< 27 May	29 May >

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La cita (film)[edit]

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

Another short film I can't find notability for. I can't find any reliable sources. Something to note is the closest match I could find elsewhere was on the IMDB where a short film with he same name popped up. Which was also in Spanish and was just 1 year off. Though I'm not even sure if it's the same film since it mentions it being a Mexican film and this one says it's from Africa.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Fenêtre, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Season Between Heaven and Hell (2 other articlea I put up for AFD today that has a similar case that has links to even more similar ones) Wgolf (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources and not so reliable sources, for example no entry at imdb - the short film listed there with this title is a different animated film, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV, it hasn't even got an entry at IMDb which is a database of films. SSSB (talk) 16:56, 4 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ZEV 10 LRC[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't really appear to be notable enough. The entire page is written like an advertisement and only uses primary sources from the company itself. Page is also a stub, and I doubt enough information can be found on this or even Z Electric Vehicle to do it. - Skynorth/Cosmo^hey 23:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yes, this is clearly an advertisement. Nothing much in the way of independent sources. Reyk _YO! 08:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Z Electric Vehicle. Present article reads like an advertisement and is probably by a CoI creator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Reads like an advertisement. I don't think it's worth making the article a redirect, since "ZEV 10 LRC" looks too obscure for people to be typing into Wikipedia search. – numbermaniac 13:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This is an advertisment Alex-h (talk) 14:37, 1 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LUUP[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is years out of date (and practically unsourced), may or may not have been notable many years ago, but I can find no contemporary coverage. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Black Kite (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is an advertisement, written by single purpose accounts, and the sources are press releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.159.160 (talk) 18:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stage West Pechet Family Musical Award[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced article about a theatre award. As always, every award on the planet is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test for awards is the depth of reliable source coverage they do or do not receive in media. But this cites literally no notability-supporting sources at all: four of the five footnotes are to its own self-published website about itself, and the only real media source is a one-line glancing namecheck of its existence in an article about something else, not coverage about the award per se. Which means none of these sources are genuine support for its notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this, this and this - there’s more of this sort. There seems a reasonable amount of independent and reliable sourcing but it’s not very in depth. Mccapra (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Alberta is a directly-affiliated source, not a reliable or notability-supporting media outlet, and both of the other two just briefly namecheck this award's existence in the process of being fundamentally about other things or people. The notability test is not "award gets mentioned on the web", it is "award gets media coverage about the award as a subject", and none of these three sources cut it. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. I do not see the sources adequately supporting notability. Otr500 (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Media service provider[edit]

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

This generic term has been sourceless for 12 years and quite frankly it’s obsolete. Trillfendi (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Articles should have references and this doesn't.Catfurball (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research.--94rain ^Talk 08:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like OR without any real substance. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 4 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. Tone 21:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mojtaba cheraghi[edit]

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

Insufficient notability on all fronts; sources are passing mentions (the same one twice), a listing, and links to muisc videos. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability. Not a single credit on IMDb. Should be speedy deletion next time. HM Wilburt (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Season Between Heaven and Hell[edit]

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

Short film I can't find ANY notability for or any reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Fenêtre Wgolf (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources as well as not so reliable ones as for example there is no entry under this title at IMDb or the more reliable Rotten Tomatoes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:48, 2 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) 19:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Fenêtre[edit]

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

Short film I'm trying to find notability for, I've looked around but no luck (I found a short from the 1960s with this title, but that wouldn't be it since that would be 40 years before this one!) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humburgun, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sekalli le Meokgo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Varavarankely (all 3 are similar cases, done tons of other ones as well that are currently up for AFD) Wgolf (talk) 19:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that the film meets the general notability criteria for inclusion, nor the specific notability criteria for films specified at WP:NFO.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles the moment one glancing namecheck in an article about something else can be shown to verify that they exist — they need to have notability claims that pass WP:NFILM, and even more importantly they need to show evidence of reliable source coverage about them. But I can't find any notability-supporting coverage for this, under either its original French or translated English (The Window) titles, and I am the Canadian film Wikiproject so I know where to look for film coverage. Bearcat (talk) 14:29, 1 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) 19:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blok IV, Podgorica[edit]

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

References do not support the one-sentence claim. Only one to include "blok" appears to be the public transport one that lists line 7 "Stari aerodrom - Blok VI - IX (Probna linija sa izmjenom postojeće trase – produžetak do bloka IX)" This refers to bloks 6 to 9; meanwhile List of Podgorica neighbourhoods and suburbs says that only bloks 5, 6, and 9 kept the "blok" designation. No mention of Blok 4. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mass-produced sub-stub with little care taken to include details of individual articles. "Neighbourhood is not an administrative category, but unofficial geographical notion", and sources do not support notability of a residential locality with this name. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough content to be a useful article, and no sources provided to improve it. Peter James (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "unofficial geographical notion"s aren't actually a topic. Reyk _YO! 11:55, 29 May 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) 18:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Walsingham[edit]

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

This popped up in my watchlist and I noticed I'd attempted to PROD it 5 years ago and this was rejected for no apparent good reason. Article hasn't been improved since. Article strikes me as unsourced 'art waffle' and the one source refers to an exhibition he "hosted" in the early 2000s. The 'Literature' is probably the catalogue for the exhibition. It's bizarre I can't find anything at all about this artist online, particularly because his surname is not particularly common. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Time for it to go. Sionk (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I went back and looked at your PROD, and it looks like it was removed by an administrator. Frankly, I have no idea why it was removed; the article is a largely unreferenced biography about a non-notable artist created by a single-purpose account. While I have no idea what their rationale was (they simply state: "needs further ck for refs. It's his work, not his life that would be notable"), it's probably for the best that they're included in the discussion: @DGG:. I couldn't find a single reference to this artist outside of the one website that's already in the article, and the one that's already referenced is a brief overview of the subject's life on some seemingly random website from an unknown author citing no sources. Furthermore, I couldn't even find material on 'Personal Expressionism' outside of the aforementioned article, which doesn't even describe what it is.
Delete per above. I note that the only ref, in German, calls him a book illustrator, but there is nothing about this in the article. Could be a hoax. The creator's only 5 edits were setting this up. Google books find only the Tudor squire etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything at all about this person, let alone as an artist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a hoax. Vexations (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My attempts with various searches have not found anything further than the Literaturmarkt item which is the sole accessible reference (and from which much of the article text seems to be an expanded replay). I don't see that as sufficiently strong to sustain an article as verifiable, adding to which much of the article is WP:POV. Even if we accept that the subject's work was indeed exhibited at some point in the Frankfurt Goethe-Akademie, that would not be enough to demonstrate WP:ARTIST notability on its own. AllyD (talk) 16:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lack of any obvious coverage of the subject of this article, other than the one source identified, would suggest that assuming that even if this article is factually accurate, and I think the points raised above cast doubt on this, then notability is not met. Dunarc (talk) 18:58, 2 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. It seems like of the accessible sources, none of them establishes notability. The offline source provided by Piotrus may or may not provide notability, we can't tell because we don't have access to it. Thus delete, although if someone can verify that the source mentioned by Piotrus is indeed adequate this probably will merit revisiting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksander Glondys[edit]

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

Obviously a self-promotion article. All external sources written in a similar, widely exaggerated manner, which details all possible achievements indiscriminately, while still hardly reaching the threshold for notability; his main project doesn't even have its own Polish-language article, session appearances are disguised as regular activities, etc. Actually more active as a translator than a musician. Dziewięćsił (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject, at face value, does not appear noteworthy. However, I would be remiss to submit a vote without doing the proper research. Instead, I'll leave the subject's Polish Wikipedia page here, as it seems to use different references than its English counterpart, which may be helpful in coming to a consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTechnician27 (talk • contribs) 05:13, May 29, 2019 (UTC)
- Three out of four references serve to underline random flatteries instead of providing useful information, while the first one basically proves the degree of reaching that's taking place (no mention of him in the bio of the band he has purportedly "played with") throughout the article filled with weasel words and overblown statements. His "selected discography" is so poor it actually looks comprehensive, and the novels he has translated are all low-tier. He's basically a regular translator with a niche, who also happens to be a jazz drummer that has occasionnally performed with some bigger names. Also his website, "a collaboration with over 50 international entities" (whatever that means), doesn't even work. I'm not saying he cannot be proud of his cultural input, but this is far too little for an encyclopedic entry; especially when it looks like a poorly written cover letter. Dziewięćsił (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Having looked into it now, I agree. Since you seem to be a native Polish speaker, perhaps you should consider nominating the Polish article for deletion as well, or even just using a PROD. TheTechnician27 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd love to, but getting anything done on Polish Wikipedia is strenuous and I just don't feel comfortable enough there. They're great at policing you, but rarely anyone gives a shite when you actually have a question or something to discuss.
      It's Polish Wikipedia after all. Dziewięćsił (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I find WP:NMUSIC too arcane to figure out if he has the required albums or such. But pl wiki references his bio with this book, which calls itself, roughly, an Encyclopedia of Music in Krakow, and is published by a publishing house affiliated with the reliable Jagiellonian University. So it meets my test for 'a topic that has an article in another encyclopedia'. Well, I am AGF that the subject is covered in this offline source in more than just a passing sentence or two. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Now that I've sat down and reviewed the article, I agree that it should be deleted based on Dziewięćsił's points, and I would further note that it fails to meet WP:NMUSIC. I would go as far as to say that Polish editors may want to nominate the article's pl.wikipedia counterpart I linked above to be considered for deletion. TheTechnician27 (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the only other two pages edited^{[citation needed]} by the creator were specifically for the sake of this page alone, and the apocryphal creation comment of this page is "Creation of the article. All the information, links and references have been given if not stated otherwise by Aleksander Glondys. The article is still to be worked upon.". -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:44, 5 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) 18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frédéric Motte[edit]

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

For some background to this nomination, just under a week ago, I created a proposal for the article Frédéric Motte to be removed. As an overview, Motte is listed as the composer for a number of small games (by small, I mostly mean games ranging from obscure Amiga titles to Nintendo DS shovelware). Outside of being in one barely notable demo group in the late 80s/early 90s called Sanity (note: I say barely, because at first glance, it seems like this group itself may not even be notable enough for Wikipedia), this is the extent of his notability.

My rationale can be seen on this old revision of the article, but in effect, the reasoning was four-fold:

The subject simply is not notable under WP:NOTE (I did my due diligence and tried to find reputable third-party sources). See: WP:COMPOSER; I assert that the subject meets none of these six criteria, nor do they meet any of the five criteria listed in 'Others'.
Almost the entirety of the article was written by the subject himself (note: the username of the article's creator is 'Conkrete' and the subject's recording studio, as listed in the article and the subject's website, is 'Conkrete'; moreover, Conkrete has only edited that article) using no references whatsoever. Moreover, most of the substantial edits after the article's creation were made through IP edits ostensibly by the subject himself – the contributions made by the IPs in question consist exclusively of the article Frédéric Motte and/or articles relating to the subject (such as games he'd composed for); more specifically, I believe that the second and third top contributors (after Conkrete), IP 82.66.31.21 and IP 78.243.79.107, respectively, are the subject himself, or at the very least someone close to the subject. Whether or not these IP edits were undisclosed deliberately is anyone's guess, so I'll default to saying it was an accident in good faith.
As the article was an autobiography and the subject wasn't and isn't notable, almost the entire page is completely unreferenced, and the small portion that is uses non-notable sources that consist of two interviews with the subject.
It's very likely that the article was created for self-promotion, as the subject places numerous links to their own webpages in the article, including several links directly to their Myspace page in the 'Discography' section. This could have been good faith, but due to the article's flagrant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines on autobiographies (WP:YOURSELF), I'm inclined to doubt this.

To me, this seemed like a reasonable PROD. As I said, I feel I did my due diligence for WP:NOTE, and the fact that it is a largely unsourced autobiography which was likely created for promotional purposes simply exacerbates this issue.

However, this PROD was reverted on the seventh and final day by an IP editor who had – at the time – two total contributions, with the following explanation: "An 11 year old article with many edits by third parties shouldn't be summarily deleted without normal process, even if the original stub was possibly self-promotion. Subject is arguably notable as a musician in the demoscene as well as video game industry." I feel this reversion is completely unreasonable, and I outlined why on the IP's talk page. In summary, I contest that '11 year old article' and 'many edits by third parties' are red herrings (and that the second one is wrong), that I went through the "normal process" (see: WP:PRODNOM), that the article was likely made for promotional purposes, and that the subject was not noteworthy per WP:NOTE and WP:COMPOSER.

Under WP:CONTESTED, it is stated: "If you still believe that the page should be deleted, or that a discussion is necessary, list it on Articles for deletion or files for discussion." Because it is against Wikipedia's guidelines to reinstate a PROD regardless of the circumstances it was removed under, I've created a nomination to facilitate discussion about its deletion instead. I still emphatically believe that this article has no place on Wikipedia. TheTechnician27 (talk) 17:30, 28 May 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 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:42, 4 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. Tone 21:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Quality Awards[edit]

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

"Prestigious" business award that apparently has been awared twice, so far... coverage is pretty bad. Source rundown:

Absent better sourcing, this fails WP:NCORP (which I assume is the applicable guideline here). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:46, 4 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. Tone 21:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Terrell[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a couple of WP:ROUTINE-type WP:NOTNEWS announcements of taking or leaving positions with minor basketball teams. Only one comes up that is actually this subject in G-News, although there may be a couple more in non-English. Fails WP:NHOOPS with only head coaching very minor leagues (Liga Națională (men's basketball), Circuito de Baloncesto de la Costa del Pacífico, National Basketball League of Canada, and The Basketball League). It does not help that this article was also likely created by the subject himself. Yosemiter (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:AUTOBIO of a NN basketball coach. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Detter de Frankopan[edit]

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

Notability. The subject does not appear to have any encyclopedia-worthy accomplishments, just a list of her children, two of whom do have their own Wikipedia pages Lilipo25 (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Stockholm University does have a "Carl Lindhagen chair in international law". And Ingrid Detter does verifiably have a 1965 PhD in international law from Stockholm University [1] [2]. If it can be verified that she once held the chair, she should pass WP:PROF#C5. And she also appears to pass WP:AUTHOR for multiple books with multiple published reviews [3]. But the genealogy cruft has to go. Until it does, the article in its nominated state is a case for WP:TNT —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The "genealogy cruft" cannot entirely go because she is deeply involved in the Frankopan family#Doimi de Lupis's name claiming controvery, from buying former Frankopan's castle for which lack of care is violating the signed contracts, providing false information to "prove" the existence "Princes of Doimi de Frankopan" which never existed, up to be represented to Pope John Paul II as a Frankopan rather than by her real name.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who cares what some long-out-of-power aristocrats think of the name she calls herself. It may be relevant for her husband (if her husband were notable enough for an article) but not to what she's notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you! Miki Filigranski is the original author of a very long and extensive bashing of the entire Frankopan family over this name change on all three of their Wikipedia pages - Ingrid Detter de Frankopan, her son Peter Frankopan, and her daughter Lady Nicholas Windsor. For years, Wikipedia editors have been removing it from all three pages for bias and relevance only to have Miki put it back up again repeatedly. I cut it down severely on all the pages a few months ago, but frankly, it should come down entirely on all the articles. It is irrelevant, and the fact that it was illegal to use a noble title without authorization in a now-defunct Empire 200 years ago has nothing to do with this family today - they only made the name change within the last 20 years, and it is completely legal for them to do so.Lilipo25 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Firstly, make one more WP:PERSONAL attack on me with such lies, you are going to get reported to the admins. Secondly, what are you talking about? This information was included there for a long time before I even reverted them recently. Thirdly, what bashing? Citing reliable sources is "bashing"? How it is irrelevant when they, including Ingrid, falsely claimed to be descendants of the noble Frankopan family? They made a fraud. It is notable that Ingrid provided another author, who was writing on the Frankopan family, with false information to prove the existence of her husband's family which did not.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        You need to be more careful. Fraud is a criminal offense, and should not be mentioned in the context of a WP:BLP without proof of a criminal conviction, not just newspaper opinion-piece allegations. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        
        As David Eppstein said, there has been NO "fraud" committed and again, you cannot make slanderous statements like that about the Frankopans in an encyclopedia when they are not supported by cold facts. Your "reliable sources" don't support half the statements you have made in these articles that you attach them to, and in particular your long and often-irrelevant statements in the Frankopan Family article. Much of what you have to say there is merely your biased opinion, which is not permitted in an encyclopedia article: you cannot, for example, say that Louis' cousin denounced him in order "to save the reputation of the family name". Or that Ingrid "influenced with false information the publishing of a book with the intention to distort history about these two families" - as you are not inside her head, you have no idea what her "intentions" were, even if you had actual proof that she "influenced with false information", which is not supported by the source. And you cannot make blatantly biased and slanted comments like "members of de Lupis family managed to get presented [to the Pope] not by their original name yet as Frankopans" - that clearly has a negative slant and is therefore not a neutral POV. Yes, all of that is indeed "bashing". You are arguing with two editors right now who are telling you that your edits are not acceptable. And if you look up above, at least one other editor in this same section has also said that your "genealogy" comments need to be deleted. Perhaps you should consider that you are not correct, and everyone else wrong. Lilipo25 (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This discussion is out of scope here so will make a short reply. You have been warned about personal attack on me, so you are getting reported. Reliable sources and cold facts are provided. There is no "my biased opinion", that's cited from reliable sources - it is really intriguing why are you openly ignoring that fact, better to say, lying. Per WP:CONSENSUS number do not matter, and I am sticking by the facts and reliable sources while you are not.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Knock yourself out reporting me all you like - it isn't a personal attack to point out that as you could not possibly be inside Ingrid de Frankopan's head, you could not know that she had duplicitous "intentions", and no unbiased source could possibly know that, either. I repeat, such statements - of which you have made a great many in at least four articles about the Frankopans - are not supported by any acceptable, unbiased sources. They are therefore not acceptable for an encyclopedia article, which requires a neutral POV (and if you think I'm not allowed to say that, please, report away, Miki!)Lilipo25 (talk) 06:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - These aristocrats are dead and cannot think of anything. Those who think about the controvery are contemporary people, including her family members. It is relevant to her personal life as well because she added even more stuff regarding the controversy, reliable sources reported on this, we cannot deny and censorship that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Someone changing their name to something else might be relevant, if there are sources on it. She could have changed her name to The Goddess Luna, Emperor of the Moon and Rightful Ruler of the Cislunar World for all I care. Some other group of people clinging onto titles that became irrelevant 100 years ago getting mad about a name-change is not relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        This controversy is extensively reported in reliable sources, including scholarly papers. It is not a simple name adoption as they claimed to be descendants of the noble Frankopan family. It is relevant to the article and public to understand how she got the surname "de Frankopan" - through marriage. However, that's not the only thing she had done. She bought a whole castle and other stuff, as said. However, I don't care what's going to happen with this article until there's a link to the Frankopan family article's section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 05:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG. Sources are ok.BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait If I have a kid, and my kid marries a minor member of the British royal family, I get to have a Wikipedia page? Seriously, folks, before we can keep this page someone has to find sources that establish that this woman is notable for something. Sources to show that she passes WP:PROF, for example.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You did read the comments above, right? The ones providing a likely case for WP:PROF and sources for WP:AUTHOR? I agree that the supposed title of nobility by marriage is not notable, but there appears to be more here than what is in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point is that the page is in WP:TNT territory. Now, if that chair is a "real" chair (that is , a professorship conferred as an indication of notability as a scholar,) and somebody wants to turn this into a a page about a notable legal scholar, I'm good with that. But unless somebody puts the effort into doing that, we're better off without it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I edited the article to focus on her academic career and books, and to treat her notable family members as a side note rather than the main reason for the article. So far I've found 10 books and 27 reviews, but I think there are more of both where those came from. It's a very clear pass of WP:AUTHOR now, and also a pass of WP:PROF via the named professorship (for which I found a source that I think is convincing enough). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent editing of the article, David Eppstein! It's much better now and actually worth keeping, imo.Lilipo25 (talk) 01:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: notable academic, author of many seriously-reviewed books. PamD 08:43, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per David Eppstein excellent editing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF and AUTHOR. Doesn't seem like the nominator performed an adequate WP:BEFORE. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She is clearly notable in her own right under PROF and AUTHOR, irrespective of her husband's genealogy hobby. --Tataral (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable academic. WP:HEY. /Julle (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep...this is a academic career and books, Notable academic.anupam[ 05:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC) ][reply]
Keep I made the proposal for deletion. Since the article has now been rewritten by David Eppstein to include her published works and other academic accomplishments and is no longer just a list of her children, I think it is now worth keeping. Lilipo25 (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the books are sufficient. The information about her family is irrelvant and needs to be removed. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 4 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus S. Poonawalla[edit]

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

Delete I don't see WP:NBIO notability here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miketzefat (talk • contribs) 13:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep - Padma Shri awardee. Billionaire with an estimated worth of $9.6 billion Source. Has been nominated for deletion by a user whose only edits have been to nominate this article for deletion. Fishy ?. Jupitus Smart 17:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have just added citation from Bloomberg and replaced with better citation from Forbes. The article can definitely use some more expansion and more citations as the basic Google news search reveals a lot of information not currently covered by the page. But there should be no questions about WP:NBIO Shemtovca (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:26, 4 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) 18:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1909 Southwest Texas State Bobcats football team[edit]

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

Southwest Texas State did not play football in 1909. There is no reference to football in the 1910 Pegagogue yearbook^[1]. Also, Baylor did not play Southwest Texas State.^[2] Also, we can look at newspaper at the time and see that Baylor played San Marcos Academy.^[3] Places like https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/baylor/1909-schedule.html incorrectly attribute the game to Texas State and that led to the error. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://exhibits.library.txstate.edu/univarchives/viewer/show/62#page/n137/mode/2up
^ 2018 Texas State Football Media Guide (PDF), p. 154
^ "San Marcos Defeated 55 to 0 by Baylor on Waco Field", Houston Post, Houston, TX, p. 3, October 5, 1909

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This discussion may be relevant: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1905 Southwest Texas State Bobcats football team--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed, but this page was not deleted with the others. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Americanfootballupdater makes a strong case, and SR/College Football has many errors. If SR/College Football were the sole source claiming that the game was against Texas State (known in 1909 as Southwest Texas State), I'd easily support the AfD. However, what concerns me is that the school itself published a supposedly authoritative account of the program's history (here), and that account also asserts (at p. 127) that Texas State played football in 1909 and lost to Baylor by a 55-0 score. See also p. 131 reporting an 0-1 record for the 1909 season. I suspect Americanfootballupdate is probably correct, and I would be ok with the article being deleted without prejudice. However, it would be nice if someone could contact the Texas State athletic department (perhaps the sports information director?) to see if they have any information that solves this puzzle. Cbl62 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To Cbl62's point, I already contacted the SID, Rick Poulter, and that is why the 2018 Media Guide does not include this result. I included this reference above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Americanfootballupdater (talk • contribs) 13:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC) Forgot to sign, I also think that there was no team in 1904, but he did not want to remove those results and "change" the history and starting date of the program. In the 1905 Pedagogue Yearbook^[1], there is a picture of a football with a question mark for members. In the 1907 Pedagogue Yearbook^[2] is the first team photo but I could not find any results in local newspapers. In the 1910 Pedagogue Yearbook^[3], again there is no reference to football. Americanfootballupdater (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, note the Baylor yearbook^[4] Americanfootballupdater (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://exhibits.library.txstate.edu/univarchives/viewer/show/55#page/n97/mode/2up/search/foot
^ http://exhibits.library.txstate.edu/univarchives/viewer/show/57#page/n107/mode/2up/search/foot
^ http://exhibits.library.txstate.edu/univarchives/viewer/show/62#page/n131/mode/2up
^ Round-Up, Waco, TX, 1910, p. 181, retrieved May 29, 2019((citation)): CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

Delete. I am persuaded by Americanfootballupdater's diligent research and documentation that there was no 1909 team. Cbl62 (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that does seem to be the case... but even if there were a 1909 team, there are no references in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines. If any are eventually found, the article can come back. But until then (if ever), the article should be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Americanfootballupdater's research and arguments. There was no 1909 Bobcat team, and Baylor played against a team from a different San Marcos-based school that year. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while it is certainly possible to have an article for a season not played, that is not the case here. Not only do we not have reliable sources that a season/game was played, we now seem to have confirmation that it was not played. Well done.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:16, 4 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Finn[edit]

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

Little known or non-notable local TV broadcaster. Hardly any reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:33, 28 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Trant[edit]

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

Little known or non-notable TV broadcaster. The only sources give a name check, nothing about Laura. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 May 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. Sexism charge is unfounded. Same arguments would apply to male presenter, there has been no demonstration that independent, reliable sources have discussed the topic in-depth, nor is there any other indication that the individual has had a significant impact on their industry or on culture. This is not a commentary on the quality of the individual's work, and topic may attain notability in the future. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bee Tucker[edit]

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

Little known or non-notable weather broadcaster. Potential requirement for the article, but very little to go by at the moment. - Funky Snack (Talk) 16:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A successful female meteorologist regularly appearing in the media when such people are now taken seriously as scientists and not regarded as just 'weather girls'. Would there be the same discussion and risk of deletion if this was a male scientist rather than a female one? Removing this article would be an act of old-fashioned sexism indicating that Wikipedia is not reflecting our changing times in its understanding of Notability. Peteinterpol (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just because she is a female weather presenter, does't make her notable. Just because someone appears on TV or radio, doesn't automatically mean they get an article on Wikipedia. She doesn't pass WP:GNG and therefore should be considered for deletion. There are no reliable sources whatsoever, so unless anything can be found, this article is likely to be deleted. - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:42, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How disappointing that as predicted, the emphasis is on her being a presenter rather than the background that got her on TV in the first place, ie she is a scientist. Would the emphasis be the same for a male scientist? Why for example is Matt Taylor (meteorologist) not up for deletion? The world sadly seems to regard female scientists as 'presenters' or 'weather girls'. It's so sad that this debate has already followed this predictable sexist path. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "...no reliable sources whatsoever". The BBC is commonly regarded as a reliable source in support of many thousands of WP articles. Peteinterpol (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Reliable sources are articles that have been written about them. Having a staff profile on the BBC website isn't good enough. If you can find an external source that is reliable, there is potential for the article to remain, but I can't find anything that acts as a reliable source. The same goes for Matt Taylor, I will take a look at this. - Funky Snack (Talk) 15:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Adding material that emphasises her notability as a scientist. Peteinterpol (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. Bearcat always hits the nail on the head when explaining RS etc so I'll hand it over. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can actually find the correct calibre of sourcing to get her over WP:GNG. A person's notability is not demonstrated by (a) their staff profile on the self-published website of their own employer, (b) blogs, (c) Q&A interviews in which they're talking about themselves, or (d) anybody's Twitter tweets — a person's notability is demonstrated by being the subject of content in reliable sources they aren't affiliated with, such as books and media outlets other than the one that signs their paycheque. But every single reference here is one or more of the four things I had to list as the wrong kind of sources. She'd be eligible to keep an article that was properly referenced to notability-supporting sources, but none of the sources here constitute support for notability at all — and no, the fact that her employer happens to be the BBC, whose journalism would obviously be a reliable source in many other contexts, does not mean its staff profiles of its own employees magically reify into notability-supporting sources for those employees, because a source has to be independent of the topic to actually count as support for notability. The rule is not that as long as the article says potentially notable stuff, the sources can be just any flotsam that technically verifies them even if she and her employer created said sources themselves — the quality and depth and range and volume and independence of the sourcing is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 11:31, 4 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. The overwhelming consensus here is a clear keep (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 17:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hongmeng OS[edit]

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

Premature WP:CRYSTAL, which clearly states that "Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." Per this, we must wait until actual details are released and unveiled. ViperSnake151 Talk 16:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of this operating system has been confirmed by Huawei. Huawei has confirmed that it intends to replace Android and Microsoft Windows with Hongmeng OS in all of its products after Trump administration banned Huawei from using Android and Microsoft Windows in its products. 207.233.45.12 (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relevance to an ongoing political climate does not discount existing Wikipedia policies regarding speculation of future products. ViperSnake151 Talk 17:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:HongMeng OS would have never existed if the trade war also never existed. So, no, this is not a crystal ball, and yes, this has to do with the trade war. Pancho507 (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That is not how WP:CRYSTAL works. It is covered enough on the Huawei article. All we know is that "it exists and had been developed since 2012". And the claim it is "Android-compatible" is questionable without a citation. I am not acting on opinions or government stances. I am acting under long-standing Wikipedia policy involving product rumours. If there is actual information, like details on what it actually does, frameworks, etc. Then we can have an article. At the moment this is way too premature. All your comments also seem politically-motivated. ViperSnake151 Talk 22:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Read the CGTN article. It clearly says android app compatible. And Hongmeng's release is inminent. See this [4] What it does? It replaces Android. Frameworks are still unknown. But it has to be like android for the app developers otherwise it will be a flop like tizen. And Huawei is state owned, the chinese communist party's nationalistic pride can't afford to lose market share. Pancho507 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CGTN is state propaganda. Plus the article there says that the June 2019 release data was confirmed to be false and that an actual date is not yet decided. You're just making assumptions based on nationalistic pride rather than actual reliable secondary sources. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the CGTN citation. Now what? Pancho507 (talk) 02:18, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm opposing the deletion of the article the actual Hongmeng OS is confirmed by Huawei and trademarked thus should not be removed as it would just get re-created in the future when more details are available. That being said they have also registered an "Ark OS" and the term "Ark" is registered with Huawei from now on according to the latest media reports. ImpWarfare (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No, no, just no. This actually exists, unlike 6G. And i don't think the trade war is gonna end soon, so chances are this OS will be released. Pancho507 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a piece of current news and interesting tech-history as the question of copyrighting app/api level compatibility at the center of Oracle vs Google is now going to used by a third-party OS to run Android apps. There is going to be lots of opinions flying around and wikipedia has a role to play in bring neutrality to the discussion Back ache (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "This is a piece of current news and interesting tech-history" Hearhear! Why delete an article when it is most relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.52.163.43 (talk) 08:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CRYSTAL BALL? No, 2040 United States presidential election is crystal ball but 2020's election is not. Hongmeng OS is even earlier and has enough information now. --“ ROYAL PATROL ”^{☎ 911} 08:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:CRYSTAL is a Wikipedia policy. And it explicitly states that "short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable." Plus, I also noticed some unusual differences in this AFD process than usual: usually I thought we voted "delete"/"keep" rather than "oppose" here. It feels like something is wrong here. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and keep are the same thing. HongMeng OS will be released soon, so it makes no sense to delete this article. And information will be available around 2020 when it's released, and as Vikarna said, it's not a crystal ball if it will happen next year. And if it doesn't happen, it will become part of history anyway, as evidence of how far a state owned corporation is willing to go to in order to stay in the market, and how its attempt horrendously failed outside its home country (Android without Netfix or Whatsapp though official means, anyone?) Pancho507 (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes WP:GNG. I don't think WP:CRYSTALBALL applies since it's actually been talked about a lot recently, which is mentioned in number 1 of WP:CRYSTALBALL. INeedSupport ^:3 03:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even if currently vapourware it is notable vapour even if it never actually releases. I'd probably nore that [5] seems possible like a more considered source that I'd care to be using. Of does [this] mean it should be called Ark OS. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. --WP:CRYSTAL" Yeah there are lots of speculations and most of them are about the name of the OS. But there are significant coverage about speculations on this topic. However, a better title like Huawei's new operating system can be considered. 94rain ^Talk 08:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is not an event. It is a product. And those have specific rules defined in there. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:32, 3 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. Tone 21:41, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Courtney Cummz[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails ENT and GNG. PORNBIO saved it last time - although the arguments it passed that were spurious so it's time to look again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:ENT / WP:BASIC. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Virtually meets WP:BASIC, but lacks sources.Guilherme Burn (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How can a person virtually meet WP:BASIC while lacking sources? The references in the article are a. repackaged announcements and press releases. b. cast listings (not significant coverage) or c. porn award lists (again not significant coverage). Lack of coverage by secondary sources is also a failure of WP:ENT. An independent search for sources yields brief mentions (e.g. a costar borrowed the name of a real person) or quotations from the subject (primary source). • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I almost forgot: d. self-published sources. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 May 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. Seems like the sources proffered here have not convinced the participants that the topic is notable. Also, to answer a question about what can be done to save an article that has been challenged on notability grounds, either a) find WP:SIGCOV sources or b) wait until a topic receives them (which may be never). You might get more precise instructions at WP:HD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael "Micl Snr" Norman[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Biography seems based on a lot of thin air and very little actual, verifiable achievements. Basically, this filmmaker has finished one short movie (13 minutes) which won some "awards". Both the Best Short Awards and the Hollywood New Directors Award have websites which are big on "subscribe now" and very short on lists of actual winners, probably because there are many categories, and each category may have multiple (many?) winners. "Benefits of Participating: Promotional Laurels – give your film opening and graphics that wow factor! "[6]

The other claims in the article are unverifiable: " hosted the first UK Trinity exams in SA history."? "producing live streams for artist such as Idris Elba"? The first is tagged as "citation needed", the second is sourced to user-supplied IMDb. Films like "Nabbed in the south" from 2017 have not received any attention at all and seem to be unreleased. Their new movie "Rogue Taze: Dark Moon" has failed to attract any attention. This looks like a puffed-up promo WP:BIO1E, a film producer who basically bought some awards for one short movie, and then used these awards to get some short-lived attention in some SA media. Which shouldn't be enough to get an enwiki article as well. Fram (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Nom has nailed it. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON; Dom from Paris (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Fram's analysis of the awards. The Wikipedia article appears to be more PR effort as this article was paid for. -- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Thank you for the robust discussion regarding my article! To address Whpg point regarding payment, the subject of the article is indeed a client of mine, however i don't feel that this necessarily means the content isn't eligible for inclusion on its own.

To the elements which are unverifiable:

"hosted the first UK Trinity exams in SA history." - I can't find an independent source for this item, particularly the 'first in SA' aspect, and so have remove this.
"producing live streams for artist such as Idris Elba" - the IMDb page for this event does show photographic proof of Idris Elba and Micl Snr along with the event details. Would like to supply further verification on this item - what would be more acceptable in this item?
On the WP:BIO1E and WP:BIO issue, not convinced that the content produced by the subject should be regarded as insufficient because they are short films, the Short_film is a legitimate art form.
Regarding the 'failed to attract any attention', the new movie is not yet released, it is still in post-production, which would explain this.

I would like to bring the article up to standard to allow it to remain on Wikipedia rather than simply be deleted, I really do hope this is possible.

Ash Glover (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to add the following information regarding the news coverage of the subject, I feel that it is good coverage from multiple good and reputable news sources in South Africa which indicate that the subject is a public figure:

The Expresso Show is aired on one of the largest television channels in South Africa, SABC_3
Other coverage on SABC_News in print: sabcnews.com
Independent_Online_(South_Africa) is a major and reputable news outlet which ran an article on the subject iol.co.za
Metro_FM airs to an audience of millions daily, and the subject appeared on the most biggest show on the station. Audio clip on Metro FM's iono.fm channel. While this youtube video is on the subject's company channel, the video shows well-known radio personality DJ_Fresh_(South_African_DJ).
Coverage on CNBC_Africa, another reputable news source: cnbcafrica.com
The subject's short film was aired at the very prestigious Burbank_International_Film_Festival in 2018, and was a Semi Finalist in the competition. page 42
Interview on Eyewitness_News_(South_Africa), another large and reputable news outlet in South Africa
Coverage on the film industry news website Screen Africa
Further coverage of the subject was found at worldfilmgeek.com

Ash Glover (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Owlf 19:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails GNG. Only produced trivial short films. Fact that subject worked behind the scenes on Idris Elba's live steam project doesn't make subject notable. HM Wilburt (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to add to this, I don't wish to be disruptive, but would like to add some further motivation to keep the page, perhaps in a drastically edited-down state, perhaps even a Wikipedia:Stub. I think the subject warrants an article, the nature of his work is not WP:BIO1E, here is more coverage on a previous film from 2017, Next Assignment: Code Blue - i overlooked adding this to the page, but would like to do so. Here is some of the coverage of that film and Micl Snr from that time:

I did already make the point that the media coverage is not on low quality sources, the South_African_Broadcasting_Corporation, CNBC_Africa, The_Times_(South_Africa), Independent_Online_(South_Africa), Metro_FM, among others - these are our official news sources in South Africa. Lastly, while the point has been made about the standard or quality of the awards given to the subject, there are many south african actors and personalities with Wikipedia pages with no awards at all. Could we improve the article by removing the references to the awards, perhaps? Some South African personalities with wikipedia pages that have no awards are: Sindi_Dlathu, Connie_Ferguson, Minnie_Dlamini, Khanyi_Mbau, Thando_Thabethe, Pearl_Thusi, Boity_Thulo, among many others.

Last appeal i would like to make to those in this discussion - would really like to bring this article up to standard, and advice i have gotten online is to edit the article down mercilessly and remove anything unnecessary and shorten the article so we can remove any contentious statements.

Checked out the links in your reaction, they are about an actor named ZWELI DUBE. The sites aren't about Michael "Micl Snr" Norman. I really don't see the connection. Both don't meet GNG and WP:ENT. Still Delete for me. HM Wilburt (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Whpq: @Fram: @Owlf: @Domdeparis: @HM Wilburt: Would any of you be willing to advise me on what i can edit down and remove to salvage this article and save it from deletion? Ash Glover (talk) 08:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[7] doesn't mention Norman and is about a movie which never happened in the end. I fail to see how such a source would help in saving this article. Fram (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram: Would editing this page down to a stub perhaps save it from deletion? Really looking to you guys for advice on how i can salvage my article, would love to keep learning and working on wikipedia.

Comment i have cut this article down to its absolute bare minimums and made it a stub, in order to remove anything that is not correctly sourced - can we reconsider deletion? Also would like clarity from an editor what will be considered worthy news sources for future reference - the ones i used were: South_African_Broadcasting_Corporation, CNBC_Africa, The_Times_(South_Africa), Independent_Online_(South_Africa), Metro_FM, if these are not defined as independent and credible, i would like to see the criteria for this classification? Ash Glover (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I checked out the modified version and my delete !vote still stands. Just a reminder to @Hashmanza: as per Paid editing Guidelines this article should have been submitted at WP:AFC and you should not be editing it directly. I honestly do not think this article will survive so I would suggest reading the notability guidelines at WP:FILMMAKER and wait for him to meet them and then rewrite the article and submit it at WP:AFC. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Domdeparis: Ah, thank you for that info, @Domdeparis:, that is actually super helpful, i will do so in future, and apologies for the direct edits, i thought this was the correct approach - lesson learned!

I have a few other articles in mind (not paid for by anyone), that i would like to submit. Ash Glover (talk) 09:37, 4 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 Rocket Software#Products. T. Canens (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AeroText[edit]

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

Software that seems to fail WP:NSOFT. Prod, deleted, recently REFUNDed. There are a few mentions in passing in various academic works, but I couldn't find any in-depth coverage, at best the software gets a paragraph length summary in in few papers. Google Scholar reports a total of about ~200 papers using this keyword. This suggests it is very niche, and we can hardly argue it had significant impact on science; for comparison, NVivo software returns 200,000 GScholar mentions and SPSS, 4 million, so it's clear we can't say this software had any major impact - few dozen scholars using it is, well, the very definition of something that's way too niche to be encyclopedic. AeroText has no reviews I can find of, no in-depth coverage, and its use does not suggest it can be said to have made any significant impact. The entry is mostly unreferenced and spammy, and I don't think there is anything to rescue. Such minor software can, at best, be described, in a short summary, in some list-like article, but I don't think we have a list of content analysis software. There is a List of text mining software, which currently does not even mention this soft, but I have no objection to a soft deletion that would redirect there, and add a few lines of text from the article there, through the lead is not very informative and the rest of the content is unreferenced/spammy, so... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 05:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep REFUND-requestor here. I guess it really comes down to where you think the threshold/cutoff should be. In my mind, ~200 papers mentioning it, a few papers giving a paragraph-length summary, that's significant enough for inclusion. In your mind, it isn't. Here are the sources I mentioned when requesting REFUND:
- Taniar, David (28 February 2006). Web Semantics & Ontology. Idea Group Inc (IGI). p. 172. ISBN 978-1-59140-907-6.
- Taylor, S.M. (November 2004). "Deciphering human language [information extraction]". IT Professional. 6 (6): 28–34. doi:10.1109/MITP.2004.82. ISSN 1520-9202.
- Reeve, Lawrence; Han, Hyoil; Chen, Chaomei (2006), Geroimenko, Vladimir; Chen, Chaomei (eds.), "Information Visualization and the Semantic Web", Visualizing the Semantic Web, Springer-Verlag, pp. 19–44, doi:10.1007/1-84628-290-x_2, ISBN 9781852339760, retrieved 2019-05-12
- Reeve, Lawrence; Han, Hyoil (2005). "Survey of Semantic Annotation Platforms". Proceedings of the 2005 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing. SAC '05. New York, NY, USA: ACM: 1634–1638. doi:10.1145/1066677.1067049. ISBN 9781581139648.
- Noble, D.F. (2005). "Fusion of open source information". 2005 7th International Conference on Information Fusion. doi:10.1109/icif.2005.1592015.

I agree the current article is spammy and could be pruned, but AFD is based on whether the topic is sufficiently notable, not the current state of the article. (Also, I'm openly biased in favour of "serious" software that gets used in academic research, as opposed to stuff targeted at consumers that gets far more attention but in my mind is less worthy of encyclopaedic attention.) SJK (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The first source above (Taniar) may be OK but perhaps someone ought to confirm that. The second (Taylor) is obviously WP:PRIMARY so I'm not going further. Someone may have to spend their quite possibly to be wasted time clearing up the article resolving dead links and converting further readings to inline cites and identifying best sources per WP:THREE and at this moment this is for the bin anyway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. In my searches I have found a coverage on an unreliable blog, a press release on BusinessWire, and passing mentions in books. Analyzing the references offered here:

1. Not WP:SIGCOV. Literally a one longer sentence about which main components are.

2 Not able to read and seems there are WP:PRIMARY issues per djm-leighpark.

3. Not mentioned in the preview from what I can see, not even once.

4. Seems like a buy to read case of a thing. So nothing.

5. And nothing again from the small preview. Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_requires_verifiable_evidence says "must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I don't see that here. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by my keep !vote above, but given that everyone else who has commented thus far has favoured deletion, I'd be willing to support the nominator's suggestion of a merge/redirect to a brief mention in List of text mining software as a compromise. SJK (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem would seem to be that the criteria for the list in that article list per WP:CSC would seem to be members have to have their own article as I can't see an entry that that doen't have its own article (there may actually be one that has sneaked it). This would be a redirect with history not a mergeDjm-leighpark (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another option could be to redirect it to Rocket Software#Products (Rocket Software are its current owners), and a brief mention of it there. SJK (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a brief mention there. SJK (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (To section with history : Rocket Software#Products). Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocket Software#Products per Djm-leighpark. Changing my vote from delete to redirect. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:10, 5 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. Tone 21:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T-Rex (restaurant)[edit]

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

Prod tag removed without comment. Subject fails notability guidelines at WP:COMPANY, also fails WP:GNG Ifnord (talk) 16:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the prod tag was removed with the comment:"deprod as has some rs and there should be more as Disney restaurants get coverage" and standing by that i' ll vote! weak keep Atlantic306 (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe the resources confirm notability under WP:COMPANY or WP:GNG. While it initially may seem likely that they may one day, they are not a Disney restaurant but a restaurant in a Disney location. These restaurants come and go and it's a WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL issue until that notability is reached. Ifnord (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems easy to find more coverage such as this and there are obvious alternatives to deletion such as merger with the parent company or concept. See WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would endorse a merge/redirect to parent company. If the parent is notable, then this could be preserved there. I do not find it notable enough to merge into theme restaurant, that would appear to border on advertising. Ifnord (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The independent references are good secondary references, and there might be more.Catfurball (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or a yellow pages. The references in the article are news-as-usual or based on announcements and are not significant. The book mention by Ifnord above (book entitled "Stage Lighting: Design Applications and more") is a mere mention-in-passing. For a source to qualify to meet the criteria for establishing notability, it must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of those sources do. Can some of the "Keep" !voters above please take another look and post links to sources? HighKing⁺⁺ 13:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP & WP:PROMO. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an adver=rtisement. It probably should be mentioned in the parent company's article, but it can be done after this is removed. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 4 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. Tone 21:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Sweden (NUTS region)[edit]

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

micropermastub: there is already an article South Sweden which mentions that it is a NUTS region. Imaginatorium (talk) 13:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to NUTS statistical regions of Sweden. South Sweden is NUTS 2 while this article is NUTS 1, but there's no reason why the NUTS 1 needs an article, especially a substub, when it's covered in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 16:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
South Sweden is also a NUTS region. Also should this be "South Sweden", "Southern Sweden", or just the Swedish name? Peter James (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The NUTS 1 is SÖDRA SVERIGE (Google Translate says "Southern") while the NUTS 2 is Sydsverige (appears to be "South"). EU documents seem to only use the Swedish names. It would need to be moved then since the rapid-fire author didn't do the appropriate research for this, but I'm not convinced there needs to be an article for this anyway. Reywas92^Talk 23:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. These articles are a terrible idea. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 21:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Megacams[edit]

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

1) Insignificant (WP:Notability) 2) Stub without detail 3) Only passing mentions on sources - no in-depth information about history or workings. PoliceSheep99 (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eh? That looks like four good sources to me... you won't get NY Times leaders about this subject; as far as coverage in reasonable-length articles goes, this ain't half bad. And these aren't passing mentions either - the website is the explicit focus of each. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Elmidae and the GNG. As for workings, Vocativ discusses the search engine's general algorithm [8] while Gizmodo speculates what API the engine must be using [9]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:ORGDEPTH. Sources are in passing, trivial mentions, and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems like we need more discussion on source quality still
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This webite is not notable. The Zeus is Ha-Zeus (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All of the sources I'm seeing, including those in the article, come from the span of a couple days, and there doesn't look to have been any coverage since. We need evidence of lasting significance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This argument goes against WP:NTEMP: "once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 2 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 Draftify. There are apparently two questions in this discussion, whether this is its own concept and separate enough from tu quoque and whether the current article is in an acceptable form. It seems like there is agreement (including by the article author) that the current article needs serious work and some people have proposed draftification or want to delete the text altogether for this reason. The first question is harder; SpinningSpark and ThePromenader have provided some sources that have been contested by Huitzilopochtli1990; other editors who have commented on this question are SJK, Curdle and StudiesWorld. My sense is that there isn't a consensus here that this is or isn't distinct enough to merit a page separate from Criticism of Atheism; the fact that it's not clear if this is a good name might be further muddying the waters.

So the consensus appears to be that there is no consensus on whether this topic is articleworthy - perhaps a dedicated merger discussion in the future might help - but clear consensus that the current text is inadequate and a widely shared suggestion to draftify. Thus draftification it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist Atrocities fallacy[edit]

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

A form of the tu quoque, the phrase was coined by Richard Dawkins and has appeared in print, but this is an essay, largely unsourced and POV. Suggest redirect to tu quoque. Kleuske (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to tu quoque. This is a badly sourced and non-neutral personal essay about one example of a tu quoque fallacy. Reyk _YO! 13:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the suggested redirect would be useful unless the target article was expanded to include some mention of this term. Really, I would simply say delete, an essay on a term of doubtful currency.TheLongTone (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I could see the argument for a redirect but I'm not convinced the term is notable enough on its own. It does have some limited coverage, but appears to have been coined by Richard Dawkins some time in the last five years, and used largely as a non-neutral term in various atheist v theist debates. I'd want to see some more independent and serious academic coverage of it before it was included even as a redirect, let alone as an article. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page was created by a new, inexperienced user, apparently in response to a request on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Religion. While the article is largely unsourced, it looks to me like the majority of the material has been taken from the first of the five sources listed in the request [10]. Note that the author is not Dawkins so this goes beyond him. The creator has made the great mistake of taking on the POV of the source, but this is not irretrievable. She has already indicated she is going to address the referencing issue so may be willing to carry on working on this. This debate is certainly notable, there are plenty of sources that discuss this issue, or aspects of it (but possibly not under the exact article title). For book sources, for instance, there is 50 Great Myths About Atheism and on the other side of the argument The Irrational Atheist. SpinningSpark 01:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moving to Draft space may be another option, it is obviously not ready for main space. —Paleo Neonate – 02:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space: Agree with comment above. It is not ready yet, but a good article is possible. --Bduke (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 12:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - could be a good article once the issues have been resolved. --MrClog (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft space: Hi, I'm the author of this article, it has been created for a University assignment and I am new to Wikipedia. I uploaded it prematurely before I finished adding the rest of the information/sources and when I went back to edit it, it was already up for deletion. I am more than happy to move this article to the draft space to complete it as I have quite a few other sources and more information that I'd like to add. User:Grace654321 —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It is a concept, and has been discussed before Dawkins (see the Atheism and politics section under Criticisms of Atheism) There does seem to be some academic material there. Expanding on that could make a good article with a bit of tweaking. Curdle (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this concept is significant enough for an article of its own. Also, searching for the article title phrase suggests to me that the phrase "Atheist Atrocities fallacy" is mainly used by unreliable blogs rather than high quality published reliable sources. The concept probably could be discussed in some article like Criticism of atheism, but I'm unconvinced there will ever be enough here to justify a standalone article. SJK (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (from FTN) - This looks like it will be able to be expanded and improved and the sources suggest notability. StudiesWorld (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking for sources, I have found myself mistaken that it could be expanded. StudiesWorld (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - am leaning towards delete because the topic does not exist in any reliable sources. I see it on blogs on google. But I also checked Google Scholar to see if there was any scholarly discussion of it - sometimes it happens - and I literally found no hit whatsoever [11]. The sources in the article are very poor: Kierkegaard and Locke do not discuss such a thing, Baggini actually links communism with atheism but adds that it does not apply vice versa. He says that "atheism formed an essential part of soviet communism, even though communism does not form an essential part of atheism”. Duh. The same goes for Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and any other worldview. No belief system is inherently for a particular political configuration. Also most of the article has no citations whatsoever so that is pretty much WP:OR. Now, if some reliable sources can be found for this supposed fallacy, then under those conditions, I would say keep.

But that seems unlikely since the main and only source for the article itself is a blog The Atheist Atrocities Fallacy – Hitler, Stalin & Pol Pot by Michael Sherlock. Richard Dawkins did not coin this fringe idea, it was Michael Sherlock posting in recharddawkins.net Michael Sherlock's post on richarddawkins.net. Actually, I suspect that Michael Sherlock himself wrote this article himself or a follower of this fringe theory since it follows his sections from his actual blog post almost exactly as it is in the article right now! The editor that wrote the whole article is a new editor User:Grace654321. Literally the article right now has similar structure and even the same wording as the blog post: Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Tu quoque (“You Too”) Fallacy, False Analogy Fallacy, False Cause Fallacy, Poisoning the Well Fallacy, Slippery Slope Fallacy. Compare the article right now [12] with Michael Sherlock's original blog. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ramos1990: ...topic does not exist in any reliable sources is not so as I already pointed to one in my post above. 50 Great Myths About Atheism by Blackford and Schüklenk has, at Myth 27, "Many atrocities have been committed in the name of atheism", and Myth 28, "Adolf Hitler was an atheist", directly addresses one of the main contentions of the article. There are certainly sources that contend that atheists gaining power leads to atrocities. Examples include Vox Day, The Irrational Atheist and Louis Markos, Apologetics for the Twenty-first Century. Whatever the faults of the current article, this subject should certainly be discussed on Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 12:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: Can you provide a few sources that uses that term? I mean, you have to have some substantial basis for making a whole new article not just WP:COATRACK right? The term and concept are not used at all in Google Scholar [13] - not even one hit except the blog! And google general search is even worse since only blogs use it. At least with all of these you can see if the idea is notbale to some extent or not. Clearly no one uses it in reliable sources like academic sources. The point is that this article is claiming there is a fallacy, but no reliable source makes such a claim. The sources you have mentioned disagree with each other, but none call each other a fallacy. Also if you plan on using the sources and saying that the authors of Apologetics for the Twenty-first Century and The Irrational Atheist commit the fallacy, you would be literally violation policy due to WP:SYN since the sources do not make that claim. There is no substance to this fallacy, but if you can find a reliable source that says "source A committed the Atheist Atrocity Fallacy by saying blah blah" then you would have something and I would argue for keep if enough sources say that.

Also, the 3 sources you mentioned, I have already read 2 of them and they are much more nuanced than the fallacy. They do not blame atheism as being the sole source of any of these atrocities, they argue that these governments when having atheism as part government policy did not result in religious tolerance or religious freedom - something that State Religion offered in general. It is kind of a reaction to how atheists have constantly made a fallacy of blaming religion for atrocities, when the realities are much more complex.(eg. 50 Great Myths of Religion (Wiley-Blackwell) see "Myth 8. Religion Causes Violence" )

Finally, there is already the Criticism of Atheism article which seems more fitting for your 3 sources since there they can address comepletely the arguments and carry the nuances. I see that 50 Great Myths About Atheism by Blackford and Schüklenk is already there. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should get too hung up on the exact title of the article. In fact, I think it should be changed because it is POV simply by calling it a fallacy. Something like Atheist atrocities controversy would be better. The Criticism of atheism article is a more general topic, the topic of this page addresses a very specific criticism of atheism. SpinningSpark 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and decide a proper article name. A single author may have coined the term (and the 'reliability' of the traction it has gained remains to be determined), but the phenomenon it describes is very real, as demonstrated by the well-sourced and well-cited article itself.

I do find it odd that other articles on this theme, whose topic-names are practically equally absent from mainstream reliable sources, are given quite the opposite of the 'delete treatment' demanded here. Cheers. TP ✎ ✓ 17:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm.. you cited the blog too. Is there any reliable source for this concept? The blog, which is the only one anyone is able to cite, does not count since it is not written by an expert on the topic. On the other hand,the "other articles on this theme" you mentioned actually have significant number of academic sources in it already (at least +100) and google scholar shows lots of hits [14]. Considering the RFC you made over neologisms on that article, I am surprised you all of a sudden want to support this one and it clearly is one since only an unreliable source - a blog exists for it. Like you said "A single author may have coined the term". Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Therefore I do not see reason for 'keep as-is', perhaps re-read my comment? And google books is not a denoter of 'reliable mainstream status' (and often quite the opposite, as any WP:FRINGE view-book can be found there, too). No matter what one 'thinks' (or how they 'vote'), if an article's title-topic is not present in the sources it cites, that is a problem, period. So either the article must be made to be about the term (and who coined/uses it, etc.), or its title must be changed. And that rule holds true for any article of any topic, anywhere on Wikipedia. TP ✎ ✓ 18:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete . No reliable sources, no obvious need. desmay (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ESSAY. Filled with bad logic and POV-pushing, unseemly in a page on rhetoric. For example, slippery slope is misleadingly described as a "fallacy; sloppy argumentation such as "Stalin used atheism as a means by which to build his presence as a personality not as reasoning as to why he committed so many atrocities", but mostly delete because it's just a Tu quoque and because it fails WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft space article should be developed and sourced. WP:PRESERVE Lubbad85 (☎) 22:01, 3 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) 13:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FreeBIX[edit]

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

Non-notable, seemingly defunct, business. The page content is merely a listing of its services and is sourced only to the business's own website (which is now a dead link). I can find nothing better anywhere. Reyk _YO! 13:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:53, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a WP:Permastub for a company that comes nowhere within spitting distance of meeting WP:NORG. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet NORG. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:08, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail passes Notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:17, 28 May 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Star 107.9[edit]

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

Minor commercial station with no reliable sources and presenters listed are all NN. There's potential for this article, but I'm no sure it meets WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 09:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable.[15] Peter James (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets WP:GNG. I've also added a couple of independent references. Rillington (talk) 22:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, thank you. In that case, I feel I can withdraw my nomination. - Funky Snack (Talk) 21:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:57, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Husband (broadcaster)[edit]

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

LIttle or non-known sports broadcaster. Mainly self-promoted links with no RS. - Funky Snack (Talk) 09:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing found in a WP:BEFORE search, fails WP:ANYBIO; --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:02, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. The only thing I am able to find is about the cartoonist of the same name. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:07, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Peers[edit]

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

Non-notabel TV presenter. No RS and only links points to profile page and BBC South Today Facebook page. - Funky Snack (Talk) 09:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:JOURNALIST very little found in a before search apart from this which is not enough. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MILL working journalist. No claim to notability made, beyond the fact that she is a working broadcast journalist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and E.M.Gregory & Domdeparis, non-notable person. Geoffroi (talk) 18:46, 3 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 withdrawn. E.M.Gregory has brought sourcing in the article up such standards that it's painfully clear that it meets notability guidelines (like WP:AUTHOR). (non-admin closure) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Forstater[edit]

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

Fostater has only been noted for his participation in producing Monty Python and the Holy Grail and subsequently suing the members of Monty Python over royalty payments related to Spamalot. WP:BLP1E certainly applies here. Failing deletion, this article should at least be made into a redirect to Monty Python#Monty Python Live (Mostly): One Down, Five to Go or Monty Python Live (Mostly)#Overview. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 09:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 09:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 09:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. produced multiple films, seems to have written several books, scads of news coverage, by no means all focused on the law suit. No way this is a WP:BLP1E . Nom may have been misled by the fact that the page was brief, paltry and focused on the lawsuit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@E.M.Gregory: It is true that the article is misleading in that regard. However, I did do a bit of WP:BEFORE. This was the only sure-fire WP:RS I found (an Anne Frank documentary he produced-- only a single mention of him). Besides that, I found this anonymous review of I Survived A Secret Nazi Extermination Camp (his book), and he's listed here among other names as a part of the extra features to the DVD release of Xtro. I had to go digging past the pages and pages of articles on the lawsuit in order to find those, though. To my knowledge, he really is only spoken about in terms of that one event in his life. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that he has produced a number of bluelinked films. My searches produced not too few hits, but too many to scan. But do note that one can become notable for being part of a lawsuit that generates WP:SIGCOV of your career, background and so forth. I'm hoping an editor with the time to and interest to read the many articles about topics other than the law suit will weigh in. It does look as though he won the law suit, which I take tomean that the court credited him with a major role in creating one of the funniest films ever made.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Killing Heat is all that notable (other language wikis generally have it merged with The Grass Is Singing) whileThe Fantasist and Marigolds in August are both stubs. The Glitterball is a well developed start-class article, though. If it becomes the question of whether or not Forstater meets WP:FILMMAKER, my answer would have likely been no. The reviews don't seem all that meaningful nor do they even uniformly mention him (Trivial mention in [16] and [17]; significant mention in [18]; many more that don't mention him at all).
However, you do raise a rather interesting point I did not yet think about; If one does consider Monty Python and the Holy Grail to be a co-creation of his, he would sail through the notability guidelines. Up to this point, I have been operating on the assumption that he hasn't been sufficiently credited with the making of that (yes, extremely amazing) film (mostly because the article state pre-nomination gave more weight to the lawsuit than his production as well as what I got from the sources on the lawsuit that I personally read). We'll have to see with that point. Good work on improving the article so far! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that Forsteter was always legally credited with being 1/14 of the Holy Grail creative team . Now he's legally credited as 1/7th of it. but also note that his books have gotten attention, and that there is WP:SIGCOV of of his life and unusually varied career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Shaikh (actor)[edit]

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

Okay at first I put a speedy up as to me he seems non notable. But apparently TikTok is a notable ap and if the page for TikTok is to be believed he is in the top 10 (though the numbers are out of order there) Anyway I can't find notability myself for him, but others might. Wgolf (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wgolf: I've improved article lot! And i'm finding reliable sources! And personally i don't think Faisal isn't notable! He is gaining 100k followers every 2-3 days. Thanks! CptViraj (talk) 05:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CptViraj, WP:POPULARITY ≠ notablity. we have to see that if this biography has done something in the field of acting and entertainment besides tiktock which unfortanately not right now. Ghazal Pervaiz (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as fails Actor and Entertainer notability guidelines. Not appeared in any notable (even non notable) television serial or film. Except tiktok there is no claim of notability. Regards. Ghazal Pervaiz (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A bit more input would be nice
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE The subject is not notable. TikTok is an entertainment app and is not the right platform to claim notability. There are many such people using the app Rudra9 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. I don't see significant coverage, so he doesn't meet WP:GNG, and it is too soon for WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just because someone is popular on an app doesn't mean they are notable. Not every social media personality with a decent or large following needs a Wikipedia article. thrashbandicoot01 (talk) 1:24, 29 May 2019 (EST)

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) 08:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ponjanda S. Appaiah[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NACADEMIC. ∯WBG^converse 07:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 07:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and not notable. Owlf 19:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Tataral (talk) 14:31, 29 May 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 23:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Latto[edit]

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

Non-notable BBC local radio presenter. No reliable sources and the only link points towards his BBC programme page. I've trawled through Google and found nothing. - Funky Snack (Talk) 07:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 28 May 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. Seems like this topic is exactly on the edge between having enough and not enough WP:SIGCOV coverage, judging by the last three commenters. Thus no consensus Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:36, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Topshelf Records[edit]

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

No significant mention in reliable sources, fails WP:GNG, many of the bands linked here are depending on this article as a POS, could be a case of circular notability if i'm right about this nomination. Daiyusha (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Topshelf is fairly new, it's true, but its roster quickly gained a significant amount of chart attention and press. It has plenty of acts that do not need to rely solely on recording for a notable label to establish their notability - among them Pianos Become the Teeth, The Jazz June, Sorority Noise, Lite, The Velvet Teen, The World Is a Beautiful Place & I Am No Longer Afraid to Die, Chamberlain, and You, Me, and Everyone We Know. The label has even gotten some press attention of its own - [19] (Pittsburgh City Paper), [20] (San Diego Reader). Chubbles (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Although the label has signed notable acts, that notability is not transferable. I am unable to locate references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. As such, this topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC) Change to Draftify as per comment below. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Article Creator) - Coverage in Pitchfork, San Diego CityBeat, Arena Music, Punktastic, can be added to the article.
- Comment "Coverage" is not, on its own, enough to meet the criteria for notability. The coverage must also be significant and independent. None of those references meets the criteria for establishing notability. The Pitchfork reference is a mere mention-in-passing, essentially saying they've had a breakthrough year but providing no other information on the company itself but comments on the success of various artists and albums, fails WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SIGCOV. The Arena reference is entirely based on an interview with the company and it therefore not independent coverage and fails WP:ORGIND. The Punktastic reference is also entirely based on an interview, likewise fails WP:ORGIND. Finally the San Diego CityBeat reference is based on an announcement and also fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The above comment is claiming that standard music journalism doesn't count toward the GNG - these are sources we have in the past uncontroversially accepted as counting towards notability. Pitchfork is an RS and is discussing a compilation put out by the label of the label's own artists, focused on the label's output; the City Beat article is in a standard alt-weekly and is independently reported; the interviews are in-depth and do not fail to count as independent merely because they are interviews. That's six - six!! independent sources for an indie rock record label on top of it meeting WP:MUSIC's definition of one of the more important indie labels. We should be so lucky as to have this level of coverage for every notable label! Chubbles (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope. The above comment is claiming that the references do not meet the criteria for establishing notability and then explains why those sources fail. The criteria are explained in WP:NCORP. Your reasoning appears to miss the point. You say that Pitchfork is an RS. Good, but that on its own is not enough. You say the article discusses "a compilation put out by the label's own artist". Fine, but notability isn't inherited and the article says nothing about the company itself, the topic of the article. Articles that rely on interviews are not considered independent. I could go on but you get the point. You appear to misinterpret the meaning of "independent" in the context of notability. The "content" is not independent (e.g. interviews) although the publication is all explained in detail at WP:ORGIND. The criteria isn't WP:MUSIC since we're not talking about a band, etc, but a corporation so we look at WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep A quick search finds these passable sources: [[21]], [[22]]. [[23]], [[24]], and along with the acts they've signed, just pushes this into weak keep territory for me. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first is based almost entirely on quotations and information provided at an interview, fails WP:ORGIND. The second is a mention-in-passing, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. The third ... I think this one is weak but does enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. A topic needs two references though. I'll change my !vote to draftify based on this reference and Britishfinance comments below. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Per Timtempleton. these are good coverage but in Tier #2 RS, and thus borderline. I have sympathy with the nom but I would give it a keep for now, and see if someone can improve the article and add these references; noting that the company is also still very active. Otherwise, in this condition, it will probably return to AfD again. Britishfinance (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hi Britishfinance, you seem to be kinda halfway saying that in the current form, the article doesn't meet the criteria. Can I suggest that we perhaps Draftify the article to give the active editors a chance to improve it and find sources, etc? I believe the third reference of Tim's above is good. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi HighKing, I wouldn't "draftify" an article to add references/improve notability; I would only "draftify" where there are no references, and therefore the article could mean anything. The current references do at least prove what the subject is, and I think this AfD believes that the article should be in the mainspace. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have added these refs to the article now. Britishfinance (talk) 09:31, 6 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 Shortstraw. T. Canens (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're Underfed, I'm Wonderful[edit]

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

Unsourced piece, fails WP:NALBUM Ceethekreator (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick Google search found no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and so the subject fails WP:GNG. No claim to having met WP:NALBUM. Not every work created by a notable subject is itself notable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking at the band article, I actually wonder if they're notable, but that's a separate AfD. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the group as an alternative to deletion. This album is not notable but we have a 5 year old article on the group so it's a reasonable course. If the group also isn't notable that can be taken up in its own AfD (and if that's deleted this could then be speedied). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There's no discernible consensus here with 2 deletes and a redirect !vote.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 06:20, 28 May 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) 07:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 Académica da Praia season[edit]

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

Club is a part of the top league which isn't professional which would fail WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. I would also like to nominate these articles also for the same reason.

2015–16 Académica da Praia season
2016–17 Académica da Praia season
2017–18 Académica da Praia season
2014–15 CD Travadores season
2015–16 CD Travadores season
2016–17 CD Travadores season
2017–18 CD Travadores season

Thanks for the understanding. HawkAussie (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 05:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realise 'not needlessly driving away editors' isn't strictly speaking a reason to keep, but I cannot fathom the motivation for nominating an article that is detailed, referenced, uncontroversial, and has taken lots of time to create, for deletion. Nevertheless, if red tape rules out and it is decided to delete, the person carrying this out should first ensure all content is merged into the main article. Greenman (talk) 09:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom and WP:NOTSTATS. Wikipedia is becoming a repository for sports stats and less and less like an encyclopedia. And Greenman I agree that not needlessly driving away editors is not a reason to keep an article either strictly or loosely. This has nothing to do with red tape and all to do with inclusion criteria. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc. Agree with User:Domdeparis exactly, per WP:SUNKCOST. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current problem with these articles is the lack of sourcing to get them over WP:GNG, but it's possible. The Académica de Praia seasons, at the very least, were significantly covered in the press, including international press (Portugal). See, as an example: [25] [26] [27]. WP:NSEASONS and WP:NFOOTBALL are not exclusionary, and a better attempt at sourcing would easily get at least some of these articles over WP:GNG. The biggest problem here IMO is searching for sources from Cape Verde isn't the easiest thing in the world to do, I'm sure if we had better access to print language media there wouldn't be any problem at all here, as these seasons cover the top teams in the country. WP:NOTSTATS isn't relevant here since the articles I reviewed all contain prose, and I don't understand the WP:INDISCRIMINATE argument at all. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: Per nom. I looked at the articles and the referencing (when there are some) that are either from "stat" sourcing, facebook pages, or even from another version of Wikipedia (2015–16 CD Travadores season) which everyone knows (should know or needs to find out) cannot be used for sourcing. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and assertions that a source "might possibly be out there somewhere" as justification to keep seems a very week argument. 2016–17 CD Travadores season shows 9 references but six are from the same source and one is a large database of "stats" with the subject apparently "in there somewhere". The reference rsssf.com is more stats and stats presented as prose does not not become something else. The "prose section", common to all the articles, is all there is as the rest of the articles do reflect statistics of one form or another. All the articles are sourced primarily by "Konkuri" and rsssf.com. 2017–18 Académica da Praia season is one of the "better looking of the articles sourced only from these two and the large prose stat section (Santiago South Premier Division) is unsourced. 2016–17 Académica da Praia season lists 12 references of which 9 are in the "Santiago Island League (South)" "prose" section and all nine are from "Konkuri" that provides 10 of the 12 references (one dead primary link) and rsssf.com the 12th reference. These articles (the whole group) would likely not be good examples of anything to do with keeping articles to retain editors or not run them off. I see the primary editor has been confirmed as a sock puppet of another account and apparently both are blocked indefinitely. This gives me a headache because it seems the two accounts have nearly 100,000 edits and causes me to wonder how many of those might be "tainted". We have sourcing policies and guidelines for a reason and if something is contested the burden falls on those seeking inclusion to prove it. It is not an attempt to run anyone off by requiring subjects follow notability guidelines and demanding a certain quality of content in an encyclopedia to at least follow a minimum of some basic fundamental principles of Wikipedia, This should be a given for anyone here to build an encyclopedia. A good example of WP:INDISCRIMINATE would be these articles. Some are stats (with some presentation as prose) of an apparent parent article Santiago South Premier Division, that itself is a large stub-class article with a dead primary source (account suspended) and two references by the same author "Konkuri" that provides "Competition stats", "player states" and "team stats". This does give rise of concerns that Wikipedia is becoming "a repository for sports stats and less and less like an encyclopedia.". I almost wish I hadn't looked now because the last article I listed is probably as good or better a candidate for AFD. Otr500 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Shing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable thought leader. His "Digital Prophet" position at AOL is entirely his only self-promotional imagination DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. lavender|^{(formerly HMSSolent)}|lambast 04:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I really wanted to !vote differently to see this disappear as the digital prophet moniker makes my skin crawl but sadly he seems to have made the grade in terme of WP:GNG as per the Guardian article and the Vanity Fair one amongst others. I can't access the WP article but just the title alone points to notability albeit negative. Sorry...--Dom from Paris (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I understand that his job title makes others' skin crawl, the person is clearly notable. It doesn't matter whether he is delusional, only whether he passes GNG, which a quick Google News search confirms he does. Gilded Snail (talk) 21:29, 28 May 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) 04:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Tschohl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable and promotional. The books sound impressive, until you look at the publishers. The moderate number for the one book by a respectable publisher is the total number for all the 11 editions. ( DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single secondary reliable source. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took a close look at the first book Achieving Excellence Through Customer Service (Prentice Hall, 1996) on a Proquest News Archive search, but found less than I expected. A 3-sentence review in Minority Business Entrepreneur. But the other hits were articles that cited him as an expert, with a descriptor: "According to Tschohl, who is also the author of Achieving Excellence through Customer Service, if a company can get its employees to master and execute the fundamentals, it can own the customers for life." ; "Many companies invest too much money in customer-service-oriented advertising and too little in customer-service training, says John Tschohl, president of the Service Quality Institute, in Bloomington, Minn., and author of "Achieving Excellence Through Customer Service" (Prentice Hall, $22.95). " and more similar. Ran a Proquest News search on his unique name, the first 10 hits were PRNewswire press releases. Below that it more brief quotations. Fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Kablammo (talk) 14:32, 30 May 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) 04:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Cole & Associates[edit]

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

This article about a local law firm fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG because it has no mainstream coverage. Law360 provides four of the sources; Business Wire (in other words, press releases) provides another three. I deleted two references because they did not mention Cole, as well as Cole’s own self-published book [28] as a source. The article was written by IPs and Special Purpose Accounts, including User:LegalTruth821 and User:Scottedwardcole. The latter has been loudly complaining about other people's edits and edit warring to get his own material into the article. MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Business Wire citations should be considered to be unreliable. Business Wire is a pay for PR site, which apparently have been written by the business. The user “Scottedwardcole” has a fair amount of edits, to this entry, “Scott Cole & Associates, APC”. To keep Wikipedia’s integrity, businesses who use the site should be held to the highest standard.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LegalTruth821 (talk • contribs) — LegalTruth821 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Delete COI-driven article with no significant coverage. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A COI editor having edited an article is not in itself reason to delete it. We seem to have at least two apparently reliable sources discussing the organization and/or its founder and their work. And that's just from merely clicking the Google link provided above (see WP:BEFORE). Meet the Lawyer Suing Equifax and Apple, from SF Weekly, is based in a reporter's interview with Cole but explicitly says "Cole is well-known among his peers for his work in the 1994 case" and also has detailed coverage of different aspects of his work over an extended historical period. Meanwhile Attorney discusses the California Employment Lawsuit from LawyersAndSettlements.com, although again based on an interview carried out by their reporter, again has extensive analysis of the firm's work. MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this article is not about Scott Cole but his firm. Secondly, I would hardly call LawyersAndSettlements.com and one article in SF Weekly significant coverage. I did my diligence and conducted a search and found nothing more than these two sources and passing mentions, which is below the standards of WP:GNG. Being well known in professional circles isn't a GNG pass and even if that case was notable than it would most likely be a WP:BLP1E situation. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:26, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP1E. Which of those three conditions do you think is met? MPS1992 (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it would if hids notability is from a single case in 1994. More apt would be WP:GNG. If a three person fork with only two reliable sources, one of which is a trade related blog and the other of which is a local news story, and a few passing mentions meets notability, than pretty much every general counsel, corporate chief of litigation and class-action litigator would meet those standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of them? None of them? Two of them? MPS1992 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No? OK, so if you can't say which of the three conditions for WP:BLP1E are met, then we can assume it's not relevant here. As for the rest, San Francisco and the Bay Area is not what anyone would call "local" -- it's a huge metropolitan area and is also the leading high technology region in the world, which rather goes to the heart of what this topic is notable for. And as for "trade-related blog", see WP:NEWSBLOG; legal publications are normally the best coverage for organizations in the legal field. MPS1992 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I literally said that GNG would be more apt. Secondly, just because its a major metropolitan area doesn't mean its not local news and still I don't think I see enough to merit GNG. That's just my opinion. I think you need to cool off a bit dude. GPL93 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- User:Scottedwardcole did not "edit war to get his own material into the article" but, in fact, was removing completely unsourced WP:POV material added by a WP:SPA in this series of edits, and then reverted back to by experienced Wikipedia editors who should know better. User:Scottedwardcole should not have been edit-warring, nor indeed editing the article at all, but their good faith edits and attempt to request article protection were aimed at dealing with the disruption caused by the WP:SPA account in repeatedly adding unsourced material in a manner that I would consider vandalism. MPS1992 (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the series of edits you link to - the ones Scottedwardcole reverted - were not “inserting unsourced POV material” and were certainly not “vandalism”. And the “experienced Wikipedia editors who should know better” were correct to restore them. The only unsourced claim, now removed, was that the firm has moved to Concord. The three-attorney size of the firm has now been confirmed by the firm’s own website. The book he was promoting as a source was in fact written by Scott Cole. (And self published, and so shamelessly self-promoting he should have been embarrassed to put his name on it.[29]) The “citation needed” tags were correct, which is why those uncited items have now been removed. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, so the three-attorney part is sourced (though arguably not very appropriate that early in the lede). The majority of the material added in the edits I highlighted was unsourced. The SPA was here for a reason. (Do take a look at the nature of the only three edits in that editing history not directly related to Scott Cole and Associates). MPS1992 (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to defend Legaltruth, who clearly is an SPA (as I pointed out in my nomination) and whose contributions to this article have either been confirmed or removed. Let's discuss this article on its merits: whether it meets GNG and NCORP, or not. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few points: 1. the tone of what you wrote sounds angry and punitive. I should be able to complain when people change my information and make it factually untrue. 2. "Loudly complaining": I expressed my frustration that a user was making changes and saying the site violated a rule but then wouldn't tell me what the violation was. It seems like a big game as opposed to just working collaboratively to solve a problem. 3. The Book I wrote: You angrily say I "shamelessly" promote the book. Well, that's what authors do. They promote their books. I guess Apple shamelessly promotes phone. No further comment necessary. I guess that goes for the various articles I have authored or co-authored. Can’t cite them either. 4. I'd love to have more sources for information on the site, but your rules also say pages cannot look like marketing. Much of the information out there about lawyers, whomever writes it, speaks to the ability of their work. You'd consider that marketing, so what's a business supposed to do? You mention Law360, for example. I just checked Law360 and around 100 articles have mentioend our firm on that one cite. Am I supposed to list them all so Wiki can see we're a relevant enterprise? 5. The firm is based in Oakland. It does have 3 attorneys today. I never said it didn't. We had 4 a couple of weeks ago, and we’ve had 7-9 in the past. We may have 4-5 in a few weeks. We have a core team but then it changes often depending on a lot of circumstances. I never contested this point though, and I still don't think Wiki really understands the nature of my complaint. As to the number of attorneys, someone recently put that info in the site, meaning we’ll have to change it often (we’d really rather not have to update the page that much). Clearly, a user wants us to look irrelevant. 6. All this negativity to the page and my comments feels very punitive (either due to our profession as attorneys or because we dared to contest something a Wiki user did). I am not an expert at using Wiki but just want to get the information correct on this page. I don't appreciate users trying to make diminutive comments ("e.g., "the little town of Concord") about an office that's done more for California workers than almost any firm out there, nor is it fair that we have to give citations for things like what causes we support, or pro bono work (do I really have to cite cases?), our office location when Wiki does not requires that of any other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.242.96.105 (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify exactly what information currently in your article is "factually untrue". If it's wrong we can fix it. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Per a point made by User:MPS1992 above, I have moved "three attorneys" from the lead sentence to the infobox. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:21, 30 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, WP:VANISPAM. I see no indication that either the attorney or the firm is notable. Coverage is about the firm's cases, not the firm or attorney. The only reference that's actually about the firm is the link to the firm's own website. The coverage they get in the news is just the ordinary coverage of the cases.

Perhaps certain of the cases are notable, in which case articles on the notable cases may be justified. But that would not extend notability to the firm (or to any particular attorney) unless the firm or attorney gets sufficient coverage to establish notability. Notability is not contagious: WP:NOTINHERITED.

To the editors using this AFD for cleanup, please conduct your discussion on Talk:Scott Cole & Associates, and leave this page for the discussion of notability. AFD is not for cleanup TJRC (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, per TJRC. Some of these cases might be notable, but the firm itself doesn't have sufficient sourcing to support an article. Also noting that I just cleaned up some citation spamming from an associated IP. Given the spamming we should go ahead and salt this now to save ourselves the grief later. MrOllie (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my earlier delete vote I also endorse salting the page given that a member of Scott Cole & Associates more less admits to using this article as a means to promote the firm's business. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:19, 3 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) 04:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Historical bible society[edit]

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

I don't see that any of the source supplied is an independent source, and nearly none of them have more than a bare mention of the Historical Bible Society, if that. The same is true for the search results produced by Google for "historical bible society". I find nothing to support WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Largoplazo (talk) 02:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I included multiple interviews and appearances with high-profile personalities, including Eric Metaxas. If you have taken the time to watch the linked interviews, you will see that there are adequate external references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keri.ladner (talk • contribs)
- Comment. Although the article has 16 references (footnotes), they are all piled together at the end of the article. It would be much better if each reference were placed immediately after the sentence to which it pertains. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What's called for are references to demonstrate adequately that reliable sources independently of any connection with a subject have seen the subject worthy of substantial coverage. Interviews arranged with (and sometimes by) subject in which the subjects talk about themselves don't convey notability. Largoplazo (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - This is entirely a promotional page WP:PROMO. There is no reliable or significant coverage of the subject. A google search turned up 58 trivial results and omitted the remainder as they were substantially the same. The references all focus on the book being promoted by an author which is unrelated to the subject of this page. With one exception: Putting the owner's law firm page here as a citation is pretty desperate. Does that help in demonstrating the significance of a collection of documents. ogenstein (talk) 14:50, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Looks like an advisement. BneiBrakPhone (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact I would not have bothered to bring this to AfD: I would have just speedily deleted it as blatant spam, but now it's here I will comment instead. Apart from the unashamedly promotional nature of the article, its references are not independent sources, and most of them give little or no coverage of the Historical bible society. In fact the "references" appear to be not so much references for the Historical bible society as promotional links for Daniel Buttafuoco. (The article was created by a SPA all of whose editing, including deleted edits, has been promotion of Daniel Buttafuoco.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 28 May 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) 04:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.Kaldone[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. I cannot find any reliable sources, either alone or is association with Vory, which include the independent, significant coverage required. The only source worth mentioning, Elevator Mag, contains user-generated content and operates partially on a pay-to-post system. Page was originally draftified, but author immediately moved it back to mainspace, so let's have the full discussion. MarginalCost (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete General unsourced stuff, no dice with Google and certainly nothing on the page itself. –eggofreason^{(talk · contribs)} 19:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find little beyond routine listings at social media and retail/streaming sites. The article makes unverified statements on his association with more famous people, and even if it is true that he helped Vory who helped the Carters, that is still too many degrees of separation from notability for himself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:59, 28 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masked Republic[edit]

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

Contested A7 CSD. Leaving aside the current state of the article, and whether or not the comment about being the largest seller of lucha libre products is an adequate claim to significance, all of the sources both in the article and that I have found are either regurgitations of press releases, or passing comments in industry press. I see no way that it meets WP:GNG or WP:CORP, particularly WP:ORGCRITE. Hugsyrup (talk) 19:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The "current state of the article" is that it is a stub with two bare urls. Not issues even worth brining up on an AFD. And the sources that are there are not all "regurgitations of press releases", that is a frivolous claim which hinges on that you personally can somehow judge when coverage is valid and not based on how the source found the information, not all article have to be based on secret insider sources. Also, a google search easily finds coverage about their fight to combat illegal selling of their intelectual property from Pro Wrestling Insider and this article from Vice (mainstream entertainment publication) about their attempt to bring more Mexican wrestling to the US. There is also coverage from Burlington County Times and Philly.com about their wrestling events and conventions.★Trekker (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Article sources indicate coverage in reliable sources needed to meet notability guidelines. StaticVapor message me! 22:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a stub, but the sources shown here and in the article appear to be enough to meet WP:GNG to me. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator - the keep votes are relying heavily on the sources in the article. In my opinion these quite clearly do not meet the WP:ORGCRITE 5-part requirement of:

significant coverage
in multiple
reliable
secondary sources
that are independent of the subject.

As I said in the nomination, the sources provided are promotional in nature or superficial coverage in trade publications. Indeed, at least two are explicitly based on press releases (and say so within the article), and several others are evidently based on the same press release. I hope that other contributors will take the time to review this article, and the sources within it, and provide a comment based on policy. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your deduction of the references is factually incorrect. Sources are reliable, secondary, independent, significant and multiple. StaticVapor message me! 12:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete total reliance on the sheer number of sources, despite them clearly not being reliable and independent. NCP^Talk 17:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article definitely passes WP:WEBCRIT(The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself), WP:PRODUCT (If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy), WP:GNG, etc.--PATH SLOPU 02:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Went through every google result (seven pages) and four pages of google news results and didn't find a single article actually covering the company. Every result was either promotional, a press release, or sponsorship related. Given that one of the references is actually a shopping page for women's athletic wear (mostly new balance and bally brands), perhaps another review of the company's coverage is in order. Even a link provided in the above comments is to a press release. Regurgitated press releases is not significant coverage. Other than the Vice article, which is really about a single event, there's nothing. The Philly.com is a wrestling fan blogpost (and is also related to a single event). This page fails on WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:GNG and more. ogenstein (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all. Barely notable is still notable, and deletion is not cleanup. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:46, 28 May 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 draftified by the page creator, Insularism. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TryBishop[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the notability guidelines for inclusion. Most of the footnoted sources don't even mention him, and the others are just lyrics and data listings, and a couple of bare mentions. A Google search turns up nothing to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Largoplazo (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, qualifies for WP:GNG. His name appears in Vernia (album) and Auburn (singer) and T-Pain discography, and most of the featured artists in those three articles have their own articles too. Might as well delete dozens of those other articles for failing notability, but apparently they do not. Insularism (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they fail the guidelines, then they fail the guidelines, and those articles should be deleted too. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It seems unlikely that one's name appearing on an album that isn't one's own album is on its own going to establish notability. Largoplazo (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am a hip hop fan who writes articles only about the artists and producers whom I feel are notable, so I am not being reckless. TryBishop's peers who are clearly on the same level of notability as him have their own Wikipedia articles too.
Are you saying we should nominate everything else for deletion then? By your criteria, half of all hip hop artists and producers on Wikipedia fail this policy, which is inherently unclear. Should I help you nominate everything else for deletion then? Let's take WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:GNG seriously and see half of all Wikipedia hip-hop articles get deleted. I'm ready to help you out on this one. Insularism (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that every article about a non-notable topic is subject to deletion, with notability defined through Wikipedia's guidelines on the subject. That isn't my opinion, that's a statement of Wikipedia's policy that articles be about notable topics. If there are other artists you feel inclined, in good faith, to nominate for deletion based on a failure to meet the guidelines, you should do so. Largoplazo (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know this subject meets notability guidelines. I just read through them, like the biographical ones and singer ones. And explain WP:GNG to me. Its totally vague and unclear. We should go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip Hop and flood this Articles for Deletion thing or whatever it's called, and see the whole project get destroyed. Insularism (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me, which ones do not qualify for WP:GNG: 1500 or Nothin', Da Internz, Curtis Williams, Tech N9ne, Beatnick, Wrekonize, K-Salaam, Christopher Dotson, Vernia, Erick Sermon. I bet some of them don't. Tell me which ones specifically do not follow this vague, weird guideline. Some of them have junk references. Insularism (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am very familiar with the Midwest hip-hop scene. You and most other Wikipedia members are not. I know who is notable and who is not in this niche. TryBishop is on par with many other hip-hop artists with Wikipedia articles. This is an obvious fact. I know for certain that this article does not deserve deletion. I know better than to write up an article about some random wannabe rapper kid with no online presence. Do the research for yourself. Insularism (talk) 02:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says, "Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability. CHECK.
WP:GNG says, "Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. CHECK.
WP:GNG "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. CHECK.
WP:GNG "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, CHECK.
Notable? CHECK. That's how I know this is a keep. You, on the other hand, did not actually read the fine print in WP:GNG, did you? I know how to write neutral, reliable articles about hip-hop artists. I know which ones deserve articles and which ones do not. I know which ones are notable and which ones are not. Insularism (talk) 02:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TryBishop has YouTube videos with over a million views. He has worked very closely with T-Pain and Jeezy. And so many other top rappers. Anyone who actually knows something about the hip-hop scene would be pretty darn sure that TryBishop is "notable," not just another wannabe rapper kid. Insularism (talk) 02:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find that Wikipedia lists "I know this field and you don't" among the notability criterion. If people in the field find him noteworthy, then we need evidence of that, which will generally be in the form of "significant coverage" of the subject in multiple sources meeting the above criteria—among which you omitted "significant coverage", yet that criterion is indispensable. As I said earlier, "Most of the footnoted sources don't even mention him, and the others are just lyrics and data listings, and a couple of bare mentions". Largoplazo (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We do have significant coverage. Check the references and check online. And you understand what Wikipedia is? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where the goal is to collaborate on writing up notable topics of use to its intended audience. TryBishop's article is useful to people who are reading about hip hop in the Midwest. He is considered notable by people who would even care to read about such articles in the first place. That is the whole purpose and point of WP:GNG, which is to let us know that we should constructively build a useful encyclopedia that wouldn't be drowned out by random articles about non-notable high school rappers. This article is certainly useful to anyone interested in Midwest hip-hop. And check the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hip Hop page. I am ready to go through all of Wikipedia's policies to show you why this article deserves to be kept. To anyone involved in Midwest hip-hop, this is common sense. Insularism (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy - In building consensus, there are times when everyone will argue that such or such change breaks their preferred rule and thus simply can't be made. It's a good time to apply the WP:Ignore all rules policy and focus on how the proposed change makes the encyclopedia better regardless of what the rules say.
Please read Wikipedia:You can't follow all the rules, all the time - While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.
Please read Notability in the English Wikipedia and Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia. And many more guidelines and essays on Wikipedia.
Like you, I am volunteering to improve this online encyclopedia. The guidelines listed above are just as valid as WP:GNG, because the purpose of these guidelines is to help us improve Wikipedia. Fanatical deletionism does not help Wikipedia improve in any way. I m 100% certain that my opinion follows the original goal and spirit of what Wikipedia's founders had in mind. Insularism (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TryBishop is useful and notable enough for people who are coming onto Wikipedia to find out more about Midwest hip-hop. This article makes a positive contribution to the encyclopedia. Do not let literalist interpretations of vague rules like WP:GNG prevent us from making this little part of Wikipedia useful to its intended audience. TryBishop is useful information for the Midwest hip-hop crowd. His beginning rapper neighbor or dog or cat might not. Ready to keep now? Insularism (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Going through your talk page at User talk:Largoplazo, it's clear as day that you also have your own history of questionable judgments. You accepted other articles that probably should not have been on Wikipedia, but you are asking for this one to be deleted. I do not see any solid arguments or reasonable judgment on your side. Insularism (talk) 03:40, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing it makes clear is that you aren't the first person ever to disagree with me. Of course, if you're going to write things like "We do have significant coverage" after I've already pointed out twice that the sources supplied barely mention him, or don't mention him at all, then you're going to disagree with me too.

As for usefulness, see WP:USEFUL.

Part of your argument appears to boil down to a plea for Wikipedia to cover topics that someone considers deserving of the sort of note that Wikipedia currently considers "notability". A large share of the rationale for making notability a requirement as a matter of policy and for defining it as it has been defined is precisely so we aren't sitting here debating who deserves note, who should have been given significant coverage by now in pertinent sources but who haven't been. If you want to see people's biases creeping in, that would be the way to do it.

In your attempt to make Wikipedia out to being exclusionary, you may not have noticed that articles about at least 206 performers have found their way into Category:Midwest hip hop musicians. Largoplazo (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~DELETE~~ Comment - Subject fails all notability including WP:MUSIC. The coverage referenced here is not coverage but trivial mention at best. 'His name appears' does not constitute signifant coverage. A news search recommended trying 'tray bishop'. Eight pages of google search did not reveal any coverage. WP:SUBNOT advises that such articles should not exist. Wikipedia is not the place to discover the hidden gems of the midwest hip hop scene. Set up a web site to do that. ogenstein (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the article is very new and perhaps some time should be granted to bring it up to standard. Consider withdrawing the nomination to provide that opportunity. ogenstein (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is assessed based on factors external to Wikipedia. The content of an article doesn't affect notability. Largoplazo (talk) 02:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; completely fails GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. As has been covered, sources establishing notability must be reliable, independent of the source, and constitute significant coverage. None pass this test. While he's assigning reading, Insularism (talk · contribs) might take a gander at WP:BLUDGEON. —Rutebega (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment, Please at least consider a Weak keep or Neutral, because the article is certainly useful to its intended audience. This is not about WP:BLUDGEON. I am pointing out the systematic biases of Wikipedia from a normal person's perspective, which is plain obvious at Criticism_of_Wikipedia#Systemic_bias_in_coverage. Wikipedia is undeniably biased towards richer, more educated, white male interests. You say that TryBishop does not have significant coverage, but you need to know that a less notable educated white scientist would have more coverage due to America's systematically biased press. An African-American rapper from Flyover Country is obviously going to get less coverage than a New York business magnate, but that doesn't make the African-American any less notable because he is considered to be notable in his niche. This article would be quite useful to people truly interested in hip-hop history, but none of you care the tiniest bit about that. You cannot apply the same Google results or press coverage criteria to African-American artists from the hood, because there is systematic press coverage exclusion and bias against this group of people. Insularism (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Replying three times to a comment doesn't actually make it less WP:BLUDGEON.

FWIW, the Nobel prize for physics winner this year (e.g. educated white scientist) didn't have a wikipedia page until after the prize was awarded, and when someone submitted her name beforehand to the 'article for creation' queue, it was rejected on the issue of notability - link. ogenstein (talk) 00:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A truly well curated encyclopedia should have notability determined by specialists in the field, not a tiny clique of old-time Wikipedia keyboard warriors with clearly biased interests. This is not your encyclopedia. This is the people's encyclopedia. I am taking a civil approach towards actually improving this encyclopedia, as opposed to fanatical deletionists who are cherrypicking inherently inconsistent rules so that they can push their own agenda without any transparency at all. Without any knowledge of the subject matter, the deletionists keep citing WP:GNG and WP:N-whatever to push their own deletionist agendas, which I can easily counter with 10 times as many Wikipedia guidelines and policies that are equally valid. Insularism (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this article. https://boingboing.net/2017/02/16/40-of-wikipedia-is-under-thre.html Hip-hop stubs are always being picked on by Wikipedia deletionists who don't know about or care about African-American hip-hop, even artists that are known to be locally notable. Some of TryBishop's videos has received over 1 million views on YouTube, and he has worked very closely with the country's most famous hip-hop artists. He is clearly notable in his niche. If this article gets deleted, then we would really have to sit down and consider whether Wikipedia is really as free, unbiased, and uncensored as it really clams to be. It's a shame that these silly deletion attempts have to happen to such articles on Wikipedia. Insularism (talk) 20:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"This is not your encyclopedia. This is the people's encyclopedia." Is it your understanding that I am not a person? Is it your understanding that all of the folks who have collaborated over the last 15 years or so on developing and refining the extensive consensus reflected in the notability guidelines are non-people who did all that to thwart folks who are people? The guidelines are the product of community input.

In what way are your contributions to this discussion "civil" and, in comparison, in what way have mine been "fanatical"? This was a routine nomination on my part, with a neutrally presented rationale.

All of these guidelines were developed so that when it came to have discussions like these, we'd have them to point to. So it's appropriate in these discussions for us to point to them. If you don't like the guidelines themselves, then the effective place to debate them is on the talk pages pertinent to those guidelines, not in a discussion about a single article. No discussion here is going to change the guidelines.

Invoking the general notability guidelines isn't cherry-picking, it's the very core of Wikipedia's conception of notability. Largoplazo (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Cup of tea anyone? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, it's hot. ogenstein (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article withdrawn. I have moved the article into draftspace in accordance with Wikipedia policies because I need more time to work on this. I need to improve it and add more references. Thanks for your time and input homies. Till next time. Insularism (talk) 13:06, 29 May 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.