that as the EGM was replaced by the George Cross, a first-level award, consensus is given (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Jose Townsend[edit]

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

Commendable, but not enough for a standalone article. The Empire Gallantry Medal (or rather its replacement, the ~~George Medal~~ George Cross) is second-level. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the EGM was replaced by the George Cross not the George Medal and is a first-level decoration (see the Order of Wear) and the subject has been covered in multiple secondary sources. Nthep (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 22:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. ~~The George Cross is second-level, below the Victoria Cross, and~~ the media coverage is not substantial. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the GC is the highest decoration available to non-military persons and is a first level award. Chapters in two separate books meets the criteria in WP:GNG in terms of significant, independent coverage. Nthep (talk) 19:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being awarded the Empire Gallantry Medal / George Cross is sufficient to establish notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability met, the award is significant, and media coverage for the time period in question is adequate
Keep. The EGM was first-level, as is the George Cross, its replacement. Although it is second in wear to the VC (if both were won, which has never happened), it is an equivalent award. Claiming it's not is like saying the Military Cross is a sixth-level award (instead of a third-level award) because it's worn after the VC, GC, DSO, CGC and DSC. This isn't how it works. Clearly meets notability criteria. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As others have (more or less) said, the Empire Gallantry Medal and its replacement, the George Cross is the highest award for gallantry not in the face of the enemy and is a hugely significant award. Only 130 EGMs were awarded, and only 408 GCs have been awarded. Frankly, it should give inherent notability. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:07, 14 June 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 TechMission. Consensus is to merge to TechMission, including the nominator as of June 15. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Vision University[edit]

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

Notability? I could find zero independent references about this university on Google. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 17:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It is a legitimate institution - here is its entry in College Navigator, one of the U.S. government's websites for viewing college and university data collected by the government - but independent sources do seem to be quite scant. The best I've found is this blog post by the Pioneer Institute. There are a few other sources that mention the institution in passing (e.g., a Forbes.com "contributor" blog post) but they just mention the institution in passing. It's a very small (about 100 students) and very new institution so it's not surprising that media coverage is scant. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES indicates that we typically keep articles about accredited colleges and university that we have evidence actually exist even if there are very few independent sources; that seems to describe this situation perfectly. ElKevbo (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if we keep schools because of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, it becomes a self-fulfilling piece of non-policy. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very well versed in Wikipedia policies and how to best respond in this section, but here are some outside references. City Vision is listed on the Distance Education Accrediting Commission's list of institutions^[1]. City Vision mentioned in this Forbes article.^[2]. There are read references to City Vision in the Christensen Institute blog ^[3]^[4]. You can find a case study on City Vision as a program of TechMission in the Case Research Journal.^[5] You can find City Vision listed in the list of schools of the Missouri Department of Higher Education.^[6] City Vision is listed as a partner with Saylor Academy here.^[7]City Vision is listed on Peterson's Guide here.^[8]. City Vision was a finalist in the Pioneer Institute's Better Government Competition.^[9] City Vision University was selected as a one of 25 finalists out of 164 entries in the US Department of Education's "Reimagining the Higher Education Ecosystem" competition."^[10]Alsears (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References
^ https://www.deac.org/Student-Center/Directory-Of-Accredited-Institutions.aspx ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2016/01/13/saylor-academy-sidesteps-the-evil-duo/#55627155c125 ^ https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/unlocking-stackable-global-credentials/ ^ https://www.christenseninstitute.org/blog/a-standards-strategy-for-stackable-global-credentials/ ^ http://www.urbanministry.org/files/TechMissionCaseStudy.pdf ^ https://web.dhe.mo.gov/dhe/collegedegreesearch/collegesearch.faces ^ https://www.saylor.org/partners/credit-partners/city-vision-university/ ^ https://www.petersons.com/college-search/city-vision-college-000_10058770.aspx ^ http://bgc.pioneerinstitute.org/2018-special-recognition-city-vision-university/ ^ https://edu2030.agorize.com/en/juries/jMluUYzfcxSbRwxhzPhZhQ/participations/94/vote?order=random&hide_voted=false

References

I don't think any of these sources prove its notability- the closest one that does is the Forbes article, but it was written by someone unaffiliated with Forbes (in Forbes lingo, a contributor) who is not a reliable source (at least not in the Wikipedia meaning of the word). Instead of going through each of these sources one by one and telling you why they aren't suitable for notability, I think I'll give you a analogy instead. Imagine that Joe has a band. Joe wrote a article on his band on Forbes, but he is not a Forbes employee. When Joe tried to make a Wikipedia article, he cited sources that only proved that his band exists, not that it is notable. I think that this is a common trap that many people fall into, especially COI editors (that is, someone with some sort of interest, whether it be financial or otherwise in promoting a subject) fall into. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a compendium of all things that can be proven to exist, its a encyclopedia of what reliable sources say exist, and what our guidelines say is notability. I presume that you have already read our guidelines on notability and venerability but if not, please do as they are pretty much our most basic guidelines from which we build all others. P.S- I have put the sources you linked into a drop down menu, as the way you did it make it pretty difficult to reply without it looking really weird. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S- If you have any other questions about Wikipedia's policies/culture, please feel free to ask me about it on my talk page! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Case Research Journal is a peer reviewed case study done by Northeastern professors that shows notability. There is another article in Christianity Today that is also relevant.^[1]The other articles show that we have as much notability or more than many of the schools on the List of universities accredited by DEAC that have pages. See Harrison Middleton University as an example, but most DEAC-accredited schools are similar. Most of the schools have 80% to 90% or more of their references to either accreditation/government sources or the organization itself. I would suspect that the same is true for most of the schools under national and religious accreditors listed in Higher education accreditation in the United States. Because of my ignorance of Wikipedia's policies, I upset a very influential Wikipedia editor, so our Wikipedia page is under a level of scrutiny far beyond most comparable schools that have Wikipedia pages. Your standard for notability should be consistent between higher education institutions. It doesn't seem reasonable if our page is removed and the 1,000+ higher education pages that have similar or less notability. If you delete our page and uphold the same standard, you should delete 1,000 other similar pages, which I don't think you want to do.Alsears (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few things to say here. Firstly, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because other school articles similar to this one exist doesn't mean this one should exist. Secondly, who are you talking when you say "influential editor"? Thirdly, this is not your article; it is Wikipedia's article- you have no more power on it than anyone else. Fourthly, I have collapsed your new reference into a drop down menu for the same reason as before. Fifthly and finally, I haven't had enough time to type a further detailed reply- and I'm not sure if I will write one at all (not enough time!), sorry about that! Cheers! TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference
^ https://www.christianitytoday.com/thisisourcity/7thcity/tech-poverty-fighter.html?paging=off

Merge to TechMission. The best sources put forth so far discuss CVU as a smaller topic within the context of TechMission. While there will need to be a sentence or two on its pre-TM history, that looks to be the best place for it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Nat Gertler. This might be compared with a seminary, training pastors, as these are often also very small tertiary colleges, but may still be notable. A college with only 129 students would not normally be notable, but this appears to be about specialist training in a narrow field of work. On the other hand, I would be reluctant to see it deleted. The merger is a good outcome. I note that much of the training is "by extension", so that the number of residential students is perhaps even smaller. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the President of City Vision University and the Executive Director of TechMission, it might be helpful for me to explain some current context. While historically CVU has been a smaller topic within the context of TechMission, now about 95% of the time we use the Doing Business As name of City Vision University. I say that because if you do decide to merge, I think it makes more sense to merge into City Vision University and then possibly add a section on TechMission's history to incorporate those elements. I agree with Nat Gertler in that I believe that we are at least medium-sized fish in "the small pond" of faith-base schools. My guess is that we probably have more notability than 70% of DEAC accredited-schools as well as more than 70% of ABHE schools (where we are an affiliate since our primary accreditation is with DEAC). It's worth looking at this List of schools accredited by the Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada that shows we are about mid-sized among ABHE schools. We've also had some significant influence on the overall Christian higher education sector in co-founding the Christian Higher Education Innovation Alliance^[1] and developing a MOOC on Disruptive Innovation in Higher Education on Udemy with 3,800+ students^[2]. As an MIT grad, who did my doctorate analyzing the higher education industry, one common theme you see is that all the attention goes to the big and elite schools, but there is a long tail of thousands of smaller higher education institutions that together are very significant. The reality is that 90% of these smaller higher education institutions violate Wikipedia's guidelines by having their staff update their page (as I did not realizing it was a violation) and they do not get put in the penalty box for doing it nor do their pages get put up for deletion. I know many of these small institutions, and can tell that their staff are doing the edits.

I get TheAwesomeHwyh argument from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Having said that, my guess is if you removed all accredited higher education institutions that are less notable than us, then you might eliminate more than half the schools on Wikipedia. Of the 7,021 postsecondary Title IV institutions eligible for federal aid, there are 4,583 that are degree granting and 3,004 that are 4-year schools like City Vision^[3]. So just by being a 4-year institution, that puts us at the 57% percentile (and that is out of Title IV federal aid eligible schools, so there are a lot more smaller ones that are not even included). I thought I saw someone on Wikipedia reference a standard for movies that if a movie was in IMDB then it justified having a Wikipedia page (am I wrong and remembering incorrectly). It seems like a similar such rough standard would be helpful, but it's worth recognizing that there is a lot of vetting that happens on who gets accredited, who gets financial aid, etc. It seems at minimum this should be considered. It's worth noting that a quote from WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is "As an example, generally speaking, any high school is very likely to be deemed sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not. While not a hard-and-fast rule, this is the status quo for Wikipedia inclusion and is consistently maintained through discussions of various schools, school districts, and their creatability and keepability (or lack thereof)." It seems to me if high schools of which there are 24,040 (same reference above) are generally notable, then the 4,583 accredited 4 year institution would be notable. It's worth noting, that I'm sure most of those 24,040 high schools probably have staff make edits to their pages if they have them. Can students from those schools make edits according to Wikipedia's policies? If not, them I'm sure even more of those pages are in violation.

I don't say all this to say, "if they violated a policy, then it's OK for me to." I say it because I've spent much of my adult life thinking about technology policies and one of my degrees from MIT was in Technology and Policy. The reality is that Wikipedia has some significant policies that are extremely broken and dysfunctional when applied legalistically to higher educational institutions. It reminds me of the "everyone commits 3 felonies a day" problem^[4], where anyone could be locked up arbitrarily . You have dysfunctional policies that when applied to educational institutions, they create a scenario where the vast majority of pages on educational institutions violate Wikipedia's policies. Then if someone out of ignorance makes an honest mistake and upsets an influential editor (like I have) they have to spend weeks fixing the mess. In other words, you've created a scenario where an influential editor could "lock up" the vast majority of pages on educational institutions. It's worth also noting that the intent of some of these policies is to prevent bias. A volunteer editing pages on Wikipedia about Wikipedia, would seem to have a similar conflict of interest as I do. I gave up a job as a dot com consultant making $200/hour and now make a very nominal fee that is 1/8th that, which essentially means that $175/hour of my time is as a volunteer to a nonprofit organization that helps addict. That doesn't mean that a volunteer wouldn't have a bias editing an organization they volunteered for, but it should mean that the level of protection against bias on a page like City Vision University by me is probably less than for the President of a large for profit like The University of Phoenix.

TheAwesomeHwyh, to answer your question, the editor I upset was ElKevbo. See the City Vision University history page on June 1. Honestly, it happened entirely out of my ignorance. I made the mistake of using the new visual editor on Wikipedia, which because of it's ease of use, I made quite a few updates not understanding Wikipedia's policies. The volumn of updates must have triggered a more significant review. When ElKevbo reverted nearly all my additions, plus a lot more making the page much less factually accurate, I had assumed it was vandalism and reverted his edit because I didn't realize that he was an editor on many university pages. Immediately after that, I had about 10 notifications slapped on me and the City Vision University page. I've tried to apologize and address the concerns as well as I can. Honestly now I'm afraid to even discuss it for fear of violating some Wikipedia policy unknown to me or making him even more upset. From my perspective, the main difference between City Vision University and a 1,000+ pages of schools that are less notable and have the same conflict of interest problems is that I upset an editor that did everything he could to ensure we were exposed to maximum scrutiny by as many people as possible. I'm working my ass off to try to help address the opoid and addiction epidemic, and the past two weeks this has taken up most of my energy. The time I spend on this (which is important) is time that I'm not working to help addicts. This is all incredibly frustrating because I'm trying to de-escelate, but this seems like a never-ending cycle. I'm afraid that even mentioning what happened will cause it to continue to escalate. I get that you all as experienced editors can't be biased in these decisions, but as volunteers, you can choose to invest your editing time on pages that have causes you believe in to make them high-quality objective pages. Assuming the page isn't deleted, if you believe in our cause, please consider using some of your expertise to help improve our page. Again, I apologize for my ignorance of Wikipedia's policies and culture. I'm just trying to navigate the best I canAlsears (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Alsears:, I'm going to try to respond to this in as little words as possible, so I don't spend anymore of your time than I need to. Firstly, I have no clue where you heard the thing about IMDb (it's a wiki, so we aren't even allowed to use it as a reference- let alone as a measure of notability). Secondly- as far as im aware, none of the statistics you've cited about your school have bearing on notability- we determine the notability of a subject based on reliable, secondary sources that are actually writing about it, and not just mentioning it in passing (i.e a refrence by the BBC about how Minecraft is the best thing to ever happen to humanity would help contribute to Minecraft's notability, but another reference by the BBC where they are talking about how a new band had formed and they mention that a member of the Minecraft development team is a member of that band would not contribute to Minecraft's notability). Thirdly, in regards to the second paragraph you wrote, keep in mind this is a deletion discussing, we aren't here to debate on the merit of Wikipedia's rules, but rather whether or not this article should exist based on our existing rules. Fourthly, with all due respect to @ElKevbo:, while I cant speak for anyone else, I didn't actually come to this article because of him, but because of his post on the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (I didn't even notice he was the one who wrote that post until now, heh). Again, I have tried to keep this as short as possible so if any of this was a little vague let me know and I'll expand on that point. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 03:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the bulk of the attention has been given under the TechMission name, that is the name that we should have the article under (much as we have articles titled Cat Stevens and Shirley Temple, despite both taking on other names later.) However, when we do a merge, we do include a redirect for the article name we're eliminating, so if someone searches Wikipedia for City Vision University, they will end up on the TechMission page, possibly even directly to the subsection of that page focused on the University. (It's much like how someone searching for City Vision College now ends up at the CVU page.) If the larger organization later gets more attention under the CVU name, we can at that time move the page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even more references
^ https://cheia.org/members/ ^ https://www.udemy.com/disruptive-innovation-in-higher-education/ ^ https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=84 ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842

Merge After seeing other editors arguments, I no longer think that the page should be deleted, but rather be merged with the page on TechMission. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 02:52, 15 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Records[edit]

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

Page recently created by a now-indeffed new account, Nbagangboy (but G5 doesn't apply because it was created before their block). Article currently entirely unsourced; looking for sources, I find some references to historic labels called 'Lee Records', but didn't find anything about this company that would pass CORPDEPTH. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:27, 8 June 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 Elite One Championship. Randykitty (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Montpellier Sharks[edit]

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

Deprodded with the rationale, "that would (be the) rationale for rugby players, not rugby clubs", referring to the prod reason that it doesn't meet notability criteria. However, that's simply not true, WP:NTEAM basically defaults to WP:GNG, which this team does not meet. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Club with professional players, including international players, due to play in the French Elite One Championship from the 2019-20 season, one of the top competitions in world rugby. Were it to be a player playing for that club, the rationale would be valid for delete, but given that this is the whole club it would seem churlish to delete. Almost like someone wanted Montpellier to fail???Fleets (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Elite One Championship until we get confirmation from a reliable source that the team will be in that competition. Every team in the competition is blue-linked (Template:Rugby League in France), so I take it that we presume automatic notability for competition entrants. For the top-level competition in a rugby league country that presumption seems appropriate. The only problem is that the article goes no further than saying that the club aims to be in the competition. There is nothing notable about aiming to do something. Nor, at this stage, is there significant coverage in reliable sources. Redirecting will mean that the helpful content that has been created can easily be restored if and when competition entry is confirmed. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Re-create if and when they are confirmed to be competing at pro level. J Mo 101 (talk) 08:31, 16 June 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 procedural delete. G5. Created by a sock. Further reading: this SPI. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chowdhry Girdhari Lal[edit]

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

Falis WP:NPOLICITAN. Sheldybett (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Sheldybett: the second reference indicates that the subject served as an elected member of the Lok Sabha and occupied various positions in the government of Uttar Pradesh, either of which would appear sufficient to satisfy the first point of WP:NPOL? AllyD (talk) 05:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep as mentioned by AllyD above, the subject passes WP:NPOL. Pratyush (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I must add to my previous comment that it's very difficult to assume good faith here, because the nominator claims to have an interest in New Zealand politics. How, then, does that editor not realise that a member of the national parliament of a country with 266 times the population of New Zealand is notable per WP:NPOLITICIAN? I hope it's not racism that leads to that conclusion, but I'm finding it hard to think of any other reason. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Phil Bridger: As previously discussed at ANI and (repeatedly) at the nominator's talk page, there seem to be some language challenges that shape this nominator's editing. You might find the ANI discussion informative. See also [2]. That doesn't rule out your explanation, but it does suggest an alternative explanation, however unflattering. Bakazaka (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cabinet minister at the state level, long-serving member of a state legislature, member of a national parliament, any one of which would be a clear pass of WP:NPOLITICIAN. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep senior government politician passes WP:NPOL, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In the absence of any expansion on the failed rationale following my query to the nominator above, then the subject's verified career fits the WP:NPOL presumed notability criterion. (Is an early WP:SNOW close appropriate?) AllyD (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article needs some improvement — but the subject is explicitly verified by the existing sources as having held a role that confers an automatic pass of WP:NPOL #1. For people who held office 35 years ago, the potential references won't Google well and will have to be extracted from archival sources like newspaper microfilms or books — but we do not have a rule that our sources have to be directly web-accessible, and we are allowed to cite print-only sourcing. We ultimately judge notability based on the existence of suitable sourcing to improve it with rather than the current quality of the article — so if a person verifiably passes our subject-specific inclusion criteria for politicians, which he does, then we do not delete the article just for not already being in better shape than it is. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 11 June 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. Clear consensus that PROF criterion 6 is satisfied by subject being a VC. Not sure why page was moved during the AfD (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eyitope Ogungbenro Ogunbodede[edit]

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

Subject does not qualify as notable under WP:ACADEMIC, references here either lack WP:INDEPENDENCE from the subject or are WP:ROUTINE coverage of him. A loose necktie (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes N:ACADEMIC by a wide margin as a head of Obafemi Awolowo University, one of the largest universities in Africa and premier institution in Nigeria. Two of the three references are independent, well-known newspapers. The third one is a university profile, so a primary source but even that, it's a reliable source itself as the community reaffirms in a recent RfC. So unfortunately, both your claims of not passing N:ACADEMIC and sources independence are all untrue. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but doesn't the article indicate that he is vice chancellor of the university, not its "head"? (WP:ACADEMIC only applies to highest-level elected officers— is this meant to include vice-level officers?). The article on the dental museum is about the museum— Mr. Ogunbodede is only quoted in it. The article on him becoming vice chancellor is what I argue is routine coverage, since any appointment of a university vice chancellor will of course be covered in a newspaper somewhere (WP:ROUTINE is meant to address this exact kind of scenario). I have no argument with the reference to the university website, since it is providing primary source information on the subject. But the other references here don't look to me like they cut it. Given these things, I don't understand why you express such overwhelming doubt about the deletion nomination. If he were notable, wouldn't there be lots of obvious sources? When all we get are a quote from the opening of a dental museum and an article announcing his appointment to a non-top-level administrative position, even at a major African university, doesn't that suggest some doubt? A loose necktie (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That shows you are fundamentally assuming something else incorrectly because of the presence of "vice" in the title. So let me clear it to you even though it looks paradoxical: A "vice-chancellor"? is the chief academic officer of a university in Commonwealth countries and the highest-level position. It's a senior position to "chancellor" (without "vice-"!) and it's more than a named chair; which itself is an indicator of notability. I would advise you to do some basic checks on the terms you're underestimating as they might be used differently in environments other than yours. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything Ammarpad has said except the bit about the vice-chancellor being a senior position to the chancellor. It's simply a different type of position, with the vice-chancellor being the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post, as described in WP:PROF#C6, and the chancellor being a figurehead who makes a few speeches and hands over certificates at degree-awarding ceremonies. If I can make an analogy with UK politics the chancellor is like the monarch, and the vice-chancellor is like the prime minister. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clear pass of WP:PROF#C6. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C6. He is also relatively well cited for an African academic, possibly enough for #C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodore Kantakouzenos[edit]

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

Not seeing any real notability. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Kantakouzenos is covered at least twice by an ostensibly notable Byzantinist (I checked the first D. Nicol source, and while it's not the subject of the article, it's more than a passing mention). Moreover, the subject apparently has an entire article dedicated to them in Revue des études byzantines. And that's just what I've gleaned from three of the four sources on the article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is now sourced even more strongly than when I originally voted Keep due to excellent work by the article's creator, Alivardi. At this point, there are several reliable authors each discussing this subject in a good amount of detail in reputable published sources. I'm usually somewhat conservative when it comes to notability guidelines, and I would call it absurd to remove this article on grounds of the subject's notability at this point. I encourage the nominator, Slatersteven, to consider reexamining the article's sources and withdrawing their nomination. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anyone who was still getting coverage in reliable sources over half a millennium after he lived is obviously notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough content and sources to support notability even at creation. I fail to see what the nominator considered lacking in this article. Constantine ✍ 12:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Ambassadors are commonly notable. In this case, his embassy resulted in 600 troops being sent to reinforce Byzantium. The article has what appear to a series of academic sources. I see nothing wrong with it. If it was just the family bits, my vote would have gone the other way. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 12 June 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. Unanimity that the subject fails WP:AUTHOR Just Chilling (talk) 18:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Cummings[edit]

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

Following this request on my talkpage: urgent help needed with my Wiki page - query, I took a look at the article, and noted that it did not contain reliable sources to meet either WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Only one source writes directly about the subject of the article, and that is an interview by ~~the publisher of his works~~ (Anaphora), ~~and the~~ [a] publisher [which] has no reputation, and conforms to descriptions of a vanity press in that the publisher expects the author to do the marketing and sales. The majority of the significant creators of the article are single purpose red-link accounts which are either the subject himself, or, as claimed by the subject, are people known to him. This appears to be a promotional article, which is against policy. SilkTork (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After reviewing the article and the sources, they're either non-reliable, non-independent, or brief, passing mentions rather than the substantial coverage that would demonstrate notability. After checking, I cannot find anything more substantial. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have spent some time researching the sources listed at User talk:LankyKeller. The only one that is independent and reliable is the Kirkus review of one of his books, which is short and doesn't actually provide notability for the author. WP:NAUTHOR is clearly not met, and as the coverage of him is very local (notices in local papers about his giving talks, probably based on PRs from his publisher) I can't see that WP:GNG is met either. When I tried to find independent sources I couldn't help noticing that the author has been very active in promoting himself and asking for reviewers to review his books - there are at least 80-90 such requests that pop up in a Google search for his name and books. Andd in every such request, he mentions the Wikipedia article about him as a source of info - seemingly he uses WP in lieu of a personal website. I appreciate that many authors have to work hard to get the word out about their books, but Wikipedia can't be part of that. --bonadea contributions talk 17:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The coverage of his work is not only local. There's lengthy review of Ugly to Start With in the Philadelphia Inquirer here, and a review of The Night I Freed John Brown in the Boston Globe here (mostly behind a paywall, but it appears to a 900 word article reviewing 3 books for young people, of which one is by Cummings). Also note that his books are not vanity press published—two are by university presses, and one by a division of Penguin. Per WorldCat, his books are held in over 900 libraries which is quite substantial, especially for the genre. Voceditenore (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus from past discussions, about how many independent newspaper reviews of an author's work is sufficient for notability under WP:AUTHOR item 3?--Srleffler (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Srleffler, that criterion includes the requirement In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. That wouldn't just mean a few newspaper reviews (or even a lot of newspaper reviews), it would mean, for example, a book being adapted into a major movie, or books or documentaries being written or made about the work. There's clearly nothing like that here. Newspaper reviews might contribute somewhat toward notability of a book, but not at all toward notability of the author. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade I agree with your conclusion, but for a different reason. I think you missed the "or" in the requirement you quoted. A work that has been the subject of multiple independent reviews does satisfy that requirement, but this is "in addition" to the requirement that the body of work be "significant or well-known". I don't think that is the case here.--Srleffler (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what Seraphimblade points out, the massive campaign from the author to get people to review his books means that many of the existing reviews are not in fact independent. The Philadelphia Inquirer review, for instance, is written by a reviewer who does freelance reviews for the newspaper, and it may or may (very probably) not be independent. The Boston Globe review behind a paywall is available here (it's one of the links LankyKeller provided on his talk page). It is a very short review indeed, not much more than a blurb. Nothing like significant coverage for the books, much less for the author. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bonadea, the Philadelphia Inquirer review is by the paper's former books editor (now retired), not some random freelancer. The Boston Globe review is 265 words long. I find it odd to characterise that as "not much more than a blurb." I am not opining one way or another in this discussion, as it's a very marginal case. However, my impression is that the summary dismissal of reviews and articles about him or his books is partially, if not largely, influenced by negative perceptions of the article's subject, his canvassing, and conflict of interest. Srleffler is absolutely correct. That should not be a factor in this discussion. The subject of the article either meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or he does not. The sources should be evaluated as they would be for any other subject, not based on or influenced by the subject's behaviour on Wikipedia. Voceditenore (talk) 08:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't speculate about why other editors hold the opinions they do - it is very easy to get it wrong, and in this instance, you have. I stand by my opinion, which is based on my own reviews of the many sources provided, and nothing else. As you will notice I never claimed that the Inquirer reviewer is "some ranom freelancer", but I pointed out that as he offers to review books through his website he is exactly the kind of person who may very probably have been targetted by the author. This discussion is surely intended to work out whether the person is notable or not, which means evaluating whether the sources are a) reliable, b) independent, and c) offer significant coverage. [edited to add: I will not deny that I am frustrated with the person - I don't have the patience of an angel, and having my explanations of how Wikipedia works repeatedly ignored, by somebody who refuses to understand that we are volunteers and that the article about him is not "his", is irritating. But the involvement with the author has been helpful in that it has become very clear that there is a lack of sourcing, given that he has made a honest effort to provide us with reliable sources - if the sourcing about him had existed, he would certainly have provided us with it, even without the WP:BEFORE searches that all of us obviously did before !voting in this AfD.] --bonadea contributions talk 15:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct Voceditenore, Anaphora is not his publisher. That was my mistake. I have stricken those comments. The publishers of his works are reliable. SilkTork (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR, and WP:NOTPROMO. The subject of the article through his canvassing of ~~various~~ numerous users and admins with requests that they improve the article, has clearly demonstrated that his intention is to use the Wikipedia to further his career as a writer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the article's attempts to canvass for aid in improving the article should not be a factor in this discussion. The subject of the article either meets the requirements of WP:AUTHOR or he does not. Nothing else is relevant. If the article is too promotional or not supported by sufficient references, that can be fixed. Editing behaviors and conflicts of interest can be addressed. None of that is relevant to the question of whether Wikipedia should have an article on this subject.--Srleffler (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of sufficient references can only be fixed if significant coverage actually exists, though. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, see also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/1608Washington. The subject of the article has slipped up and admitted (indirectly) to sockpuppetry; it is true that this doesn't affect the notability of the person, but it is not irrelevant as it shows that there have been attempts to bolster the perceived notability. --bonadea contributions talk 21:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kirkus reviewed both The Night I Freed John Brown and Don't Forget Me, Bro but I don't see any other reviews from the usual journals (not even Publisher's Weekly which is a bit surprising giving that John Brown was published by a Penguin imprint). The socking,if true, is the only thing I see of concern of actions by the article's subject - the stuff on Silk's talk page seems to be normal complaining an article's subject and certainly not worthy on its own merits for deletion. However, there doesn't seem to be notability under NAUTHOR to support his article in general. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. I couldn't find independent reliable sources on the Internet. Masum Reza^📞 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nomination . I am also intrigued by this new user who claims to be the Director of the Stephen F Austin University Press. I regard the claim as doubtful and the talk page comment as unhelpful Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have studied the article and done some searching. Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:46, 14 June 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) 18:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Conversation with Norman[edit]

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

A extremely minor, non-notable indie film. The only source present in the article is IMDB, which of course is not a valid reliable source. Aside from mirrors of this article and simple movie database listings, I have only found one source that mentions this film at all, here. However, that article only has a single sentence mentioning the film, and the information from it was taken from this Wikipedia article. Without any substantial reliable sources to discuss it, it does not pass the WP:GNG nor WP:NFILM Rorshacma (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is so non-notable that it could be a hoax. According to the article it has only been shown once in public with no dvd or video or youtube release which would explain lack of coverage but also form the basis of a hoax, thanks Atlantic306 (talk)

Delete I can find literally nothing about this subject outside of IMDb and Wikipedia. I'm not sure I'd call it a hoax; Mr. Parisen ostensibly does direct horror shorts. Nonetheless, there is such a staggering lack of evidence that it even exists that it may as well be one. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since the director intentionally chose to suppress the film after a single showing 14 years ago, with no additional screenings, no video release, and no television release, it seems unlikely that sufficient reliable sources will ever appear to establish the film as notable per WP:NFILM. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:05, 9 June 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 Kim Petras#2017–present: "Era 1". Per WP:ATD with respect to deletion vs. redirect Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Era 1 (Kim Petras)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N(E). This entire article is based on a tweet by musician Kim Petras, where she wrote "ERA 1 is complete", referring to a period of time in her discography. Some pop music writters reprinted the tweet, along with some of the songs included in what Petras described as her first era. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete For several reasons but mainly that the sourcing is atrocious, and the subject is unnotable. Clearly as it is, it’s all based on an ambiguous idea rather than reliably verifiable facts. Trillfendi (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just a loose name for a group of songs, and possibly a promotional tease for a future album. Individual songs within this group already have articles based on reliable coverage that each has received, and those song articles can stand on their own. Even the sources that have referenced the "Era" group, such as the Billboard article already cited, merely use the name as a loose catch-all term. Not a notable entity in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would a redirect to the artist's main article be appropriate? "Era 1" is already mentioned there, and it has been picked up by several outlets, such as Billboard and Paper. There is not enough notability for a separate article, but it has some coverage and could be a valid search term. I am just curious if a redirect would be a better option than deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Though I voted to delete above, this commenter makes a good point about possible use of the search term. A redirect to the "2017–present" section at the Kim Petras article would be acceptable if others vote in that fashion. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520: Thank you for the comment. I believe a redirect to Kim_Petras#2017–present:_"Era_1" would be better than outright deletion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fancruft. Nonexistent album.—N Ø 19:40, 9 June 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 Initially had little sourced content but now has reliably sourced statements of intent to bid from senior figures of a number of countries. Little realistic probability of this fundamentally notable tournament not occurring, there is only going to be more to write about this tournament in the future. Fenix down (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2027 FIFA Women's World Cup[edit]

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

Even a single-edit IP with a lying edit summary can remove a ProD, so here we are...

WP:CRYSTAL, WP:TOOSOON. We don't know where, when, how many countries, ... It will of course be a notable event, just like the 2031, 2035, ... version, but please wait with a new article until at least a few things are certain. Consider that the bidding process for the 2023 event only started this year' [3] Fram (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Except that we do not know if the Cup will even exist in 2027. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:V and WP:CRYSTAL. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, not enough information for an article yet. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep. I still think it's clearly too soon, but honestly if we've got the men's 2034 article live since 2017, I'll be damned if I'll !vote to pull the women's. --valereee (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC) ~~Delete clearly too soon.~~ --valereee (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely WP:TOOSOON.--Vulp here 05:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Currently in a similar stage to the 2034 FIFA World Cup in that there are some rumblings of countries interested in bidding to host, but no formal bidding process yet. That article was kept at AFD last year, and going against that precedent feels like it would be a case of systemic gender bias. There are reliable sources discussing the 2027 event, such as here, here, and (to a lesser extent) here. Lowercaserho (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs work on The page at the moment is very draftily at the moment and definitely needs a lot of work on to make it look like an wiki article. HawkAussie (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - TOOSOON. Giant Snowman 12:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -several news articles related to the bidding process in numerous countries. Article could use expansion, improved referencing not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, defaulting to a weak keep. I'm not sure what to vote here - there's a smattering of coverage with regards to the potential Nordic bid and the potential Dutch bid and a potential U.S. bid. That being said I'm actually sympathetic to the WP:OSE argument being made above - there's a bit more coverage of the Men's 2034 than the Women's 2027, but the type of coverage is the same, and is borderline WP:GNG. I think WP:GNG is actually satisfied based on the way I voted for the 2034 Men's World Cup, albeit marginally. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep - Article should be kept as we already have the 2034 Men's tournament page. Kevinhanit (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC) Delete - Can be recreated once we have an actual bidding process announced by FIFA. Kevinhanit (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs work per above. (And we kept the 2034 MEN's World Cup article a literal year ago, and there's coverage for this one.) It seems we've established a precedent of the next two editions having articles. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. GNG met on the same terms as similarly-situated articles as well as the gender issues raised herein. Montanabw^(talk) 19:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as there are documented bids and per the precedent set by the men's World Cup (allowing two future editions to have articles). Sounder Bruce 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with sources added since the AFD nomination. I was surprised by all the initial Delete votes above, but digging deeper the article has been significantly improved compared to the initial unreferenced article, Nfitz (talk) 15:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doctoranytime[edit]

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

Promotional Viztor (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a clear PR piece/possible UPE but it's also not notable and lacks entirely in any in depth coverage from independent sources. Praxidicae (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed what seemed to be a PR piece and added a new paragraph about an initiative that supports this business. It should be ok now Elberoin (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Elberoin: - what sources do you think demonstrate WP:NCORP is satisfied? Nosebagbear (talk) 20:46, 15 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exner Revival Cars[edit]

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

No references Rathfelder (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - with Virgil Exner (Exner Revival Cars are mentioned in that article's retirement section). A search reveals more information on this subject, but not enough to justify a separate article. Orville1974 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:19, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 21:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references added by Eastmain. Also lack of references in the article is not a valid deletion reason if references can be found by carrying out WP:Before. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep between Eastmain's sources and the biography on the individual, but has bits on the ERC. Also concerned that BEFORE wasn't carried out by nom. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ma Sang-hoon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:NFOOTBALL. CptViraj (Talk) 10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (Talk) 10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (Talk) 10:16, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually does pass NFOOTY. 42apps 2gls (ongoing) in FPL leagues (K League 1, Thai League 1) - per Soccerway. R96Skinner (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - current player who clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 15:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Actually passes NFOOTY and WP:NFOOTBALL. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he appears to pass the WP:NFOOTBALL requirements. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Phillips (ice hockey)[edit]

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

Subject only played 4 AHL games and while I'm not sure on the EHL's position of notability as it isn't listed on the league assesment page, he played 154 games which falls short of 200 games anyway. I seriously doubt the Niagara Falls Sports Wall of Fame counts as a honour as it doesn't have its own page. Also, seeing how the article began back in 2007 and it was the creator's only contribution convinced me to nominate this. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 10:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Alaney2k (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet any criteria of WP:NHOCKEY and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 10:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TripleLift[edit]

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

Non-notable company operating in a tiny niche market. References seem to be mostly to trade papers. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Trade publications can be reliable sources. Editors and journalists at trade publications make the same judgement calls about newsworthiness as their counterparts at daily newspapers or broadcast media. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:42, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of reliable, independent sources. Yes, trade press can be a reliable source and I'd happily lean on it for establishing facts but much less so for notability. I simply don't agree that editors of trade press make 'the same judgement calls about newsworthiness'. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:55, 14 June 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) 08:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latitude Learning[edit]

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

trvial awards, no substantial references that aren't PR, promotional article DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wp:GNG. Lots of "sources" but not a single one qualifies as a reliable independent secondary source. Msnicki (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every source listed in the article is either primary or dubiously reliable, and I could find nothing of substance outside of those. Whether intentional or not, this article right now fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines and functions solely as an advertisement. Comment: The fact that the word "solution" used in the context of thinly veiled marketing is Wiki-linked to the article "Solution" is hilarious to me. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:58, 10 June 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 Honorverse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Honor Harrington[edit]

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

Lead character of the eponymous series of novels. Fails MOS:REALWORLD and WP:GNG. Searches reveal third-party coverage primarily of the novel series as a whole, not the character. There is only one out-of-universe section, "Concept and creation", and it is sourced only to an interview with the author. If sourced better, this content belongs in the series article, Honorverse. The rest of the content is better suited to fan wikis. Sandstein 08:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No reason this fancruft cannot be put into the novel article itself. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Maybe merge part of the lead into the Honorverse article. This article is so bloated and overly detailed that it's difficult to tell where the bathwater ends and the baby begins. Comment: I don't know who's collectively writing all this, but look, for example, at this list of characters in this book series. Also, I feel like the article Saganami Island Tactical Simulator should be looked into for an ostensible lack of notability. Similarly, I feel like WP:WWE should be a thing, entitled "This is why Wikia exists". TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 02:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would be willing to make the merge. Debresser (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above discussion, and thank you to Debresser for offering to do the merge. Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 11 June 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. RL0919 (talk) 14:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Bruce[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - fails WP:GNG. References provided are either mentions-in-passing or rely almost exclusively on company produced material and/or quotations. Edwardx (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 06:07, 8 June 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. After substantially extended time for discussion, there is a consensus to keep the article based on sources sufficient to demonstrate notablity. bd2412 T 02:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Berkova[edit]

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

Non notable. Sources are not substantive and GNG and ENT are not met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given that she is a Ukrainian and Russian, I figured a translation of her Russian wikipedia page would give us more insight into her notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. Ru.wiki article is equally unconvincing for notability. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Popular media persona, the most famous porn actress in Russia. Enough to look at Google. According to official statistics, the most requested name in RuNet [4], [5], [6].--Kirill Samredny (talk) 07:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG.

"Elena Berkova received a term for drugs" in Argumenty i Fakty

"Andrey Lefler removed Sveta from Ivanovo and Elena Berkova in the erotic thriller 'Forgive'" in Novy Vzglyad

"Elena Berkova in court proves that she is not a porn actress", "Elena Berkova deprived her ex-husband of parental rights", presidential campaign, I think this is about her divorce, "Porn actress Elena Berkova regained consciousness after hospitalization", and "Elena Berkova after hospitalization decided to get married" in Moskovskij Komsomolets

"Berkova told about her condition after hospitalization" in Izvestia. Blumpf (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read these sources?.Can you read Russian (I can)? The vast majority are sourced to Berkova's social media or have no by-line or lack substantial content of critical discussion. In no way can they be considered substantial enough to maintain a BlP. Most of the content is tabloid gossip fodder too which is not going to cut the mustard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The general requirement for notability is significant or non-trivial coverage by reliable sources, not "substantial content of critical discussion". You are conflating the requirement of non-trivial coverage to mean that the coverage of the subject matter itself must be substantive (of substance and is subjective) rather than substantial (not mere mentions of the subject or literally the amount of coverage which is a much more objective standard). There is a difference.[7][8] If the sources cite to her social media, then that caveat could be directly acknowledged in any assertions within her article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blumpf and the vast number of articles covering her in the Cyrillic search of Google News. I am skeptical of the reliability of Moskovskij Komsomolets but her coverage by sources like Echo of Moscow [9] and RIA Novosti [10][11][12] easily pass the GNG. The nominator's ability to read Russian confounds why WP:BEFORE wasn't applied through a Cyrillic search. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Few sources, but meets WP:BASIC.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reviewed the sources, and they are passing mentions, tabloid trivia, and / or WP:SPIP. In one, we learn that the subject plans to run for a political office, according to herself. In a few others, her minor drug conviction is mentioned. This does not make someone notable, and such sources do not count for notability with doctors, businesspeople, and creative professionals. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snort. Okay. Such sources do not bother covering your doctors, businesspeople, and creatives for these things. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've re-opened this due to a request from another editor in my talk page. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 06:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing I see from the article or sources provided exhibit any notability to what Wikipedia requires. Trillfendi (talk) 18:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources presented above, Easily meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:15, 13 June 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aishat Bello[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL Joeykai (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 06:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:33, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article. I agree with that the article fails of both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Note that the subject has played at the 2018 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup and also played in a fully professional team (Nasarawa Amazons) i believe she meets WP:NFOOTBALL. The sources might be scanty but there's enough WP:RS. National league football in Nigeria is highly neglected in some ways by media. Lapablo (talk) 20:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Youth football is excluded from WP:NFOOTBALL. She has to play for a senior international team or in a fully professional league. The Nigerian league isn't a FPL. Bello therefore has to pass GNG and I can't find any sigcov on her. Dougal18 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I know this article will be deleted. But personally I don't think we should be deleting articles such as this if we are really serious about closing knowledge gap, and reducing gender bias. Aishat Bello is a top player for a top team in a top league for a top nation in African women football. I would have preferred just a notability tag, but since its here unfortunately it won't survive AFD. Not everyone can play for national teams. HandsomeBoy (talk) 07:07, 14 June 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 move to Draft:Gary Goh, as requested by the article creator. bd2412 T 02:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Goh[edit]

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

There is a lot of puffery in this article, and I'm not certain any of the references constitute significant coverage in independent sources. The books appear self-published. The universities look dodgy. There would be hundreds of justices of the peace in Queensland probably. Boneymau (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Negligible cites on GS. No pass of WP:Prof. Claims of various awards lack reliable sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Draftify. it is requested to draftify or userify the article at the moment so that i can incubate it and submit for review. i have multiple offline and online sources to prove the notability but i can not produce them within 4 days because i am busy in real life. i will add the sources for GNG and other requirements then submit the draft for review. thanks. Yanksbier (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Owle Schreame Awards[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

One-off awards in 2014 to promote a small non-notable theatre company. No information since 2014. Official awards site has been dead since early 2016. This wiki article was created by a massively disruptive self-promotional sock/meat farm, and included numerous fake references (see [13]), which were accorded merit in the previous AfD. Softlavender (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two of the four !voters in the previous AfD were members of the malicious sock/meat farm that have been creating wiki articles on persons relating to this non-notable theatre company. I and the other uninvolved !voter were fooled in that AfD by the fake references and the implication that this was going to be an annual awards ceremony. Softlavender (talk) 07:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least one of the references is broken, the remainder are essentially PR pieces in industry press. Without properly independent coverage this just isn't notable. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. The nominator has not provided any valid reason for deletion, and has serious WP:COMPETENCE issues, as evident from the user talk page messages regarding sourcing, assessments and GA reviews. utcursch | talk 14:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chavda dynasty[edit]

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

Reason: Chavda dynasty is not belong to chaulukiya dynasty chavda dynasty article have same information as chaulukiya dynasty article and this article is presenting wrong ansectrial evidence . Kharari (talk) 04:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disagreement with content is not a valid reason for deletion. The topic is notable and does not have same information as Chaulukya dynasty. @Kharari:, if you have concerns regarding the content of the article, you may post on Talk:Chavda dynasty. Deletion request is not for it.-Nizil (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

disagree with your opinion. @Nizil Shah: both article have same information I think you not read it properly. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharari (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:45, 8 June 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. Lourdes 05:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Approach Controllers Association[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, searching for full name)

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

This organisation with a mere 21 members is not notable. It fails WP:ORGCRIT:

1,600 Google results, of which most are either link lists or just exact copies of the Wikipedia article (either in English, German, or French).
There is a single article on chronicle.lu mentioning LACA, and this is basically just a press release.

A single news article in 2016 isn't significant coverage. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 06:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The French and German versions aren't any better. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 22:33, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found and added some more references, mostly about the association fighting government proposals to outsource air traffic control to Belgium or Germany. I think the material that now appears in the article adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references, including the ones added recently, meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are mentions-in-passing or based on announcements or quotations provided by the organization. Delete per nom, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:59, 9 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conga Cooler[edit]

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

No demonstration of notability. Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its a well-known drink and clearly attributed to Pancho Morales. The article could use more sources, but there are a ton of readily accessible ones in a quick Google search for "Conga Cooler" Orville1974 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:05, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is not encyclopedic. Cox wasan (talk) 18:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Not seeing any notability here (through google and news searches). The two current references barely mention the drink — even the one that shares the title with this page. The Margarita is a notable drink. The bartender himself doesn't have a page (which is probably as it should be but I dont' think I'd oppose that). This is more trivial than encyclopedic. The big distillers and brewers have gazillions of drinks. Since the companies are notable, should every drink they sell be considered notable as well? ogenstein (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also do not see notability. I found another passing reference The Last Supper of Chicano Heroes, Pp. 161 - 163. However, as with the Texas Monthly piece cited in the article, it focuses mainly on the creation of the margarita and mentions Conga Cooler in passing, along with other drinks like the Pancho Lopez and the Viejito, much as the Texas Monthly does with other drinks, such as those named after WW2 fighter planes. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charlanta[edit]

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

Does not seem to be a term in common use beyond the citation linked to in the article. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - used [in research here], [here], and [here]; in economic development [here], and [here] and [here] Orville1974 (talk) 23:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added this reference to the article: Florida, Richard (March 12, 2014). "The Dozen Regional Powerhouses Driving the U.S. Economy". CityLab. The author states: "The concept of mega-regions dates back to 1957, when the economic geographer Jean Gottman coined the term “megalopolis” ..." CityLab, formerly The Atlantic Cities, is a digitaml media property of The Atlantic magazine. A small point: The references write Char-lanta with a hyphen, so perhaps the article should be moved there. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:43, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cunningham (basketball)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails to meet notability guidelines as defined by WP:NBASKETBALL. In my opinion, fails overarching WP:GNG as all other listed references/citations are trivial mentions (e.g. signing with a team, leaving a team, etc.) with the exception of an interview which for me doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV. Upon a cursory search, I couldn't find any substantial sources to add to the article, whereas the PROD was removed because "It is highly likely that he will pass WP:GNG.". Looking for this discussion to address WP:NEXIST, and thus hopefully GNG, and preserve for the record. GauchoDude (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG [14][15][16]. Dammit_steve (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A full professional basketball player like Sean Cunningham should not be prodded, also given the comments of nominator that he might pass the WP:GNG. gidonb (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response from nom for @Gidonb: "A full professional basketball player" means nothing, otherwise that would have been specifically outlined by the experts in the subject at WP:NBASKETBALL as a notability guideline. In fact, they've specifically listed leagues there which could presume notability, none of which the subject has played in. Additionally, I made no claim in my statement that "... he might pass the WP:GNG" as the subject must have WP:SIGCOV which I don't feel he meets based off the search I did. GauchoDude (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lourdes 05:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K-391[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacking notability due to the non-existent independent and verifiable sources that discuss the subject in-depth. The subject has two charting singles on national charts and one on a component chart, passing the musical notability criteria deficiently because these singles are merely collaborations with his friend Alan Walker, who is an established musician himself with numerous other charting singles, presenting a WP:Notability is not inherited situation. Passing the criteria at WP:NM implies the subject may be notable, but not necessarily is, in the presumption that a search for reliable sources may be successful. The sources currently present in the article are mostly primary[17], unreliable (blogs, etc)[18][19][20][21], insignificant[22][23], not about the subject himself[24][25] and passing mention[26], therefore failing the general notability criteria which requires the presence of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I must also note that the creator of this article has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing and advertising. This article could be the subject of undisclosed paid editing, which is improper by the policies that govern this website. KoopaLoopa (talk) 10:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article and it's sources are fine. Even though the two charting songs are collaborations with Walker, they are also K-391's songs and it doesn't matter if he had a lot or a little amount of input on any of those songs, they are his regardless. Most of the sources are usable and are fine as well, as long as they prove that they have actual editorial oversight or staff, which they do (EDM Sauce, Your EDM, We Rave You, etc). Pretty much the biggest issue with the article is that the subject pretty much just rides off of Alan Walker, who is present in most of the sources as mots sources are about the collaboration "Ignite" or about K-391's presence in guess-who's album. I wouldn't be surprised if this article gets deleted because of the heavy reliance on Walker, but for now, the article passes criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC and has enough sources about K-391, so it's fine with me. Micro (Talk) 22:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- MicroPowerpoint "I wouldn't be surprised if this article gets deleted because of the heavy reliance on Walker", yes, then why keep? And if you think there is "enough sources about K-391", please provide them here to facilitate greater discussion regarding the subject's notability. KoopaLoopa (talk) 10:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article is fine. Sources are in the article, no need to bring them here. The articles fate pretty much relies on the opinion of other editors — if they believe that the article relies on Alan too much or if the article is fine. Micro (Talk) 11:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah okay, you're WP:NOTGETTINGIT. As I said above, the sources in the article do not discuss the subject in-depth and the music criteria requirement is dependent on the assumption that the subject is expected to have received significant coverage because the subject has had few charting singles. In this case they have not received significant coverage, therefore passing the musical criteria alone does not guarantee inclusion in the encyclopedia per the guideline - "meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". KoopaLoopa (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't anyone else participating in this discussion? If it is closed based on the above editor's opinion, this article will be kept which is not appropriate because this musician does not deserve a Wikipedia page since he is not notable in his own right! Am I allowed to invite other editors here? KoopaLoopa (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @KoopaLoopa: See WP:AFD#After nominating: Notify interested projects and editors. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The link is helpful, thank you. KoopaLoopa (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - I don't see any notability here. From what I saw through a google search, the results were mostly lists or about his collaborators. And at least some of the citations concern me. For example, [6] is titled 'K-391 and Alan Walker…' but that is a falsified title and K-391 is not mentioned either in the title or the article. Many of the other references are trivial or are really about Alan Walker. ogenstein (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is fine. I added a mention of K-391's solo album in the Discography section. Even though he is much more famous by collaborations with Alan Walker, K-391 is a notable musician himself. The "career" section does need improvement, as it is focused more on Walker than K-391, but this doesn't mean K-391 is not notable enough to have his own article. With a few improvements, this article could become a very good one. WikiSmartLife (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiSmartLife How is K-391 notable as a musician? Were you told by anyone to come here and vote like on Twitter? KoopaLoopa (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - KoopaLoopa, I was not told by anyone to come here. My thoughts are just that improvements can make this article more independent, with less reliance on Walker. WikiSmartLife (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: K-391 is notable in part due to collaborations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:191:200:D357:7D81:792F:91BB:2BFD (talk) 00:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — 2601:191:200:D357:7D81:792F:91BB:2BFD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- 2601:191:200:D357:7D81:792F:91BB:2BFD, K-391 has made some famous collaborations with Alan Walker, like you said, but this is not the reason his article should not be deleted. The reason is that he is a musician that has a solo album and many songs that are not collaborations, and he is notable for this. See WP:Notability is not inherited. WikiSmartLife (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is something fishy going on. I believe K-391 or someone associated with him has brought these people here. KoopaLoopa (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- KoopaLoopa I already said, nobody influenced me to come here. I just saw the discussion and thought I should add my opinion. WikiSmartLife (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - WikiSmartLife you are simply stating the musician is notable but you have not demonstrated how. Collaborating with a notable musician does not make himself notable. Have you even read the linked guidelines? KoopaLoopa (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources are numerous but not strong, and mostly report that he exists, without establishing that he is notable. As an aside, the creation of the article and the voting pattern on this AFD look fairly suspect to me, but that doesn't affect the notability of the subject. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having a number one single, with or without another artist, makes him notable. The coverage may not be extensive, but there's one source in the Norwegian version of the article that looks like decent coverage. --Michig (talk) 07:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Even some of the "keep" !votes above note that the article requires improvement, and suggest that sources not in the article could be found or added. Maybe this would suffice to keep it, maybe not. Send it to draft space, and those who think it can be improved enough to merit inclusion can carry out those improvements and submit it for approval. bd2412 T 02:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe Institute of Management[edit]

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

No claim to notability, sources only tangentially mention the subject (they mention the recipients of the awards without substantial coverage of the notability of the subject), somewhat promotional in tone. creffett (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe—The First Decade seems to have substantial coverage. I got this from running together several snippets,

The Zimbabwe Institute of Management has roots which extend back over three decades to 1957, when a group of managers decided to form 'The Rhodesian Association of Management'. In 1959, this became The Rhodesian Institute of Management', and in 1979, the name was changed to the 'Zimbabwe Institute of Management'. Headquarters The Head Office of the Institute is situated in Dzidzo House, Londonderry Avenue, Eastlea. Dzidzo House is large and contains a number of lecture rooms, which are available for hire at reasonable rates. The library is open for use by members. Training Building pfi foundations laid earlier, the Zimbabwe Institute of Management has developed into a dynamic management training force. Core courses run by the Institute encompass all levels of management training, from general management to supervisory levels. In addition to this, the Institute offers a highly practical 'Train the Trainer' course. 'Professional Management in Action' is one of the highlights of the training calendar. For six years, PMA has been a popular residential seminar held at the University. This unique course has attracted delegates from many other African countries, such as Botswana, Ethiopia, Malawi, Nigeria and Zambia. Related Activities The Institute's activities extend beyond the borders of classroom training.

SpinningSpark 18:48, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I also found substantial articles in Zimbabwe Industry and Commerce here and here. SpinningSpark 18:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 8 June 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Cochrane (journalist)[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about a television journalist, whose only evident notability claim is that he exists. As a national network reporter, he would likely be eligible for an article if it were sourced properly to reliable source coverage about him, but simply being on television is not an instant notability freebie that exempts him from having to clear WP:GNG just because he exists. However, the only reference here is a Blogspot, not a reliable source, and I'm unable to find any other notability-supporting sources: even on a ProQuest search, I'm just finding press releases and transcripts of his own journalism, rather than notability-supporting coverage about him as a subject. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 8 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriations Committee (Georgia Senate)[edit]

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

None of these committees are themselves notable, each failing WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. There is no presumption of notability for state legislatures, let alone committees within those bodies. In the painful WP:BEFORE search, I found mere mentions and some sources that focused upon legislation before the committee or a person on the committee but nothing focused on the committee as an entity. All of this content should have been developed in the articles about the Georgia State House of Representatives and the Georgia State Senate before being moved into standalone articles, per WP:SPINOUT. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And all the related articles for the same reason:

Delete all. Although I strongly disagree with the nominator's comment that there's no presumption of notability for state legislatures, definitely these should all be covered in the main Georgia Senate article and only be given separate articles if they grow too large for inclusion there (on a case-by-case basis).—Chowbok ☠ 16:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chowbok: I've bundeled more and will be adding a couple dozen more onto this, so let us know if you change your mind about your !vote. Also, please show me the guideline presuming notability about legislatures. WP:NPOL assumes notability for statewide politicians, but not the committees on which they serve. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LEGISLATURE says state legislatures are automatically notable.—Chowbok ☠ 05:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a failed proposal and of course, doesn't pertain to these articles, anyway. Thanks for letting me know that exists. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, didn't notice that was failed, sorry. Weird, I thought sure it said somewhere that state legislatures were notable. Oh well, like you say, we're getting off-topic here.—Chowbok ☠ 22:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. State legislative committees are nothing like US Congressional committees in terms of their power and the process by which legislative sausages get made. At the state level, most legislation is copypasta from other legislatures, or from the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council. Giving such committees articles gives WP:UNDUE weight to them. Abductive (reasoning) 19:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. As a courtesy, the titles can be redirected to the articles on the respective houses of the Georgia Legislature. bd2412 T 17:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

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. Fenix down (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 AD Bairro season[edit]

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

The page fails WP:GNG because of the fact that the Cape Verde league is not a professional league. Also would like be adding these pages to the list.

The 2016-17 pages just essentially match reports as their reference instead of being reports from that match like other pages are. HawkAussie (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NSEASONS failure. Also worth noting that they were created by a prolific sockpuppeteer (see their SPI page), who was pretty much the only contributor to most of the articles (all other edits appear to be minor fixes or typo corrections) – the articles would probably be eligible for speedy deletion (if you find any more, tag them for this instead). Number 5 7 10:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am also adding this page to the list of pages has I tried speedy delete but was rejected. HawkAussie (talk) 22:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pancakes and Powerslams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. The first AfD ended as a soft delete because it only had one vote. No notability has been shown since it was recreated. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if it's substantially identical to the deleted version it can be CSD'd per G4. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @John M Wolfson: No, it can't. WP:SOFTDELETE is treated as equivalent to an expired WP:PROD and this page was restored on that basis. SpinningSpark 16:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stand corrected. None of the sources given seem reliable, so delete. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find anything that supports GNG - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything that would warrant this existing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Simply not notable.LM2000 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 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.