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. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails notability guidelines at WP:BAND. Prod tag removed with notation, "Should go through AfD" with no changes or comment as to why. No reliable sources found to establish notability. Ifnord (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because this was a notable band in Thailand. There are sources available for the band's native name. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KartikeyaS343 If there are sources about the band, can you please share those with us here? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to find online sources for a Thai band from 1980's but if you search its native name, you will get some sources. Unfortunately, I do not know the Thai language but some sources are still there such as [1]. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is google search for the band name [2]. Note that there is a mixup between วงเฟม (FAME band) and วงเฟลม (Flame band), 2 different bands in the google search results. --Lerdsuwa (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing notability in that article, which appears to be tagged as promotional and includes a Facebook page as a reference. My nomination is not a statement that the band is bad - or good. Simply that it doesn't meet notability criteria for a global encyclopedia. Ifnord (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The band had a short career spanning three years beginning thirty years ago, so contemporary secondary sources will be hard to come by, but likely exist in archives. The cited Naewna article provides some in-depth background. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notable journalist. Can find independent, reliable source that talk about him. Sources are all his own interview/work. Fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ANYBIO. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 09:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cowlibob (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since I've now significantly edited this article, I'll have to now become neutral. Cowlibob (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree. Tom Harwood is indeed a notable journalist. He has been a regular appearance on TV and radio since the 2016 Brexit referendum, including Politics Live[1] and Question Time.[2] Whilst a student at Durham he was receiving coverage - a whole article in Conservative Home.[3]
It would be a mistake to delete this article as a new one will be made by another editor in a short while. All the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NS MediaMole (talk • contribs) 11:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reluctantly While Tom Harwood has, to put it mildly as possible, reprehensible views that I find offensive, such as having a swing at Greta Thunberg (although to be fair my judgement may be clouded by the Daily Express frequently quoting him as the best thing to happen in youth politics ever), he has been covered in more places than the Express, including Question Time. One way that Wikipedia can shine is that our Neutral Point of View policies allows readers to learn who these people are outside of the right wing media that fawns over them. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 15:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I couldn't agree more with the user Ritchie333. Though I detest Tom Harwood's views, I made this article as I feel that it is important for others to be able to see them clearly. Like it or not, Tom Harwood is a prominent Brexit commentator. It is only in keeping with Wikipedia's neutrality that we include his article on this site. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NS MediaMole (talk • contribs) 09:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A little unclear with changing !votes and whether all !votes actually consider the presence of reliable sources about the individual, but I believe it is balanced enough to warrant a 2nd relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Harwood has been getting Brexit-related WP:SIGCOV since 2016, and it is ongoing. Yesterday there as this: "The irony of that was not lost on pro-Brexit commentator Tom Harwood, who tweeted: “The anti-comic sans brigade is one 48% I can confirm I am a part of.”" a back-and-forth on twitter that got real press coverage [3], [4]. Strandvue (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR . Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 22:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems like maybe a case of too soon. A few mentions, awards, etc. but not much of what really matters: in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also could find no significant sources in a very thorough search. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article about a family that does not appear to be notable. Lots of very general uncited claims, but nothing that would show notability. Renata (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I have connected this to pl wiki article. Mentioned on two pages according to the index of Maria Sołtysik (1 January 1993). Gdynia, miasto dwudziestolecia międzywojennego: urbanistyka i architektura. Wydawn. Naukowe PWN. ISBN978-83-01-11242-4.; snippet view, can't see to what extent they are discussed in the book proper; page 91 has a box? about it, but I can read only the first line saying that the family belongs to one of the old clans in the city. The snippet view of few paragraphs in Edward Obertyński (1987). Gawędy o starej Gdyni. Krajowa Agencja Wydawnicza. suggests this book devotes several paragraphs to it ("Musiałem długo szukać, zanim trafiłem na ślady pozwalające na odtworzenie sagi rodu Tutkowskich. Część mieszkającej jeszcze w Gdyni rodziny już nie pamiętała o swoich przodkach..."). I am a bit worried that the article may contain some WP:OR, but the family is probably notable, through it's a minor footnote type of historical material. But there is probably sufficient coverage in those local historians for GNG. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, the pl wiki article seems to have been created by the same person. The items you found are sufficient to demonstrate that the family existed and the article is not a hoax, but don't seem sufficient to establish notability (really, they are scrapping the bottom of a barrel). Given that the article is likely full of WP:OR and that there is no way to clean it up due to lack of sources, I suggest deletion. Renata (talk) 02:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is borderline. I would be fine with merging it to some Gdynia history article, but we don't really have a good target. I am standing by my weak keep as I think the two sources presented suffice for GNG, if just at the very edge of the guideline spirit. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Piotrus.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 09:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. Only real claim to notability is being official photographer for One Direction for four years, and there appear to be no in-depth sources online that discuss Mr. Aurand in any further detail than this fact. None of the references in the article before the One Direction era mention Mr. Aurand at all, and almost all of the 1D-related sources are no more than "the band's photographer Calvin Aurand" or his name credited at the bottom of one of their pictures. The only source that has anything more than just passing mentions is the MTV reference, which is a primary source interview and doesn't say anything about Mr. Aurand, because naturally he is talking about the band, not himself. Includes several references to Wikipedia and iMDb which don't count as reliable sources. In short, this is WP:INHERITED notability based on his relationship with the group. Richard3120 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Photography is one of those professions that's tough for Wikipedia, because what makes you notable within the world of photography is something that doesn't make you notable on Wikipedia. We want in-depth coverage about the subject in reliable sources; photographers want their photos used in prominent places. Impressive photo credits don't necessarily translate to WP:GNG though, and though I see there are a lot of credits in high-profile publications, I'm not seeing significant coverage of the subject himself. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject of the article passes WP:CREATIVE as defined by Wikipedia: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." The subject of this article has created images, live footage, and documentary films covering various well-known musical artists. Passing WP:CREATIVE on the basis of the aforementioned, contradicts being deleted due to WP:INHERITED.--Freyja10 20:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freyja10 (talk • contribs) — Note to closing admin: Freyja10 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Can you show that the work Mr. Aurand has created has become well known or been the subject of an independent article? Richard3120 (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. This is one of those cases where someone has done a lot of substantial work behind the scenes creatively but there is absolutely no independent sources to verify that information. The only sources of significance I could find were not independent of the subject. I found his photographs in magazines and newspapers and in One Direction publications, but those media were made as an employee for those organizations and are essentially primary sources (which is fine for verifying he did something but not great for much else). I found absolutely nothing on the creative work he has done in documentary and film besides imdb which is not considered an independent source. There's no critical commentary on his photography or his work as a producer or film maker. In short, its a BLP without any independent supporting references, and keeping it just isn't an option unless we can find some independent sources. BLP sourcing concerns trump WP:CREATIVE.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete reads like an advertisement. No more significant than similar farms or businesses that have no Wiki page/ Teraplane (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its a historical sheep station and homestead, its the location of 3 previously unknown plant species. Its was one of the early stations to transition away from grazing sheep to providing tourist accommodation and conservation. The article is only a stub, a quick search on Trove reveals a significant number of sources related to the location https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=Kirkalocka . It should also be noted that Western Australian media outlet archives arent available on the web for period between 1950's to the last 6 months, rendering google next to useless to assess WA subject importance. Gnangarra 00:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your first two sentences don't add anything to notability. Please read below for the response to the link provided. Your last sentence reflects WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 07:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had added to the article about its role in use of museling in australia, which shows the stations activities were covered in across australia as per the sources, before you even made this comment. I wasn't saying there must be sources I'm saying there are sources and it is Notable. Gnangarra 11:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've add a few more sources to the talk page these will require in person further exploration. Gnangarra 12:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted the remaining promotional text. A simple news search shows quite a bit about Kirkalocka, so it should easily pass our geographic notability guidelines. I've added one of the sources I've found. SportingFlyerT·C 04:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Pastoral leases in Western Australia are notable locations of landholdings in range land areas, with a whole range of land types, geological and geographical features, as well historial sites that tie into the complexities of the landscape of the pilbara, kimberley and goldfields regions of the state. There is adequate material about rangeland land mangement that substantiates almost every pastoral holding of its sort as both notable and potentially related across a wide range of topics. GNG is not a guide to such an item Trove is -https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=kirkalockaJarrahTree 05:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe evidence to back up your claims? Where does it say that it has "a whole range of land types, geological and geographical feature". We cannot assess the coverage in the sources provided by the link as we do not have the sources. Therefore, we cannot make claims that the source hold information when we don't even have access to the sources. Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 07:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Take your pick of newspaper articles here, which you can clearly view. Lots old and routine, but clearly passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyerT·C 13:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A cricket match, a new bike, a fierce kangaroo, and a dead garden. You'll have to be more specific, I still can't see anything about "a whole range of land types, geological and geographical feature". Willbb234Talk (please ((ping)) me in replies) 18:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The place is large enough to have been written about in terms of the geological record. I'm commenting it passes WP:GNG, making the necessity of placating you by going to the library and getting a copy of the book unnecessary, especially given per WP:GEOLAND we have a presumption these sorts of articles should be okay, and it's been clearly verified. SportingFlyerT·C 23:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you follow the link you'll see 1,000+ news sources, all the geological sources, as well various government gazettes, and scientific journals that relate to the locations, plus more. Gnangarra 11:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sportingflyer. --Doncram (talk) 01:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Consensus is closer to 'keep' than 'delete', but there is one compelling argument for ONEEVENT and another that it meets GNG. The general lack of participation surrounding these policy-based arguments make it impossible to close as other than "no consensus". 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 14:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a burst of publicity over this video in June 2018, and then a few press mentions in May 2019 when the girl was on the Ellen show and met Dave Grohl. But this looks like it's stretching the GNG unless there's a lot more coverage, longevity, etc. JamesG5 (talk) 05:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason I added this page is that my daughters and I were trying to find more information about this drummer and we were shocked to find out that she had no wikipedia page. In my many years of using wikipedia, I can't ever remember not finding a page for a topic I wanted to look up! I figured this was a good lesson to teach my daughters: in a shared encyclopedia, if you find that something is wrong or missing, you should fix it. So we did! I'm not a GNG expert, but in my view this girl is extremely notable as a child prodigy. Isn't being written about in Billboard, Rolling Stone, NPR, UPI, CBC, etc a pretty high bar? Not to mention being on American TV twice... David P Simons (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a bit of GNG research, and I think she makes the cut based on this evidence: From WP:NMUSIC, she only needs to meet one of the 12 criteria. She arguably meets requirements 1 and 12, and possibly requirement 9, because she was listed as a "Finalist" in the 2018 Hit Like A Girl contest ( https://hitlikeagirlcontest.com/videos/2018-finalist/ ), though I don't know her actual final rank. David P Simons (talk) 08:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @David P Simons:, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! First off, I wanted to let you know that I greatly appreciate your edits in good faith. When we refer to the topic of the article being not notable, it means that they have had significant coverage over a reasonable period of time, and not just famous for one event. Yoyoka Soma may have been covered by reliable, independent sources, but the fact remains that the notability that the topic received is not substantial enough to warrant a Wikipedia article. You did edit with a noble intention to further the wiki, which I applaud you for, but we want to make sure that all of the topics have substantial notability. I will refrain from voting because I have not investigated enough into this topic, and I could be wrong on the topic of notability. I only wanted to elaborate on the nomination rationale and what is written in the article as of now. Will return to make a vote soon enough. In the meantime David, you can leave a message on my talk page if you would like help in understanding some of our policies on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, so that a misunderstanding like this wouldn't happen in the future. Cheers! Utopes (talk) 03:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Utopes: So am I incorrect that meeting one (or more) of the 12 requirements on that page is enough for notability for a musician?
David P Simons (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think she passes GNG/NMUSIC #1 (and possibly NMUSIC #12), though I agree with the nom that it's a stretch, and she seems to be notable solely for one video that went viral. Here's my assessment of the currently cited sources:
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).
Move to draft and incubate for six months. bd2412T 22:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've cleaned up the article, though I think all of the above discussion still applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 03:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is "delete". Compelling arguments were made for a re-direct, but it is not at all clear what the redirect target should be. Therefore closing as delete, but there should be no objections if re-created as a re-direct. Since there is no reliable sourcing, deleting instead of searching for an appropriate redirect target is appropriate per WP:PRESERVE., 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 14:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given that the topic is about blogging it will be hard to find normal RIS. However the term has survived in use for more than a decade and there are certainly multiple sources referring to it, so it may be notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the sources are from blogs, but a quick WP:BEFORE search would have found [5] and [6] in google scholar and [7] from linux.com. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Comte0: I did follow BEFORE, as I already stated. I can't even read either source because this isn't in English and this needs a subscription. Would you care to share how in depth the coverage is? We can't have an article only based on instructions on how to create one. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the sources I posted do not meet the significant coverage required by WP:GNG. Sorry about that. Comte0 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to BEFORE or anything else, don't assume that an editor knows a language other than English and that they have a subscription to a source. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all sources must be evaluated, including the ones in languages you do not speak. Requiring that all sources be in english leads to Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t invalidate them! I only asked you how big of a mention the term received in those sources. SL93 (talk) 23:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blog. The only refernence of any use I could find, which Comte0 id'd, is the IEEE paper but the term appears in exactly one sentence about it, as to define the term. Nothing else is sufficient RS to use here. But its a valid search term, so redirect w/ brief def in Blog works. --Masem (t) 22:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sourcing found, obscure neologism unlikely to attract notability or sources. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a Redirect somewhere is warranted. It's not made up, but it's also an unsourced article about something we have other articles about, like avatar (computing) (most likely) and signature block (the only page to actually mention it). Otherwise Delete, as I don't see enough to satisfy WP:GNG — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to redirecting to blog if it's mention there, btw. But there's nothing to merge here as there are no sources. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 03:36, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as it’s primarily a description of term, would the sourcing available support a copy to Wiktionary? Mccapra (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect seem the most reasonable, it's clear there isn't significant coverage in RS'. The passing mention at Signature block#Internet forums could be a redirect location, it shouldn't be too hard to expand that line to include a simple definition. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 10:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the references contain in-depth information on the company or are based on announcements, fails WP:NCORP. Merge any relevant information into Psy article. HighKing++ 20:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep P-Nation is home to many notable artists, and is literally run by Psy. A label is notable for its products and it has many famous products and a famous founder.-K-popguardian (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNotability is not inherited, therefore having "notable artists" as clients and being owned/run by Psy does not confer notability onto the company. There are no references that provide in-depth information on the company that also meet WP:SIGCOV, WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 14:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with nominator, the fact that it exists is not enough. No in-depth coverage and nothing really notable. Evaders99 (talk) 07:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable source. Barca (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to object to the fact that companies like CI Entertainment and Blockberry Creative have similar pages with even less notability other than artists, but have been around alot longer with little contestion about their existence.-K-popguardian (talk) 04:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:NSONGS. This article has no independent notability. It also provides no more information than is already provided at Norman Fucking Rockwell! and Lana Del Rey discography. It relies only on an article about the release date of its album and the one chart in which it charted. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 07:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Both as written and including potential sources, fails WP:NCORP due to near-exclusive reliance on WP:Primary sources. Of the included seven (7) references, ref #2 doesn't relate to this subsidiary, refs #3-4 are primary sources and refs #5-7 cover this subsidiary in either a tangential way or by making passing mentions, covering the company's non-notable product announcements, routine business operations, and regular company-to-company business partnerships or other arrangements. As such, it fails WP:CORPDEPTH as there are insufficient sources that provide WP:SIGCOVsignificant coverage.
Following my WP:BEFORE procedures, I conducted Google news and web searches with "Intuit Canada" enclosed in quotation marks in a phrase search and, of the potential sources I was able to find, I was only able uncover press coverage that covers trivial matters such as business partnerships, product announcements, pricing changes, and the like. The only potentially reliable source that covers this subsidiary in any significant way is ref #1 (a University of Alberta article)—but that's only one source.
Now, that's not to say that this company, as part of the larger Intuit, is not notable, but as a Canadian subsidiary/branch plant operation, it fails WP:NCORP. So, my primary recommendation would be to merge this article into a much condensed (a few paragraphs at most) section of Intuit. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added Comment from Nominator: Note also that of the Google Scholar searches, any results mentioning "Intuit Canada" were just in-text citations referencing company-commissioned studies—nothing about this company. Likewise for the Google Books searches, similar story whereby they are only mentioned as the publisher of the monograph, mentioned in a very tangential or passing way, or one of their executives was quoted or a company-sponsored survey cited in support of an unrelated topic. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The real story here seems to be WINTAX, if it truly was "Canada's first Microsoft Windows-based personal tax preparation software", so if someone wants to document that history in a reliable source, we might have an article here. As is, an upmerge seems like the obvious option. Guettarda (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, Thanks, yeah. There could be merit to WinTax/QuickTax as a software product article, but as a geographic subsidiary of Intuit, it does make sense to merge this, doesn't it? Doug Mehus (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk) 19:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No real demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NMUSICIAN. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Edwardx (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
someone can easily argue that this article WP:BIO. failed to meet any criteria regarding an advertisement and notability. These sources are the smallest coverage. Not all of the Dramas he worked on met Wikipedia criteria, fail WP:GNG. Each Source of this article is taken from different actors and actresses. i did not find any bangla source about these article. all of source not related with article, fail WP:RS. i wanted to use speedy deletion tag for quickly remove this article but due to some of source, so i did not --Nahal(T) 11:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Men-related deletion discussions.-Nahal(T) 10:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Didn't found enough notability. Article has 13 refs but Ali Fida Akram Tozo isn't main subject none of them, just some passing mentions. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:OUTCOMES. The formatting and sourcing is such a problem that alone is cause to delete. In addition, the essential claim to fame is that of a producer associated with films starring other actors. We usually delete articles about producers and writers, absent clear notability. Bearian (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Criterion 2(d): nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course. No prejudice against a policy-compliant re-nomination. (non-admin closure)——SerialNumber54129 17:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be non-notable and there are a LOT of conflicts between editors, several of which have suggested a XFD. BigDwiki (talk) 17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Unless you can tell me where "conflict among editors" is a valid reason for deletion. An anon IP (likely a sock or meatpuppet) is the only editor who's suggested deletion. OhNoitsJamieTalk 17:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Submitter's note: Multiple users have suggested deletion- here and here. Every user that disagrees with User:Ohnoitsjamie has been accused of being a sock and has been closed as unfounded. BigDwiki (talk) 17:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No only 'not very notable', but spam to boot. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Same topic as Guy in The Jellyland, which is nominated for deletion. Editor removed CSD template. Cannot find any evidence that this film/series exists, fails WP:GNG and WP:NMOVIE. Schazjmd(talk) 15:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Article has since been deleted (CSD G3), but I can't find any instructions on how to withdraw/close this nomination which is no longer needed. Schazjmd(talk) 17:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax content. Pure invention of editor. This series does not and will never exist. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another piece of non-notable fancruft. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969TT me 02:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:GNG. If there is an appropriate list article, redirect would be fine. Onel5969TT me 02:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "rationale" given in the first AfD makes my brain hurt. A clear fail of WP:GNG. Transformers, roll out... to make my jacket?ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Moving the other article is left to ordinary editorial action. RL0919 (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Completely non-notable D&D creature. Outside of the handful of primary sources, there is nothing discussing this version of the creature in any way that denotes notability. Searching for sources only brings up information on the actual, mythological creature, Berbalang (legendary creature). Being the actual primary version of the name, that article should probably be moved to this space. Rorshacma (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Move the legendary creature article to the main namespace as the obvious primary topic.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Berbalang (legendary creature) to Berbalang. A short mention could be added to the main Berbalang article explaining that they appear in Dungeons & Dragons. Not a very active user (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed pointer on article creator's talk page. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless real sources are found. I tried to clean up the article, but I couldn't find any sources. As I don't speak Hebrew, it's possible there is something there, but using YouTube as a source for even the fact that the songs are associated with him is problematic. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 01:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete without prejudice to it being recreated in future should sufficient sources be found. The article as it stands has no worthwhile sources (all of them being YouTube) and I cannot find anything on the (admittedly English-language) Web. Thus fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BASIC and WP:GNG. Potentially it is WP:TOOSOON. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep I’ve added some material and refs. There are dozens of sources on the Mangur in a Google books search, though many are only snippet views. In any case from the sources I can see it is clear that notability is established. Mccapra (talk) 17:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are references to the Mangur people in journals [8][9][10][11], and also many scattered references to the people in books - [12][13][14]. While these sources do not give substantial information about the tribe - they mostly give a few sentences or a paragraph or two (one or two may have more), collectively I think they are sufficient to indicate notability. Hzh (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, improvements to article made, and sources highlighted by above editors reflect its wikinotableness. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It has been extensively improved. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I’ve added sources without looking in Turkish, Kurdish or Farsi, and ignoring google book snippet views. There’s certainly enough to support the notability of this topic. Mccapra (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. This is another article on a Kurdish tribe that has been fixed recently. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"About us"/promo tone, appears to fail WP:NCORP/WP:GNG - no significant coverage in external sources (excluding the subject-owned sources, all of the sources I checked were tangential mention of the company or owner in a list of awards and were likely submitted by the subject). Wasn't able to do a thorough BEFORE search, since there's more than one startup with this name and it's a common noun. creffett (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC) creffett (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very promotional and reads like an attempt to use Wikipedia as a web host, speaking on behalf of Loop, speaking of what "Loop wants", "Loop's vision", what "Loop believes". Even titling it with the disambiguator "(concept)" comes off as a marketing touch, given that the text places it as, alternately, a movement and an incubator. Largoplazo (talk) 13:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G11. I see the article has already been tagged with this, but I am lodging my support for a speedy deletion here. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 14:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep added a encyclopedic reference found on the German WP, subject seems noteworthy enough to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Initramfs (talk • contribs) 13:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep added refs. There are sufficient in English without recourse to other languages. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, thanks to above editors for improving article with sourced information. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable find any sources in any language for this term or for other related terms used in the article. Mccapra (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Original Research. I am pretty sure the author somehow confused the Dari language as a tribe name. The language page should really be at Darî.4meter4 (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Created by COI account and tagged for notability since 2010. Lacks reliable independent sources and not notable. Mccapra (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the winners of major state titles like Miss Oklahoma and Miss Oklahoma USA are not default notable, minor competitiions like Mrs. Oklahoma do not even come close to propelling their winners to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not describe achievements for which notability is inherent. I cannot find sources that aren't local so does not have the WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:BIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. She's just a state pageant winner and otherwise leads a productive but rather ordinary life per this recent local news article: [15].4meter4 (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete A clear failure of WP:GNG, as there are no multiple significant reliable and independent sources that cover the subject. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see the page was nominated for PROD by Dgpop and then endorsed by Izno. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the above mentioned prod on procedural grounds (previous prod in 2009), no opinion on notability. There probably is not much more RS coverage than mentioned in the article: I also found 1/3 page in the (Italian) Amiga Magazine (volume 5, issue 38, October 1992, p. 79; featured on their coverdisk) and similar or shorter articles in other Amiga magazines (eg. Amiga Format, issue 112, July 1998, p. 97; again on their coverdisk). Pavlor (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete contains only one reference to one page in a book. The lack of references fails to establish any notablility; clearly fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Contains only one reference and does not establish enough notability to warrant its own article. Fails WP:GNG Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 12:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note you already "voted" delete 4 days ago... Pavlor (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pavlor: Oh I must not have realised, thanks for letting me know, I will get rid of my second vote. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 22:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clear consensus that notability is still not demonstrated, with COI editing from a now confirmed sock. I will also watchlist and page and salt the page if we get a similar recreation Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previously deleted see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr Dawar. Non-notable artist with references mainly to social media or other unreliable sites. As previously, also poorly written and very likely an autobiography, COI related or 'fan' piece. Eagleash (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tripodandstudentcard (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)What's wrong with you guys why always you delete this article why are you jelous why you guys didnt saw others to come up why you guys have so much ego what you lose if this article beging live ? Is you lose money is you lose your life please stop doing this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.12.209.142 (talk) 14:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC) — Tripodandstudentcard (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Westrextravels (talk • contribs). [reply]
Thank you for your comments. Please note, new posts go at the bottom of the thread. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.). Thank you. Eagleash (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt: Poorly-formatted and likely auto-biographical article on a subject with no indication of significant coverage from any reliable sources. It's also unlikely that anything has changed from the last AfD which was only a month ago. Should be salted since re-creation by sockpuppets is now a demonstrated issue. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My rationale from the previous discussion still holds true. Utopes (talk) 01:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication anywhere that this is a real thing, much less a real thing that just isn't notable. (edited to add When this article was nominated for deletion, editor created a new version, Guy in The Jellyland (2018 Series)), which I've nominated for deletion after editor removed speedy tag.) Schazjmd(talk) 15:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AfD lacked any participation and also lacked a proper deletion rationale, therefore I am renominating it on the basis that this subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK and the subject violates WP:FRINGE. Bharatiya29 10:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:N, WP:NBOOK. Here are the sources and their analysis:
1: Prakash, Ishwar (9 April 2019). "संस्कृत के क्षेत्र में विशिष्ट योगदान देने पर डा. वेद प्रकाश को मिला राष्ट्रपति सम्मान". Haryana Express. Retrieved 10 August 2019.
4: "President Awards the Certificate of Honour and Maharshi Badrayan Vyas Samman for the Year 2018". pib.nic.in. Press Information Bureau. Retrieved 10 August 2019.
5: "PDF President Awards the Certificate of Honour and Maharshi ... - MHRD". mhrd.gov.in. Ministry of Human Resource Development. Retrieved 10 August 2019.
11: Rizvi, Sayyid Saeed Akhtar (2001). Prophecies about the Holy Prophet of Islam in Hindu, Christian, Jewish & Parsi Scriptures. Bilal Muslim Mission of Tanzania. p. 8. ISBN 9789987620210. Retrieved 26 July 2019.
15: Mir Abdul Majeed (15 February 2005). "ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES: Prophet Muhammad in Hindu Scriptures". www.milligazette.com. The Milli Gazette. Retrieved 31 May 2019.
Dubious opinion piece which says the book is "recently published book" while the article claiming it was published in 1969.
16: Khan, Q. S. Muhammad Sahab: Holy Narashansa (in Urdu). Urdu-Books. Retrieved 10 August 2019.
18: Sikand, Yoginder (2008). Pseudo-messianic movements in contemporary Muslim South Asia. Global Media Publications. ISBN 9788188869282. Retrieved 10 August 2019.
22: Unal, Ali; Gultekin, Harun (2013). The Prophet Promised in World Scriptures. Tughra Books. ISBN 9781597848237. Retrieved 10 August 2019.
Passing mention irrelevant to notability of the book or the subject.
23: Sikand, Yoginder (2004). Muslims in India Since 1947: Islamic Perspectives on Inter-Faith Relations. Routledge. ISBN 9781134378258. Retrieved 10 August 2019.
Passing mention irrelevant to any notability of the book or subject.
Few details about a non-notable author does not actually help. Subject still fails WP:NBOOK. Aman.kumar.goel (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some new references has been added, check it out. Going to add more. The book is highly notable: It is the most used, most renowned, most quoted and most controversial book about hindu-muslim unity in India, the book and its trilogy is recognised the highestly used reference about scriptural similarity between hindus and muslims, also the writer, he is one of the high-profile leading indian public scholar and educator of sanskrit language. But trying to show it as not notable is a religius sectarian attempt of indian wiki users. If there is disagreement with the title,then I propose to change myself the title as "Muhammad and hindu scriptures" like Muhammad and the Bible article, and then I will rewrite the article with additional references with other related biblical sources. Lazy-restless 01:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Non-notable book written by a non-notable author. --RaviC (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per evaluation of sources posted above. Tessaracter (talk) 11:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
^M A, Srivastav (2008). हजरत मुहम्मद और भारतीय धर्मग्रंथ. Madhur Sandesh Sanggam. p. 19. Retrieved 25 October 2019. संस्कृत के प्रकाण्ड विद्वान डा० वेद प्रकाश उपाध्याय ने अपने एक शोधपत्र में मुहम्मद (सल्ल०) को कल्कि अवतार बताया है। कल्कि और मुहम्मद (सल्ल०) की विशेषताओं का तुलनात्मक अध्ययन करके डा० उपाध्याय ते यह सिद्ध कर दिया है कि कल्कि का अवतार हो चुका है और वे हज़रत मुहम्मद (सल्ल०) ही हैं। इस शोधपत्र की भूमिका में वे लिखते हैं... "लै्ञानिक अणु विस्फोटों से जो सत्यानाश संभव है, उसका निराकरण धार्षिक एकता सम्बन्धी विचारों से हो जाता है। जल में रहकर मगर से बैर उचित नहीं, इस कारण मैंने वह शोध किया जो धार्मिक एकता का आधार है। राष्ट्रीय एकता के समर्थकों द्वारा इस शोधपत्र पर कोई आपत्ति नहीं होगी । आपत्ति होगी तो कूपमण्डूक लोगों को, यदि वे कूप के बाहर निकलकर संसार को देखें तो कृप को ही संसार मानने की उनकी भावना हीन हो जाएगी ।". . . . "मुझे पूर्ण विश्वास है कि इस शोध पुस्तक के अवलोकन से भारतीय समाज में ही नहीं बल्कि अखिल भूमण्डल में एकता की लहर दौड़ पड़ेगी और धर्म के नाम पर होनेवाले कलह शांत होंगे।'
^Srivastava, M.A.; Abdul Alim, Muhammad (10 January 2015). Muhammad in Indian scriptures (Bengali translation) (in Bengali). Idea Prakashoni. p. 20. Retrieved 25 October 2019. বৈজ্ঞানিক আণবিক বিস্ফোরণের দ্বারা বিশ্বের যে ধ্বংসলীলা সংঘটিত হচ্ছে, তার প্রতিকার ও প্রতিরোধ একমাত্র ধর্মীয় একতার দ্বারাই সম্ভব। জলে বসবাস করে কুমিরের সাথে শত্রুতা করা বুদ্ধিমানের কাজ নয়। সেজন্য আমি ধর্মীয় আধারকে গ্রহণ করেছি। রাষ্ট্রীয় একতার প্রচারকগণ নিশ্চয় এতে কোন আপত্তি করবেন না। একমাত্র কূপমণ্ডূক সংকীর্ণমনা হীন চরিত্রের ব্যক্তি আপত্তি করতে পারে। আমার পূর্ণ বিশ্বাস যে, আমার এই গ্রন্থ অধ্যায়ন করার ফলে সর্বভারতীয় সমাজ তথা নিখিল বিশ্বে সার্বিক একতা গড়ে উঠবে এবং ধর্মীয় কলহ ও দ্বন্দ্ব দূরীভূত হবে।
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Nomination effectively withdrawn by requesting deletion of the AFD page by the nominator (non-admin closure)Atlantic306 (talk) 15:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus that there was insufficient reliable sourcing that was actually about the subject. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely a studio that produced around 500 movies, mostly in the 1980s and 1990s including some of the most well-known titles and stars is notable and should have the entry expanded not deleted Cannonmc (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion requires support from reliable sources. The article does not have them, and independent searches yield only trivial mentions, failing WP:CORPDEPTH as the nominator states. Porn films are run off in large numbers. That's why x-number of films was taken out of WP:PORNBIO 13 years ago. If this studio was as influential as you say, where are the independent reliable sources that attest to that? • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete WP:CORP failure. Even if you count the porn trade press as semi-reliable, their coverage consists of repackaged press releases and routine release or change of personnel announcements. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and @Gene93k:. I couldn't find one Google web search that was about this pornography producer. There were lots of videos that showed up in the results, presumably some of which were this producer's productions, but nothing that counts as WP:SIGCOV. Of the Google news search results, again, little if anything beyond passing mentions. Lots of results related to "Catalina video" or "Catalina (video)" and similar—nothing about this company. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. While the company's founder and the Operation PostPorn case may be notable, Bijou Video's role is not supported by references to reliable sources. No reliable sources to support the article's claims and, more important, nothing to support WP:CORP/WP:CORPDEPTH. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article on its founder, as much of his notability stems from repeated obscenity arrests and trials. Much of that, in turn, stems from his production of porn. While the studio doesn't inherit his notability, neither is it an implausible search term and readers are best served the connected notable information by his biography. MadnessDarkness 19:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Madness.4meter4 (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete the current page, and redirect to XVideos, as redirects are cheap. bd2412T 01:46, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should think of the reader ... ROFL. 🤣 With all due respect, the people about whom you're thinking are called "wankers" not "readers". There is a big difference. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I've never once gone to Wikipedia to rub one out, yet I have looked up our articles on sex-related topics many times. So, no, they are readers, and your attack on such users is unwarranted. WP:NOTCENSOREDMadnessDarkness 22:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has better references than many of the other similar articles.Rathfelder (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 and G4 criteria: Before coming here, I read the "article". Asides from a very short description, it consists of stats only. WP:NOTSTATS. It is an advertisement, plain and simple. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Xvideos as suggested above and redirect the link. HighKing++ 19:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Do not merge. Not only does XNXX fail WP:NWEB, covering under XVideos would be trivia. The two sites are part of the same network of shell companies. That's about all you can say about XNXX. Redirect may be cheap, but they should be useful. • Gene93k (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a classic example of an article that "should" be notable, but isn't. Notability is assessed by lasting significant coverage in multiple independent sources and that just isn't there. A website this popular, one would expect, would attract that and become notable just like Pornhub, XVideos, etc etc. However, the coverage isn't there, and therefore it isn't notable and that's that. Oppose merge per Gene93k; if it were deemed appropriate to write an article on the overall owner or a list of their porn sites (I don't see any reason to do so, myself) that would be a valid target for a redirect & merge. Absent a suitable location, deletion is what we're left with. "Redirect[s] may be cheap, but they should be useful." Agree completely. MadnessDarkness 22:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 10:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BPL1E states that significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources. I easily found references that were created years after the event. For example "A History of Modern Israel", by Colin Shindler - 2013 as well as Jihad in Palestine: Political Islam and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. - By Shaul Bartal, 2015Marokwitz (talk) 09:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there was some writing about her (mostly in Israeli papers) in 2007, (about her alleged conversion (forced or not)): since then: nothing, nix, nada. Clear WP:BLP1E, Huldra (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note this statement is false, I easily found references from 2013 and 2015 . Marokwitz (talk) 06:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails the professor test because she has not contributed anything of note to scholarship, her role is that of an administrator and teacher, and the university at which she teaches is private and not known for its scholarship. As far as the controversy back in 2007, it seems to have been merely a news outrage, not anything of lasting effect. I'm willing to change my mind if English sources can be found to show significant coverage beyond her conversion. Bearian (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If she is indeed Dean, she holds a position higher than a professor (in the European sense) and ought to be notable, but the current article says nothing substantial of her academic career. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 12:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is a combination of brochure-type content and inconsequential anecdote, crying out for references and indication of notability. I did find a passing mention in this news item, but beyond that only the usual listings. Fails WP:NORG / WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. Unaccredited, proprietary, and defunct school that only offered online AP classes. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. And salt - it seems like the sourcing here has not convinced anyone, the non-source dependent notability claims have also not gained support and there are concerns about the way previous delete consensuses were ignored and about whether COI or paid editing is involved. Thus salt, any recreation would require an AFC walk-through, a deletion review or something more than unilateral recreation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence of satisfying WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Sources are mostly unreliable and there are some passing mentions in rs, but none with a significant focus on the subject. The previous AfD was closed as no consensus and later the article was deleted at WP:DRV. GSS💬 06:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: WP:ENT does not apply here as this relates to a web series and not to people. The subject to the article is a popular web series, rated by a web analytical service, in the top 1 percent among YouTube channels, globally. The channel is a gold play button holder, which indicates its popularity. The series has also received a significant award, Mazhavil Manorama Entertainment Awards. The references in the article are from Malayala Manorama, The New Indian Express, Times of India, Madhyamam, Mathrubhumi and the like, which are all leading news agencies in India and as such, reliable third party references.--jojo@nthony (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tachs: The article is about a Youtube channel not web series. Having a so-called silver, gold, platinum or whatever button does not grant automatic notability. I'm pining the past contestants @Waggie, Rsrikanth05, Robert McClenon, Praxidicae, and Dane: since the last version was deleted just a few months ago. GSS💬 08:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment: I have serious concerns about that metrics rating and if it is being gamed. But I have no proof either way. I am reasonably convinced the metric it is not a WP:RS. Viewing the history shows it was regarded as different to the page deleted at AfD/DRV and survived a speedy with admin intervention.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:15, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes, I was wrong, this is a YouTube Channel and not a web series but what was missed in my haste was that the channel has a number of popular web series in its kitty. Just as Djm-leighpark mentioned, the deleted article was a different one; it is there on the article history.--jojo@nthony (talk) 08:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I do not see any tangible improvement over what I remember from before when I nominated it for deletion, thus my prior deletion rationale stands. Social media metrics are not reliable sources for determining notability. this source is not about Karikku, this source is an interview with a lot of paraphrasing from the subject - primary sources do not establish notability, a by-line of "Pinky Baby" does not inspire confidence, another interview, this one has "interview" in the URL, same article as the previous source, just a different URL, and finally this one also has "interview" in the URL. The rest of the sources appear to be IMDB (not reliable), a YouTube link to their channel (not reliable), and a couple of YouTube metric sites. Also note that this was recreated less than a month after the prior deletion discussion, so despite this article apparently being noticeably different than the previous article (per Boing! said Zebedee responding to a CSD G4 request), it would seem to me that this should probably end up in the bit bucket again. Waggie (talk) 08:49, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (see !vote below)Neutral:Delete: I've actually been looking for reasons to give a keep but have determined I'm not going to try and waste my time changing my mind and arguing against Waggie unless Tachs or 991joseph or anyone come up with ideally three or at least two reliable sources that don't look hyped and dont rely on that metric and I can verify in one click. Apparent previous cut and pastes from without attribution and content forking really don't help with the ugliness or my humour .... keep one version extant and work from that. The the draft had gone through AfC then I'd be looking for a save but the proponents don't seem to think that route is necessary. I think is was actually Reaper Eternal who cleared speedy delete and I guess maybe curated the page; Scott Burley closed the previous AfD and Timotheus Canens closed the DRV. I've also had a look for some recent news items for Karriku and nothing's coming at me.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a feeble response to Djm-leighpark, I am adding below a few references, all reports in major newspapers and thus qualifying as reliable third party references, which show the popularity of the channel.--jojo@nthony (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair play for coming back with what looks like better references than currently in the article and generally relying a lot less on the subscriber count. I'm in the UK and not in Kerala (population 34M) to see things from the viewpoint there. I remain not happy, indeed VERY NOT HAPPY, about the pathway of this article which co-existed with draft version and may of circumvented DRV/AfD but that possibly should have been picked up sooner when transitioned out of my speedy delete and I assume curated. I not brilliant at detailed arguments over sources and I'll leave scrutiny to others who I hope will analyze fairly. At present I will return my !vote to neutral. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with silver bullets and Salt with silver nitrate - This is a zombie page. It was already deleted after one of the most decisive DRV results to overturn that I have seen. (I said to Endorse the closure, but only because the closer had not made an error. I had originally said to Delete.) There is no way that this YouTube channel meets general notability. The general pattern of conduct is one of undisclosed paid editing or other conflict of interest and Terms of Use violations. During the first creation of the article, there were multiple forms of gaming of the system, including creating two copies of the article, one in draft space and one in article space, to defeat draftifying. An editor who had a good case would not need to resort to such tactics. Delete and Salt. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt - Enough of this. This article is no better than the prior one it was trying to replace and I agree with Robert McClenon that this is a zombie page that strongly feels like undisclosed paid editing for sure. Salt the page. -- Danetalk 20:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dane: It was I who created this page and that is the only reason for this invitation to pay a visit to my user page where I have listed all the articles, over 1500 in total, I have created in my wikilife of over 14 years. I am confident that such a visit would convince you that I do not do paid editing. Thanks --jojo@nthony (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The precious metal play button is a promotional award that is similar to awards that are commonly given in the book publishing and distilled spirits industries. These awards are easy to get, because the real objective of the trade associations for the industries is to increase sales, of books or of spirits, respectively. So the awards prove only membership in an effective trade association, and YouTube is functioning as a trade association. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I beg to differ with Robert McClenon. Play Buttons are in fact YouTube Creator Awards, awarded by YouTube when the channel achieves a specific number of subscribers. Gold play button is for a base of 1 million subscribers. The channel in reference has over 3 million subscribers. --jojo@nthony (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - despite my earlier assumption the page had been curated [19] seems to indicate it was never curated despite creation on 22 May 2019 about 5 months ago (assuming I haven't made a mistake). I note nom. appears to be an WP:NPP and guess this may have been a non-simples on the uncurated list.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, coverage has no roots. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article [20] indicates the "number of subscribers — a metric than can be gamed by bots", and as the awards are based on that they are to a degree not to be relied on in my opinion. Neither are journalists who over-promote that metric without qualification.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There has been mention of paid editing in this discussion. Tachs(jojo@nthony) has invited scrutiny of his home page as evidence of no paid editing, and I personally opine that is not a suitable in itself for any such determination, although obviously we have contribution history as well, which perhaps gives some some input. I do seem to note quite a number biographies of deceased persons and it it unlikely in my opinion these would have been subject to paid editing. I note also some BLPs and maybe some organisations within the set where there might perhaps been risk of a request being made for a paid edit, but I also judge they are within the range of his normal writing interests as far as I can tell So while Tachs/jojo@nthony probably has the skills for paid editing, as do many of us, I have no reason to assume it has occurred and WP:AGF certainly assumes it should not. In terms of the current article ((TempUndelete)) on the previously article incarnation and the draft article would be needed for further scrutiny (unless one is an admin) so I see purposes here at this AfD to determine if this incarnation of the Karikku article is fit for mainspace based on its current content and available sources. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy if needed. Almost all the references are IMDB or blogs. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please have a second look, of the 21 references, 7 are IMDb (they are used only to mark the cast and crew), 9 are from leading dailies in India and the rest are analytical tools such as Noxinluencer and Social Blade. No blogs are used as references here.--jojo@nthony (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate: and salt: I observe !votes seem to be ignoring the references presented in direction of the spirit of WP:THREE but are moving the focus other references instead. I am minded Karikku may be appropriate for an article. I believe this should be recommended to be routed via AfC which should have been its pathway in the first place. The salt is needed as persons will likely attempt to move it in anyway and draft space is the best place for collaborative working rather than problem some forks are lack of attribution that then occurs. I believe there is likely WP:SIGCOV/WP:GNG given references above and from one or two in the article but I'm deliberately not drilling or I'd likely have to !vote ... I'm actually more concerned about WP:POV and don't want in in mainspace for that and for disrespect of WP:DRV and for forking. 19:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete: Per Nom. I am not even going to even entertain any thoughts of COI without clear evidence. I would hope and assume that an established editor would not add IMDb references. Otr500 (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMDb references, 7 in number out of a total of 21 citations, are used only for marking the lead actors of the channel. In this article, they do not substantiate any claims. I do not know if I may be called an established editor, but my experience here has taught me that IMDb may be used for citing cast and crew information from released films, Please see this. --jojo@nthony (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having a large number of subscribers does not warrant getting a article on Wikipedia. -- FitIndiaTalkCommons 08:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The channel is also a recipient of a major regional award, the inaugural Mazhavil Manorama Entertainment Award in 2019.--jojo@nthony (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and the award doesn't seem to be notable enough. GSS💬 11:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GSS: It comes from Malayala Manorama, the group which owns the most circulated Malayalam daily (the third largest circulated daily in India and the fourteenth most circulated newspaper in the world), Vanitha, the most circulated Indian magazine, and Mazhavil Manorama, one of the most popular television channels in the language. It was also the first award in Malayalam, for excellence in digital content. From a regional perspective, if this award is not notable, not many from this region are.--jojo@nthony (talk) 12:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That does not grant automatic notability. Please see WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. GSS💬 12:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am reasonably familiar with WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED, I was only trying to substantiate my claim that the award was notable. I feel WP:NOTINHERITED does not apply here, as any award for that matter, is notable mainly because of the inherent merit and tradition of the award (e.g. Nobel Prize) or because of the merit of the awarding institution (e.g. British Academy Film Awards or Academy Awards. When a channel has a fair number of subscribers, when it has clocked 282 million views as recorded by internet analytic tools, when it is a recipient of a major regional award, when it can be verified as (regionally) popular from the newspaper reports, I presume that the subject of the article is notable and I was just trying to put this across. Thanks. --jojo@nthony (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to jojo@nthony: I applaud good faith efforts. Because YouTube, or IMDb seems to deem something notable (I didn't look at the 282 million views) then if the "world" has taken note I would think finding "reliable" sources an easy task. I do not dislike IMDb or YouTube. Like Find a Grave, IMDb is considered unreliable and battles for inclusion/exclusion as a reliable source led to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I also do not want YouTube to be the next inundating Wikipedia project.
1/3 of sources being attributed to one site is a lot. It has been mentioned more than once above. Even if I supported use as some backup content support it has been splashed on an unimaginable number actor/movie related articles. Like Find a Grave there was a project solely for that purpose. Maybe a movie has enough notable actors (all star cast) to list 7 of them but many times it is just used as a reference (adding to the count or Notability bombing) to list actually non-notable names farther down the casting list. Even if I was not against a considered generally unreliable source (a good reason to avoid any use) being used "just for content" it might have been less obtrusive had the general casting page been used "one time" not seven contributing to the "splashing all over Wikipedia". Continued excuses and arguments that "but it is only used for" does not give credence to reliability or Wikipedia being an IMDb co-listing site. I find content on both the above mentioned sites informational (so do not dislike them) but as an editor, especially since WP:BLP's are generally involved with IMDb, that these sites should be avoided. Who can actually argue that a picture of a grave site is unreliable? Much like IMDb it is the overall unreliability of the sites (not to mention the inundation on Wikipedia) not specific content that dictates not using them. Unique information not found somewhere else is a reason for accepted use in "External links" not as an unreliable source. Even at that IMDb is on nearly every actor/movie article (in "External links) regardless of any "unique" information.
I have been doing "External links maintenance for years without so much as making a dent but I do remove IMDb when I find it as a reference. If broad community consensus deems a site generally unreliable as a source it is probably best not to use it. If it is the only place information can be verified it probably isn't that notable. Also, in my view, the casting content on IMDb far more than likely came directly from the primary source. As an industry related repository site it is not a vetted and by our inundation we assist in breaking WP:What Wikipedia is not.
What you see as it does not "substantiate any claims" I see as just the opposite because it supports content related to "citing cast and crew information from released films". I would rather see the primary source only rather than an unreliable source. Not all may agree with me but apparently many do. The point is that if a more broad community consensus is against the use as a reliable source (because we are not to use unreliable sources right?) then it would be better to take this up at the appropriate place to see if consensus has changed. Otr500 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Overwhelming consensus is that WP:CRYSTAL does not apply to Olympic events in this close proximity to the qualifying trials. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its way too early for this article. The qualification system has not even been published yet. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL this article should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though it is very early, deleting it would cause someone to rewrite it. I would propose adding a hatnote template. The Olympics are explicitly listed as an exception on WP:CRYSTALBALL. Initramfs (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the information on the page is all guesswork as nothing has been confirmed. Normally I would just redirect to the sport's page, but in this case that does not even exist, which should also demonstrate its too early for this article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually the qualification system was put forth at the recent congress and approved, as the sources on the page indicate. However, the point system for Olympic qualification has not been published yet. So the stages of qualification, and which tournaments matter, are known, but as the page indicates it is not the complete picture yet. I do not think that reflects the issue of CRYSTALBALL but it would not trouble me to have the page recreated when the imminent announcement is actually made.18abruce (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft, as per Draft:2022 in film. bd2412T 22:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I created the page I was under the assumption that the rules for qualifying for 2022 would be the same for 2014 and 2018, which meant that the qualification period for 2014 started in 2010, and the qualification period for 2018 started in 2014, but with the rule changes for 2022 the first matches that would matter are 2020, which means the first qualifying point matches for this olympics are in March 2020 which is less than a half year away. And the qualification for the 2020 World Championships start in less than month, November 2019 (Pacific-Asia Curling Championship, European Curling Championships, World Mixed Doubles Qualification Event). Also, this page includes references to the Olympics expanding the number of Mixed Doubles teams participating in the Olympics from 8 to 10. Edwyth (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the qualification tournaments have been announced, and county towards the Olympics, then this is a keep per WP:CRYSTAL. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 16:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Contrary to nom's assertinon, the qualification system has been released. As such, no valid reason has been given for deletion and I suggest withdrawal. Smartyllama (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the official qualification system that has been published by the WCF and the IOC? You won't be able too, because it doesn't exist. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now come on sportsfan, the article clearly links an official WCF document that details how many teams qualify, how the qualification tournaments will work, who is eligible to play in them, and which tournaments count for automatic qualification. What is does not do is detail how (and if) the Olympic Qualification Points will change in this Olympic cycle for automatic qualification. It is true that there is no announcement yet of whether or not the IOC has approved the process, there needs to be some strong argument here as to why that on its own would be enough to delete the article.18abruce (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus that there isn't any sourcing to enable it to pass either GNG, NFILM or NFO Nosebagbear (talk) 14:05, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trapped in the Towers: The Elevators of 9/11[edit]
No sources found, no notability asserted but A7 doesn't apply to films. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has no sources and I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV on the Web, only inclusion in lists. Thus fails WP:NFILM's WP:NFP and fails WP:GNG. Also no other evidence of notability as a film (WP:NFO). -Lopifalko (talk) 08:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, elementary schools are not typically considered notable. Presented as is this seems to be run of the mil elementary school that does not meet GNG Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT (an expansion of a policy, as per long standing practice for non notable schools, especially primary and middlde schools, and as evidenced by 1,000s of redirects). Hell in a Bucket nominators should be aware of this, or should be suitably qualified New Page Patrollers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kudpung that guideline states it is an option not a mandate. You might find value in a redirect I do not and therefore requested deletion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it linking to an overall district as much of a help, it doesn't hurt either. I suppose I'm open to that as an alternative to deletion. More then one way to solve a problem. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:15, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Negligible evidence of notability. In a WP:BEFORE, I can find only the one RS listed, and the rest is press releases and passing mentions. Article appears to have been created and maintained by promotional SPAs and IPs. Declined PROD, though the decliner did nothing to address the problems. David Gerard (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only thing I saw that might have met the criteria under WP:CORP in terms of coverage was this article mentioning that this firm won an industry award in China in China Times (the Taiwan paper) which is an RS, however the award does not appear to be particularly prestigious (10 firms are awarded it in Taiwan every year) and the article does not discuss this firm in much detail. As such, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep—as a private firm, the amount and quality of information available is substantially less than for public behemoths. That being said, this does seem to be a significant firm in a very niche area, and it typically adds value to partnerships rather than striking gold on its own (based on reviewing the citations available from the article). In regard to the comment from @FOARP: about the obscure Chinese industry award, I've added a note about the firm unseating Bloomberg in the portfolio management systems category for The Waters Rankings awards. In regard to the article as a whole, I've done copyediting and expansion of citations, and added one related to the release of a trading platform with Quantitative Brokers (which itself does not have an article here). Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's now flooded with primary sources and non-RSes (that "Bloomberg" source is literally an advertising press release, for example). Is there any genuine third-party coverage, demonstrating that RiskVal is actually notable out in the real world? - David Gerard (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A simple search on Bing shows a complete absence of any press in major publications. [21]Carajou (talk) 19:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith(talk) 01:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 02:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:13, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination. This was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arjun Panesar in 2017. It was recently recreated as a draft, then moved to mainspace. It was tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of content deleted at a discussion. The discussion was a bit thin -- only two editors, each commenting quite briefly. The only reason given was lack of demonstrated notability. The recreated version has more sources, including several more recent than the deletion discussion. I declined the speedy as not sufficiently identical with the previous version, but current notability seems less than clear cut to me, so I am bringing it here for a consensus decision on the current notability of this subject. I am not expressing any opinion at the moment on whether this should be kept, deleted, returned to draft, or redirected to the business which Panesar founded and runs (Diabetes.co.uk). DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:56, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it seems hard to separate the person from what he's created, but there's enough there (including a book published by an reputable publisher) to indicate notability for him as an individual, distinct from the company. Guettarda (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As demonstrated by Bmbaker88 above, and my comment there, this fails to meet WP:SIGCOV. Edwardx (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 02:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.