< 6 October	8 October >

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GTB Technologies[edit]

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

Promotional/marketing brochure content. Possible COI by the article creator/main contributor. Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP - the references are all self-sourced, press releases, or non-reliable sources. Didn't turn up any WP:SIGCOV when doing a BEFORE search. creffett (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails GNG Chetsford (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stinks of paid editing. Created and maintained by a Single-purpose account that has absolutely no edits to any other pages. Clearly promotional. -- œ^™ 05:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG.Andrew Base (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NCORP. — Ched (talk) 02:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Barca (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No different than all the other company / business pages e.g cipher cloud, digital guardian, fidelis; except it is known that GTB Technologies is self funded without any VC investment 11 October 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikefromnyc (talk • contribs) 19:32, 11 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Lleida Esportiu season[edit]

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

Looking at this article, the references here are a lot of WP:PRIMARY resources which isn't really what you want in an article. The other references are in that same primary section which isn't good. So I think by that case, I reckon this article might fail WP:GNG.

I would also like to nominate these articles as well due to the possible failure of WP:GNG.

2018–19 Lleida Esportiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017–18 Lleida Esportiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016–17 Lleida Esportiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015–16 Lleida Esportiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014–15 Lleida Esportiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013–14 Lleida Esportiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012–13 Lleida Esportiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2011–12 Lleida Esportiu season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment did you do any sort of WP:BEFORE search to see if secondary newspapers have discussed the Lleida season? Because if so, then these wouldn't qualify for deletion even if the sources are only primary. (I quickly found sources such as [1], but could not find sustained coverage.) SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per consensus that non fully-professional leagues fail WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 20:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Source isn't much reliable. Barca (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the creator of those for nine years, they are very useful for my work at the newspaper. I understand that may be not for everyone, but they are really important to me. Scaufape (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note @Scaufape this is going to be closed as a delete. However I will give you 12 hrs to copy these pages for your own use before I delete them. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment thank you very much for understanding, i guess you'll delete hundreds of articles not updated for years (not this case). BEST REGARDS Scaufape (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- You're welcome to nominate for deletion any other articles which are not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Scaufape. These pages are being deleted because the consensus in the discussion was that their subject does not meet our guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. That can be found at WP:GNG. Failure to update an article that has passed our notability guidelines is not grounds for deletion. I am sorry that your pages are being deleted. Many of us have had the experience. Thank you for your work on the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 15 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:38, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Gimnàstic de Tarragona season[edit]

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

I was going through the pages and stumbled upon this one which might fail the WP:GNG as it's in a league that might not have the references compared to the top two leagues. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 08:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 20:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails notability.Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it would be in English third tier, it would stay. Nastic is a big club and there are enough sources for it. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 08:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Ludost Mlačani: The difference between the third tier of English football and the third tier of Spanish football is that the third tier of English football is professional so the resources to create that specific article is available. Compared that to the Spanish 3rd tier which is only semi-professional and their is limited amount of resources that isn't WP:PRIMARY. HawkAussie (talk) 23:32, 14 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:00, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bat Bitch[edit]

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

No claim of WP:GNG. No references, no references found online except IMDB, which exists for every film. Not even the actors, directors, producers or distributors seem to have any notability. The only notable matter is the franchise it parodies, which is one of the most famous in popular culture and of which there are many more notable parodies than this one.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete A completely non-notable porn film. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:44, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't see any evidence that this film was ever even mentioned in any RS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Porn parody of a mainstream film of the same year, a routine porn practice. Aside from a mention in a porn star's obituary,[2] reliable sources appear to have nothing to say about this film, making this a run-of-the-mill porno. No serious claim of meeting WP:NFILM. • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is a lack of coverage in reliable sources, for example there are no external reviews listed at IMDb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 22:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable film by the looks of it. Nor does it have sources to say otherwise.KingofGangsters (talk) 23:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all notability tests. — Ched (talk) 02:43, 10 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. Fenix down (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Power[edit]

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

Article about soccer player who appears to have played at least one match in the USL Division 1 (according to this, he was a 90th minute substitute against Montreal). I can't find anything to verify that he played league matches for Club Bolívar or anything else that could make him notable. Simply being under contract at a club like Miami FC or Club Bolívar isn't enough to satisfy WP:NFOOTBALL. Moreover, the utter lack of significant coverage in reliable sources indicates any presumption of notability under NFOOTBALL shouldn't hold. I did find an interview with him where he briefly mentions his soccer career (and his sports agent career), but the coverage isn't independent of the subject. Jogurney (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bolivia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I doubt this would have been here if the article had been properly sourced when created in 2006. I followed the US second division fairly closely around this time and he would likely have been written about locally if he did appear in 10 games, but attempting to source this from search engines now with "tech creep" will be difficult ("tech creep" being my made-up term regarding my theory it's often harder to find information on articles from 10-15 years ago than 30 years ago, since digital-only articles may not have been maintained or removed properly, and not stored offline/in the wayback machine.) SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, which is more important that him possible/technically scarping by on WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:23, 8 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semjon Adlaj[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPROF. Google Scholar: 12 published papers of (23, 10, 4, 3, 1, 1, 0, ...) citations. Scopus: two papers of (14, 0) citations. Web of Science: no record. The most cited paper is an expositional paper in the Notices.

Also no evidence of passing any other notability guideline (e.g. WP:GNG). — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Busy academic doing some keen stuff (that's an interesting homepage), but this is an early-career researcher who hasn't yet had the required impact or recognition. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. The only third-party source in the article (mysteriously not linked but online here) is a letter to the editor, by a notable researcher, that is quite critical of one of Adlaj's papers. That paper, Adlaj's most cited, appears in the Notices of the AMS (more a newsletter than a serious research journal) and only has 23 citations in Google scholar. That is not worth much as a basis for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the following reasons:
1. His article which appeared at the cover page of the Notices is not expositional but devoted to a new concept, so it was chosen for translation by the Chinese Science Academy. The fact that the Modified Arithmetic-Geometric Mean can be calculated in two equivalent ways, one of which is mediated via the AGM obviates the need for its future research.
2. The Galois elliptic function (see slide 7) enables new efficient calculations such as the calculation of integrals of elliptic functions (see slide 16). The same idea was apparently used for obtaining record calculations of special values of the j-invariant.
3. The Galois axis alone is sufficient to keep. Its introduction to rigid body dynamics is historical and irreversible. Quite intriguing to know that it originated in a formula for the speed of precession, which is symmetric in the moments of inertia. Once again, there are some nontrivial improper integrals involved here. This is quite deep with lots of applications. 46.242.8.153 (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC) — 46.242.8.153 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete No evidence of passing WP:PROF. If his work is as grand as the above single-purpose account says, then other mathematicians will eventually recognize it, and we can write about him then. (I rather doubt it is, though.) XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for too soon: The warning sign is "In 2018, ". That's simply too soon. The new idea might turn out to be significant and has lasting impact (which would make the subject notable). Or not. Wikipedia should not be in business of determining whether a new idea/concept is significant or not. -- Taku (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Fails both GNG and WP:NPROF at this point in time. — Ched (talk) 02:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this informative article. The link to 2018 is simply most recent. There are other earlier links which can gradually be linked to the page. Markioffe (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC) — Markioffe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Struck sock !vote. — MarkH21 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, per above. No present notability. If/when his work is recognized, we can reconsider. (Seen on WT:MATH.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopefully sometimes in the future he will be notable, but today he does not pass WP: GNG or WP:NPROF. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above opinions. KingofGangsters (talk) 04:57, 14 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Noone[edit]

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

Insufficiently notable folk singer; can't find anything outside of blogs/fora, Facebook, and listings. Deprodded w/o improvement (well an IMDB entry...). Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. In terms of the latter, there is no evidence of chart success, gold/platinum album, major awards, etc. In terms of the former, the only news or other coverage that I can find is the same/singular "Gulf Times" piece that's in the article itself. A Google news/web search returns no other coverage. A search on the Irish newspapers of record (like the Irish Times) returns no coverage of the subject. The IMDB entry may support the "appeared on two reality TV shows" claim, but it doesn't support notability. (In honesty, if anything, it kinda works against it....) Guliolopez (talk) 09:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original PROD nomination: no sources are available. SD0001 (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks references to meet WP:SINGER and WP:GNG, even with extra digging.SeoR (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 12:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Does not satisfy WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 15:20, 11 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 21:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bionicle toys[edit]

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

There is no valid reason for this list or others like it. We are not a directory or a catalog, and that's what this is; its references aren't references but simply links to instructions (and to commercial websites). Taken together, this is clearly a list of stuff relevant only to fans, and not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick delete Incredibly blatant violation of NOT. Reywas92^Talk 23:41, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a toy catalog. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note from The Brick Authority Since wikipedia seems to have a problem with having links to the instruction booklets to the sets we will remove all of the instruction book links effective immediately. We apologize for breaking rules on wikipedia and for any inconvenience we may have caused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:344:4280:33F0:3DA9:2A64:A778:66E7 (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite literally a catalog/directory of toys, violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:32, 13 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, A10. —Kusma (t·c) 06:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

腦控[edit]

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

Infinity Knight (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - much better English-language page already exists at Brainwashing — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotentPotables (talk • contribs)
Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion per WP:A2. Not a very active user (talk) 04:36, 8 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 merge to WGFL. Sandstein 21:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CBS 4 News (Gainesville)[edit]

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

Non-notable local newscast. Most articles not explicitly about the specific station, or are blogs. Can be merged to WGFL. ViperSnake151 Talk 20:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WGFL. I am in favor of alternate methods to deletion. The information provided can be used to expand the target. It is not notable enough to warrant a solo article, but can make a great section in the target. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WGFL; an artifact article from a time where a group of stations carrying one newscast in a market was unique, but these days in middle small-markets, is the standard operating procedure. Nate • (chatter) 04:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to WGFL as this is consistent with naming conventions. There seems to be some useful content, so will want to make sure that the closer picks out the relevant, useful content and integrates eloquently into the WGFL article. @Bearcat: may want to weigh in here. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:23, 10 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchball 3000[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:GNG because of the lack of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. The only one that can be found is the Rock, Paper, Shotgun one but the article is actually more about Speedball 2 and not WP:SIGCOV (also can be found in the article), the article cited unreliable Jay Is Games ref per WP:VG/RS (not written by Jay Bibby) and E4 Games listing overview. Just another Flash browser game that failed to garner WP:SIGCOV. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am sure that somewhere there are people who cared enough about this game to write out their opinions. Some of them might even have had the option of writing them in a reliable source type place. Near as I can tell, none of them took the opportunity to do so. Rockphed (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:14, 7 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. There is general agreement that there are enough sources to retain and improve the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bickerstaff[edit]

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

Not notable. University professors only at rank of full professors are notable according to the Wiki guides. Adjunct professors are not professors. They are professionals not employed at universities, who teach part time or rarely or not even that. This person is an attorney. Only some attorneys are notable. He is not notable based on the criteria set for attorneys. Authorship of a book, which is neither published by a top ten publisher or not widely cited, does not make the author a notable person. Topjur02 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Topjur02 (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree that being a lawyer and adjunct professor don't automatically make someone notable (nor does his legislative activity) but neither do they prevent someone from being notable for something else. In his case, we have a newspaper obituary (that is, written and published by the newspaper itself, not a paid obituary from the family or the firm), one book with multiple reviews (both in newspapers and in academic journals), and a second book on its way, from a major publisher and on a hot topic. The case would be stronger if the second book were out for long enough to have its own multiple reviews, and in that case my keep would not be qualified as weak. If the second book were not on the way, I'd suggest a redirect to an article on the first book. But as it is it seems reasonable to wait for now, and possibly revisit the case in a couple of years if the second book turns out to be a dud. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: There's now a second (paywalled) obit at Texas Lawyer (a local trade magazine?): [3]. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: borderline but meets WP:AUTHOR in my view; here are some reviews: Lines in the Sand: Congressional Redistricting in Texas and the Downfall of Tom DeLay (review), James E. Cousar, Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Texas State Historical Association, Volume 112, Number 4, April 2009; Book Review: Readings, Steve Bickerstaff, REVIEWED BY MICHAEL KING, FRI., MARCH 2, 2007 + the reviews already in the article. Wikipedia would not be improved by removing this page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources shown by K.e.coffman Bookscale (talk) 07:56, 12 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. Closing this early per WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. In case any editor has concerns, please feel free to revert my close. (non-admin closure) DreamLinker (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eroor[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable article with four sentences, half of those being written like something you'd see on a website for tourism, with the other two being the beginning and census data. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Mccapra (talk) 19:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With census data and borders this is an actual established place that passes GEOLAND, and there is no clear merge target as one of the Neighbourhoods of Kochi. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Since it exists, can be verified and has a decent population. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND since it has census data its likely a legally recognized place. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily, per WP:GEOLAND, census-designated populated place. SportingFlyer T·C 13:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It exists and is notable and meets WP:GEOLAND. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 03:19, 13 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Cunningham (footballer)[edit]

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

Footballer who has not played in a fully professional league or a full international match, fails WP:NFOOTY. No evidence of substantial coverage to otherwise satisfy WP:GNG. Jellyman (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 18:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - as it stands would not seem to meet notability guidelines. That said, this could easily change in the future so possibly a case of WP:NOTJUSTYET. Dunarc (talk) 20:39, 8 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Hartley[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized and poorly sourced article about an actor not properly demonstrated as passing WP:NACTOR. He's known primarily for supporting and guest roles, and is sourced entirely to credit lists on IMDb and TV Guide rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. As always, actors are not automatically deemed to pass NACTOR #1 just because the article lists roles -- every actor can always list roles, so there'd never be any such thing as a non-notable actor anymore if simply listing roles exempted him from actually having to clear WP:GNG on the sourcing -- but even on a Google search, I can only find glancing namechecks of his existence, with no evidence of notability-building coverage about him. In addition, the article was categorizing him as LGBT, which I've had to remove as I've been entirely unable to verify that in any reliable sources either. And even the Young Artist Award, which he's templated for without it actually being mentioned in the article body at all, is still not an instant notability freebie -- it would be a credible notability claim if the article were properly sourced, obviously, but is not an instant notability clincher that would exempt him from having to have any reliable sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: One new source has been added since I initiated this discussion — but it's just a piece of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in his own hometown media market, so it is not enough coverage to get him over the sourcing requirement all by itself if it's the only reliable source in the mix. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT and WP:NACTOR - your pick. The entire section on his career in unreferenced. His roles all have first names only are indicative that they are so small as to be virtually cameos. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 8 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. If anyone wants this userfied / drafted so they can work on it, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fii3rd[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Sources do not have significant independent coverage. I was unable to find anything better online––it seems that one of the subject's songs may charted in a local (Lagos) chart, but this does not meet the requirement of WP:MUSICBIO for the artist's work to be on a national music chart. Originally PRODed by me, endorsed by Elmidae, and then dePROD by the initial editor Preciousobichi who did not make any additional improvements or justifications. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please i need more time to improve the article, would be glad if the article is sent to draft rather than deleted to afford me more time to work on the article. Thank you.Preciousobichi (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd to me that there are no Nigerian charts that are listed as acceptable sources on WP:MUSICBIO. For me, if an artist is charting in a country of ~200 million people, it is notable. Looking at the guidelines, there is a lot of western bias in them when it comes to charts and awards that can be used to establish notability. There are other criteria that can be used to establish notability as well, not just whether the artist is charting well. Perhaps Preciousobichi can provide sources to establish that Fii3rd meets one or more of the other criterea? I don't think citing lack of charting in this case makes a good argument against notability due to the subject being outside the bias of that criteria. Hobbes345 (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of charting is not the basis of not meeting notability here: that comes down to the lack of coverage in reliable sources. The reason that I have specifically mentioned the lack of national charting is because the article does mention the local Lagos chart; I made this argument to head off editors taking a cursory glance at the article, seeing that it "has charted", and coming here to argue that of course it's notable because it has charted without realizing that the chart in question is a local chart.

As for which charts would be valid for meeting MUSICBIO, I'm not familiar with any offhand, but they would at a minimum need to be a chart for the entire country, such as this one which I found in a quick internet search. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send To Draft -- Ultimately this seems like it needs more work to prove notability. The page creator has already stated this is a work in progress and that he/she would like more time to work on it. I think this is the best solution currently. Hobbes345 (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, FWIW. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~: Based on the above comment by the article creator Preciousobichi. — MarkH21 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Upon further review of the subject, it seems unlikely to be considered notable in the near future. So I've changed my !vote to from draftify to delete. — MarkH21 (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly non-notable musician that doesn't deserve to either be in mainspace or draftspace (I may sluggishly agree to userfy at request). My advice to the article creator is that he/she shouldn't waste his time on moving to draft, there is zero atom of notability in the subject. There are many probable notable Nigerian musicians that you can consider developing, instead of a totally non-notable one. Samklef, Kel, Saeon, etc. HandsomeBoy (talk) 10:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nom comment I would agree with HandsomeBoy that drafting is not likely to help anyone. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, i put in alot of work in this article, all i'm pleading is for more time i am seriously unwell at the moment, when i fully recover i will make more research and improve the article, please send to draft rather than deleting. Thank You.Preciousobichi (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can userfy if you insist, but I am skeptical that you will be able to find enough coverage in order for this to ever be ready for publication. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. The subject appears to be an up-and-coming artist with only three or fours singles, none of which are notable. I opposed the article being userfy. The subject doesn't have a music career to speak of. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:33, 12 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. Stifle (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lung dragon[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional monster not discussed in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable topic. TTN (talk) 19:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep D&D is culturally notable, and these are the 'dragons' part of Dungeons & Dragons. The Fiend Folio and Oriental Adventures are both primary sources for D&D, since they're licensed game materials. They're also out of print, so without this article many players will not be able to get this info.12.106.168.131 (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable fictional creature. There are no secondary sources discussing them in-depth. The fact that "The Fiend Folio" and "Oriental Adventures" are primary sources is the actual problem with the article, not a argument for retention. There needs to be sources outside of primary sources that would demonstrate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 21:51, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sherika L. Hawkins[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a city clerk, "notable" only for having been charged with (but not verifiably convicted of) a crime of no nationalized importance. Per WP:PERP, however, this is not appropriate: if a person did not already have a claim of notability that would already have gotten them an article anyway (which "city clerk of Southfield MI" is not), then she has to be convicted of a crime, not merely charged with one, before she can be considered notable as a criminal. Further, the amount of reliable source coverage shown here is not sufficient, either: apart from two pieces of purely local media coverage within the Detroit media market, the referencing here is otherwise entirely to blogs and/or primary sources like a city press release and the actual charge document itself -- none of which are notability-supporting sources. And even if she were to be convicted, it would still take nationalizing media coverage, not just a few pieces of local coverage in the Detroit area itself, to demonstrate that her crime was significant enough to warrant being permanently enshrined in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Compelling argument by nom. Hasn't been convicted and isn't of historic significance per WP:PERP. My initial thought was to merge into Voter fraud in the United States as a mention, but that just redirects to Voter impersonation (United States) which isn't relevant for this incident. Schazjmd (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the previous arguments and request early close, as the content of the article should be removed as soon as possible per WP:BLPCRIME. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with User:Schazjmd (talk)، per WP:PERP. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom states "" only for having been charged with (but not verifiably convicted of) a crime of no nationalized importance. " However, election fraud has been a topic major coverage from the President of the United States claiming election fraud and having numerous misinformation public. This event was covered by a joint press conference of both the Michigan State Attorney General and Secretary of State.

Per WP:Crime " Note: A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured." As this is an issue that is getting national press coverage claiming that one party is working to steal election, this is of national concern. Major news network have been reporting on this matter.

Also Per WP:N/CA"As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources." CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC also have done reporting on this event.

Per WP:GNG""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" There has been significant coverage of this person and event.

The notable of this will not be temporary, she will be used to show election fraud by both political parties, Foxnews already ran a story pointing out the Democrats gave this person an award, even though the office is non-partisan.

Per WP:POLITICIANS she also meets "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." " A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists"

Even prior to be charged with a crime, this person was written about because she was the first African American elected to the City Clerk in a city with African American population of 70%. Southfield, Michigan

There are many reasons to keep this article, and to delete is only taking away the content of Wiki, plus I stopped editing many years ago because of these hill battles. That Roads are more notable than cemeteries, because more people write about roads then cemeteries. As a cybersecurity professor and lawyer, I took time to write this article and donated my hourly time to this project. So again, these meets so many guidelines its not funny. I can find so many stub articles that should be gone. Yet a article about election fraud during the midterm election of true fraud covered by every major news network. Jsgoodrich (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The event itself may or may not be notable, if it is, then the event may warrant an article, but not the subject of the BLP whose name can't be used unless a conviction is secured.

Can you provide the significan coverage by multiple independent sources to show that the subject is covered by WP:WELLKNOWN?

If not, WP:BLPCRIME applies. Our policy clearly states:

editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured

The information would have to be removed per WP:BLPCRIME. WP:PERP would also apply. and WP:BLP1E probably as well. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read what you quoted again. You stated "BLP whose name can't be used unless a conviction is secured." That is not the policy at all. The policy states "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated" Here her names was given out by the Michigan Attorney General and Michigan Secretary of State in a joint press confrance. No where does it say you can't name a person unless convicted.

"For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured" This is not a relatively unknown person, she is a public official covered in many sources prior to the event. The policy says editors "must consider not including" the level of coverage and the fact that every major news reporting source covered the press conference and gave her name plus her office makes her a public figure. This is not some person who was a one-time unelected poll worker that did something wrong this is a career politician that is alleged to abuse the public trust. You are misreading the False light section of the policy which states "Caution should be used with content categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)."

And if you look at WP:WELLKNOWN Under Public figures, which is "A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely concerned by the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society"

"In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." Jsgoodrich (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsgoodrich: You seem to be mixing policies here. I quoted WP:BLPCRIME and you are quoting WP:BLPNAME. Both are part of WP:BLP but are independent. One does not invalidate the other.

What WP:BLPCRIME clearly states is that if the subject is not WP:WELLKNOWN information should not be included unless a conviction is secured. I asked if you could provide the multiple reliable sources with in depth coverage prior to the event. I understood that you claimed that being the first African American city clerk she had "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". If that is the case please provide the link to those reliable sources. If not the current RS do not count per WP:BLPCRIME. Please keep in mind that we are building an encyclopedia and not a newspaper and in the case of biographies of living people we must take extra care to ensure policies are followed.

But again, if you do have the required sources with in-depth coverage prior to the event please provide them. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that election fraud is notable as a concept does not automatically mean that every individual allegation of election fraud is necessarily an independently notable event. Notability is not inherited, and that includes individual incidents "inheriting" notability from the overarching notability of a concept they technically fit into — you would still have to show a lot more reliable source coverage than this to make Sherika Hawkins permanently notable to the world or override our WP:BLPCRIME rules. Bearcat (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, it needs to be moved to Sherikia L. Hawkins. As seen at https://www.cityofsouthfield.com/government/city-clerks-office the subject has another "i" in her first name which has been left out of this article's title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and especially BLP. Not convicted ~~and not a significant crime even if (later) convicted~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that despite some recent false statement, election fraud is the US is a rarely prosecuted crime and in doing so to find an official head of the election doing it is even more significant! Voter fraud is a significant crime because of the effect it has on democracy.Jsgoodrich (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Take a deep breath. This is wikipedia. The only great wrong we are trying to right is important information being hard to access. We have standards about how information should be sourced, how it should be presented, and what information should be included to help ensure that we are accurate, easy to read, and have important information. It sounds like you might have enough information here to add to election fraud, or possibly election fraud in the United States, but we prefer to not convict people in the court of public opinion simply because we are often searched on the internet. Rockphed (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Biographies of Living Persons indicates we should not libel people with implications that they have committed crimes. Sometimes people who are only accused end up being notable before the trial is completed, but we set the standard much higher. Yes, the article has Fox News and Washington Times citations, but all of the coverage is over 2 days. It might be a flash-in-the-pan. If there were coverage about this for a couple months (or until conviction/acquital/a plea deal, whichever is shorter), it might be appropriate to write an article about the fraud (or maybe put it in an appropriate list). I would say redirect to Southfield, Michigan, except for the libel issues. Rockphed (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think all of the above "delete" !votes make good points. Election- or voter fraud might well be a "significant" crime in the abstract, but that doesn't automatically override all the policy problems with this particular article. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Biographies of Living Persons. --SalmanZ (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP and nom. SportingFlyer T·C 03:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. We should not write articles for people with the thought that they have committed a crime. If the subject receives more coverage in the future (either related to this or another) I am sure WP:REFUND can apply Taewangkorea (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a city clerk in a city the size of Southfield is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 13 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 w/o prejudice to future restoration if their claim to encyclopedic notability improves. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xcorpiiio[edit]

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

Subject fails GNG and WP:NMUSIC. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references used in the article are mostly non WP:RS. WP:MUSICBIO is not met and a search in news or books reveals nothing useful. There is no in-depth coverage by multiple independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystallizedcarbon Hello. I am Kylejinx (the author), just trying to figure out how this may be resolved. Which sites do you deem not notable enough? At least half of the sites that I have provided are in no way affiliated with the entity known as XCORPIIIO (Pandora, Spinnup, IMDb). Spinnup tracked the number of streams; no way could that be tampered with or done in his favor. Pandora recognized him as a promising artist according to their system's algorithm; there is no way that could've been done other than by them. Finally, IMDb is another site that merely lists the achievements of an entity. That page is not an IMDb Pro page, which insists that he was not included in the process of making it. Additionally, his music has been played on major radio stations via Pandora (Beyonce Radio, Lady Gaga Radio, Ariana Grande Radio, Rihanna Radio, Bruno Mars Radio, Top 40 Radio, etc), which is a merit of notability by Wikipedia's standards. I can provide proof of this as well, should that be needed. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion; I am hoping we will be able to figure a way for the article to remain on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 20:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Kylejinx: Please check WP:RS. IMDb is not valid, see WP:USERG neither is Facebook or Spotify or Instagram. If you can find independent reliable sources with in depth coverage, please present them here. If there is enough coverage it can be kept. If not it may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crystallizedcarbon “If you can find independent reliable sources with in depth coverage, please present them here. If there is enough coverage it can be kept.” Firstly, I will be taking down the said forms of proof that do not qualify by the end of the night. Thank you very much for letting me know. Secondly: Just to clarify, the Spinnup stream count and Pandora recognition qualify as recognizable proofs of notability? Finally: There is an article currently being written about the entity by the company, “Indie Rock Cafe”. Upon release of this article, will the subject entity [XCORPIIIO] officially have enough recognition to be qualified as “notable enough”? I appreciate your working with me on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 23:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kylejinx: Unfortunately, neither one of those two count towards meeting the requirements for inclusion. What's needed is in-depth coverage by multiple secondary sources. They must meet WP:RS and have to be clearly independent of the subject. Mentions alone are not enough either. One article even if it meets all the previous criteria would not be enough, but it's an indication that in the future if the group does receive the needed coverage it could be recreated. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon Ok. Then, instead of deletion (because it did take an entire night to create), can the article just be moved to draft space? That way, once enough coverage has been had, it can be moved back to main space, instead of having to spend another entire night on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 12:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kylejinx: Personally I don't see a problem with that. The closing admin will probably take care of the move. Remember that you can also make a copy of the code on your local computer as a text file using notepad for example. Once enough coverage is added and when you think the article is ready you will be able to submit your draft for review. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon Alright. I will do just that! Thank you for your knowledge and assistance in this matter; I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 21:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding @Kylejinx: Reading Help:Your first article may be of help for your future contributions and to determine if the subjects meet the needed notability requirements. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that two of the images used in this article are previously deleted copyvios, which User:Kylejinx re-created. c:File:XCORPIIIO Headshot.jpg‎ was found on the Web at https://open.spotify.com/artist/7JIwODf8wOkzSj3R16Rl9s and https://music.apple.com/us/artist/xcorpiiio/1467603634 . c:File:PASSION FM. LOGO.jpg was also deleted, although User:Kylejinx claimed to be its creator. If true, that would seem to indicate a close connection with the subject of this bio which raises COI concerns to my mind. JGHowes ^talk 01:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JGHowes: I have been in touch with Wikipedia itself, concerning this matter already, and we have cleared/resolved it. Therefore, I do not find it necessary to dig any deeper into that specific topic. I also do not find this matter to even be necessary in this specific conversation, as a copyright dispute over a couple of photos is not why the article is where it stands, as far as being considered for deletion. Additionally, nothing that I wrote in the article was anywhere beyond the realm of neutral. There was nothing bias said at all. I made sure that I followed the rules and regulations concerning that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 02:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kylejinx: If you have a direct relationship with the subject, you must disclose it. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon How can I do this? This is my first and only article; I would appreciate any kind of guidance you can provide on "disclosing" this information in the proper, acceptable way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 09:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Kylejinx: You can add the ((UserboxCOI)) template on your user page, If you don't know how, I can do it for you. What is your relationship with Xcorpiiio? --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon Yes, please. I would very much so appreciate that. I am the graphic designer for XCORPIIIO (I create his album art), but I did also do a photoshoot of him last year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Kylejinx: It is done. Once the subject receives enough in-depth coverage to fully satisfy WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO, you should request the creation of the article through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. If you have questions along the way, you can contact me at my talk page. Regards --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crystallizedcarbon Thank you again, for all of your time and guidance. Best regards to you as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylejinx (talk • contribs) 17:44, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or move to draft as it seems WP:TOOSOON at this stage, as for example he has no entry at all at AllMusic. Also the article is mainly over-detailed original research, but hopefully his career will progress and he will qualify for an article in the future, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:38, 11 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. Tone 15:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kamoru Yusuf[edit]

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

Non notable person. unreliable sources. Some are simply announcements, not secondary sources. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete - run of the mill business person; article is poorly referenced with shallow references. Bearian (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A Google search of the subject doesn't appear to show him being discussed in reliable sources independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:01, 13 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. Nomination withdrawn, the editor also removed the AFD notice from the article with the edit summary of withdrawing nomination (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My TV (Bangladesh)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMEDIA, nothing found on google to claim this television Channel is notable, didn’t found Secondary sources. Bbemoni (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bbemoni (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Television stations are usually considered notable. Sources in the Bengali language may be helpful. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as nationally broadcast television stations are usually included, has non-English sources Atlantic306 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is not a national tv and There I haven’t found anything in Bengali to claim this channel is notable Bbemoni (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please explain why and how this is not a National TV station?Vinegarymass911 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia sets a low bar for broadcast stations. WP:BCAST says that if the station produces some programming of its own, it can be estimated significantly. according to source here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] passes WP:GNG.--Nahal^(T) 09:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw nomination @NahalAhmed: but It's not national channel, it's private channel, how it became notable just because of it’s signed a contract with government? I didn’t see any reliable sources where mention this channel activities in details.can someone briefly describe. Thanks Bbemoni (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-It is a Bangladeshi Satelite National Tv Station and A tv channel registered by the government. according to source here meet General notability guideline . Sajidulislampathan (talk •

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Tribe characters[edit]

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

This is a character list with a fan site level of trivia, but with no reliable secondary sources. The only sources given are the show itself and an actual fan site. The show ended 16 years ago, so I don't think any new sources will surface. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – While there's no question that all of The Tribe articles are a mess right now (they all date to early in Wikiepedia's history, before many of our MOS had evolved to the current forms) – e.g. all of these articles are "over-written" and WP:OR-y – I'm not sure WP:NUKEANDPAVE is the right way forward here... It's also unclear to me what sourcing might be available for this show – for example, I've never really looked to see if any books about the series have been published, so this situation may not be as bad as it appears... If this does end up being deleted, I'll probably request that it be WP:REFUNDed to my userspace, as the this page contains useful info, even if it's too much in its current form. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd fully support finding an appropriate way for whatever information can be reliably sourced to be included somewhere on the wiki. As I put on the article talk page, I do hate seeing honest work disappear. I'm not sure I'm understanding what you said about sources possibly not being available though. It sort of sounds like you're suggesting that it's ok for information to have been included without good sourcing because there's no sources that cover it, but I'm guessing I misunderstood. Could you clarify? -- Fyrael (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that when the show was airing, books were published on the subject. They probably would qualify as "fandom books". But I suspect they exist, and they could possibly be used to source character info. That's what I was getting at. (It's basically a WP:NEXIST argument.) But I've never really looked into it... I've only gotten to The Tribe articles recently, as I'm currently watching through the first three seasons, so I'm hoping to improve all of the articles as I go. (List of The Tribe seasons is another problematic article that either needs to be heavily rewritten, or deleted as per WP:NUKEANDPAVE...) But List of The Tribe characters is definitely problematic in its current form, variously violating WP:TVCAST (e.g. by listing cast alphabetically, rather than in order of crediting/appearance; including "episode counts", etc.). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, the more I think about this, the more I'm leaning "keep". While the article is problematic, and needs substantial trimming and rewriting/reformatting – and it's unlikely to ever get where List of Smallville characters is – it's also not that far away from getting to something approximating acceptable (at least in MOS:TV terms). (The biggest issue will be finding non-Primary source sourcing for it...) But I don't think deletion is the best course of action here... Still, I'll refrain from voting for the time being. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Formally going keep on this one – I don't think WP:NUKEANDPAVE is the answer here. Instead, what is needed is some liberal (copy-)editing, especially with an eye towards following the current WP:TVCAST – e.g. proper list ordering, removing episode counts and most plot-specific details, etc. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Character lists are not inherently necessary article splits. This one currently serves no purpose other than a collection of unnecessary PLOT details. There is no reason the main article cannot summarize the most important characters in brief detail, especially where a very large chunk of the characters seem inconsequential going by the lack of detail in their summaries. TTN (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That frankly displays an ignorance about the kind of show this is. As essentially a "soap opera", with dozens of "main" characters over five seasons, this is exactly the kind of series where a separate list of characters article makes sense. It would in fact be difficult to summarize character details at the main TV series article in this case, and it's probably better to leave a simple 'Cast' list there, while reserving more detailed character summaries for a separate list of characters article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Complexity of in-universe fiction does not necessitate the coverage of all of it. This is a general encyclopedia. TTN (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that trying to cover character summaries at the main TV series will unbalance it. Again, this is exactly the kind of series where a separate list of characters article actually makes sense. The fact that the current version is overly-detailed and over-written doesn't negate the idea that the character info should be covered in a standalone article. That's why my point is that WP:NUKEANDPAVE likely doesn't apply here – I think this article can be saved with simply editing it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then we simply need to adjust the coverage relative to the weight the section needs in the article. People put too much weight on characters, so there is this culture of thinking character articles are absolutely necessary. Episode lists or season summaries should cover the bulk of the context necessary, while character summaries exist to contextualize them. TTN (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the bigger issue with The Tribe suite of articles – List of tribes from The Tribe needs to be deleted, and possibly so does List of The Tribe seasons (I'm not sure that a List of episodes article would be fruitful in this case of this series either). In fact, of the three subsidiary articles, the best case can be made to keep this List of characters article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this is badly sourced fancruft, written mostly in an in-universe plot summary style. Just because a TV show has lots of minor characters that come and go doesn't mean we need to abandon common sense editing to accommodate them. This would be more suitable for a Wikia. Reyk _YO! 10:07, 14 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilas Pilipinas program[edit]

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

Gilas Pilipinas program just covers the management the national teams of the Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas (SBP, he national basketball federation of the Philippines). Also contrary to WP:NOTSTATS as its stands and just lists the competition finishes of the Philippine national teams.

The rebranding of the Gilas Pilipinas program to also include the women's, 3x3, youth national team could be just mentioned in the SBP page and redirect this article to the federation article since the Gilas Pilipinas program covers not only the men's team since 2019. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see a good reason why this is not part of the SBP aritcle, but perhaps I'm missing something. The article consists of little more than a listing of every Philippine basketball team result. Papaursa (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. No constructive reason to have stats re-combined from Philippines men's national basketball team, Philippines men's national under-19 basketball team, Philippines men's national under-17 basketball team, Philippines men's national 3x3 team, Philippines women's national basketball team. General information should go in Samahang Basketbol ng Pilipinas; nothing to preserve from here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 8 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MetaBase[edit]

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

wiki / database no longer exists, weblink links to German Meta Marketer Blog, no external reception found. Slang158 (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to have gone inactive in 2011 without ever catching on. There are a few references to its existence but none to what its databases were or its impact. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Copyright violation: copyvio report. Notability also not established. However, I'm concerned by the nomination made by a single purpose account, and wonder if this is related to some conflict of interest editing related to the software enterprise and database provider of the same name. Cheers, Polyamorph (talk) 16:21, 10 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. Tone 15:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession (2019) Short Film[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, the "shorted.in" site is a website where filmmakers upload their own films, and every day films get awarded and nominated. Fram (talk) 13:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it does not seem to pass WP:GNG, couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources and not much in unreliable sources such as IMDb where I couldn't find an entry, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence that this newly uploaded short film has attained notability whether by WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 10:27, 14 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ∯WBG^converse 08:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dharampal[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:ANYBIO. ∯WBG^converse 10:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 10:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep These are the books and these are the news in which he is mentioned as Gandhian scholar.He was even jailed in 1960s after Indo China war for bringing impeachment against inaffective Nehru government and came out with help of Shastri and JP. Passes WP:GNG. Requires cleanup but that’s not for what AfD is. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 15:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to specific books (not those which are authored by him but those which significantly covers him) and specific news-pieces. Neither does a trip to jail confer notability nor does being covered in footnotes. ∯WBG^converse 15:27, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this is an Op-ed and does not contribute to notability and this is a travesty of a review. ∯WBG^converse 15:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s mention of research done by him in book ‘Hinduism, a Gandhian perspective’. He’s mentioned in the book written by Guha too. In Guha’s work Gandhi Before India, he’s mentioned. Same in Gandhi marg.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:25, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first link is to a book by a non-reputed publisher but by a qualified/acclaimed author; so reliable. But, that's a textbook-trivial mention and do not count towards notability.

Lack of WP:SIGCOV over R. Guha's acclaimed work.

Mention of one of the subject's volumes over an extended bibliography is again textbook-trivial.

Same for mention over back-cover, over a book, whose reliability, I can't ascertain at any case.

Please provide multiple instances of significant coverage of Dharampal or his works, as necessitated by GNG.

P.S:- To be fair, I thought that retrieving coverage about this subject will be fairly easy (per my knowledge of him and his works) but that does not seem to be the case. ∯WBG^converse 07:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is this source. His works are quoted and significantly analysed (4+ pages) in this book. And there is this piece written by James Tooley that significantlly follows his work. I think there is enough to meet GNG. SD0001 (talk) 08:19, 10 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. Tone 15:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Camarena[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBASEBALL. Not enough non-routine coverage to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination-- Yankees10 22:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 09:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see nothing that shows WP:NBASEBALL is met. Coverage is routine sports reporting of multiple transactions, all of which is typical of minor leaguers. Papaursa (talk) 22:38, 8 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. Tone 15:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Harrington[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Another fictional character, while in an outstanding series, with zero real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:56, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is already a section on characters on the Stranger Things page, with a short blurb on the character. Outside of some fairly irregular circumstances, characters are not notable, even when the works they appear in or the creators controlling them are. ZBM-2 (talk) 10:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic was discussed and kept just last month and the nomination fails to address any of the points made so recently. See WP:BEFORE and WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." Andrew D. (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrew D. I see no new argument, and consensus at the last AFD that the article meets the criteria at both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG is still accurate.4meter4 (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect unless there are more sources. The ones in the article are certainly good building blocks, but they're not enough to hold an entire article. It feels like too much weight is being put on them currently. TTN (talk) 18:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to keep below Move to Draft since this is clearly still being worked on. Then use the aforementioned redirect in its place with the proper Rcat with possibilities pointing to the draft. Deletion is not always the answer. I'm a little surprised there's a second AfD in just a month... Improving Wikipedia articles should not be expected to happen quickly... This is not a job. -2pou (talk) 19:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No new argument, and clear consensus at the last AFD that the article meets WP:GNG. Wm335td (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - References already cited in the article show that it meets WP:GNG. No plausible merge/redirect apparent or suggested. Actually, no legitimate WP:DELREASON cited above either - the nearest is the suggestion that this is duplication, but explanation of why it is better covered there rather than in this article. FOARP (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see Notability as an issue here. Three reference articles already listed (Vanity Fair, The Hollywood Reporter, Men's Health) are all specifically about the character himself more than about the show. He's also discussed in an essay in the book Uncovering Stranger Things: Essays on Eighties Nostalgia, Cynicism and Innocence in the Series, and he also has a whole page of discussion in Netflix Nostalgia: Streaming the Past on Demand which also references Vulture and Buzzfeed articles about him (Buzzfeed is a little weak). Trying to find those, Vulture also has a number of other articles on him: [4], [5], even about his hair. Talking about a fictional character's hair is something I haven't seen since "The Rachel", and it's not just Vulture, People The Wrap and potentially more. Do I think an article is necessary? I'm not sure, but the argument for deletion was notability, and that does not hold up. -2pou (talk) 17:46, 9 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 redirect to Shell Beach. Tone 15:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shell beach[edit]

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

I can't find any source that shows this is an actual definition rather than WP:OR. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to Shell Beach per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 10:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Shell Beach. Alternate to deletion. In addition to being OR, the current article also conflicts with the DAB page due to capitalization. AmericanAir88^(talk) 04:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: the dictionary definition that this article currently is sits nicely on the DAB page. There might be sources that discuss shell beaches, but I am unsure how to even start looking for them amidst the piles of location results that show up on google. Rockphed (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per lack of sources found. No predjudice against future WP:DABCONCEPT with found sources. Widefox; talk 12:37, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Town & District Transport Trust[edit]

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

Can't find any non trivial independent coverage of the group. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 09:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there is press coverage at 1 and 2 but not much else I can see. Mccapra (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those sources look like the hyper-local papers, and are not significant (much less independent) anyway. Rockphed (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article on a two-year old organisation about which very little can be found beyond social media. I had thought to suggest a selective merge of information about their annual rally into the Great Harwood article (which is rather threadbare), but even for that some WP:RS coverage is wanting. AllyD (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are a small business based in Lancashire who are in the process of registering to become a charity. We host events in the local area in partnership with Hyndburn council and Amazing Accrington. We have over 30 voulnteers and put countless hours into restoring buses as a group. This Wikipedia article goes alongside our website to give people a bit of knowledge behind who we are and what we do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.192.102 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic in question doesn't really seem notable. KingofGangsters (talk) 05:54, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Somerville[edit]

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

No sources to speak of, so WP:BIO isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. A WP:BEFORE found only dependent sources. No indication of passing WP:ANYBIO or WP:ENT. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability does not come from one appearance on a single late show. He has appeared in some big clubs in NYC-NJ area, but I'm not going to search through 101 Michael Somervilles on LinkedIn to find this guy's references. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I would rather fill wikipedia with articles on comics than third rate soccer players, he hasn't gotten there yet. All the sources I see are either his personal website, his facebook, or directories. Rockphed (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual is not notable in the least. KingofGangsters (talk) 05:58, 14 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. Stifle (talk) 16:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Turk[edit]

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

Non-notable actor with a small filmography consisting mainly of minor roles and bit parts. Carnivàle was his only role of any substance, and that was a supporting part in 24 episodes over sixteen years ago. Article has remained a stub with almost zero content since its 2007 creation, with no attempt ever made to improve it or establish subject notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per WP:NOTTEMPORARY, it is irrelevant that a show he is best known for was made nearly 15 years ago (actually 16 and 14 years ago) (and the 24 episodes were the total number of episodes in the two series). If he was notable then, he is notable now. And if he wasn't notable then, he probably isn't now either. I will look for sources and see what they say about his performances/roles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the threshold of miltiple notable roles in significant productions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While his role in Carnivale could be considered significant, it's the only role I can see that would be. Apart from Carnivale, obituaries mention long-running series like Beverly Hills 90210, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, ER, Two and a half Men, etc, in which he appeared in one or two episodes. So no, he didn't have multiple notable roles in notable productions, and doesn't meet WP:NACTOR. There's not much coverage apart from obituaries, so he doesn't meet WP:GNG either. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:07, 14 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 redirect to Troll (Dungeons & Dragons). Stifle (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scrag (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

Non-notable monster. Fails WP:GNG, not mentioned in secondary sources. Not a very active user (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the sources to establish notability. TTN (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A variation of a Troll (Dungeons & Dragons) that is not notable. There are no secondary sources discussing it in any way that demonstrate notability. Rorshacma (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Troll (Dungeons & Dragons), where subject is mentioned several times. Don't find evidence for independent notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:48, 13 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thessalmonster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable fictional creature, fails WP:GNG. Being mentioned in one episode of Stranger Things is not enough to establish notability. The previous AfD closed as delete, but the page was restored afterwards for unknown reason. Not a very active user (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous AfD. TTN (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for speedy deletion per WP:G4, a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Not a very active user (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is slightly more here than when it was last deleted, but not much. As far as I can tell, it was undeleted to become a redirect to Index of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st edition monsters (which has since been deleted). That said, the most recent source is significant and independent (though I am unsure how reliable Elite Daily is). I see a couple more articles of similar depth hidden amongst the D&D fan sites and pinterest links produced by the google button above. Of all the D&D articles I have seen of late, this is the first that I am not inclined to simply kill with fire. Though I do wonder about an item whose only non-primary source is in the "In Popular Culture" section. The elite daily source does give some of the history of this monster, but they might have been pulling from this article (and creating a circular reference, yay!) Rockphed (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~@Rockphed: Should I remove the speedy deletion request from the page? Not a very active user (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)~~ Nevermind, I didn't notice that the request had already been removed. Not a very active user (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed it because, while I am not sure that it is notable enough for an article, when I actually looked at the source it was both significant and independent. Yes, it talks about the Thessalmonsters (and specifically the Thessalhydra) in light of their use in Stranger Things, but it then goes on to explain their chronological position (in a book that was released in 1983, the year that Stranger Things is set in), and gives a little exposition on things like "unlike the demogorgon which was invented in 350 AD and was a staple of medieval bestiaries, the Thessalhydra was a pure D&D invention". I'll see what I can find and try to put together a WP:THREE. Rockphed (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The creature itself is non-notable outside of being mentioned in "Strangers Things", which I agree is not enough to establish notability. As pointed out by Rockphed, the fact that the only non-primary source being used is for the "In Popular Culture" section is not a good sign. I also noted that source, and others talking about it in relation to Stranger Things, were entirely based on the false speculation that the creature (or at least something named after it) would be a major part of Season 2, which, as it turned out, was not the case. If Rockphed does come up with some decent sourcing, I will reconsider, but my own searches did not bring up anything that I would consider to be enough to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to get three and only found two, and, though they are both significant, neither is technically about "thessalmonster", but about "thessalhydra".

Bettridge, Daniel (2017). The Unofficial Stranger Things A-Z. Kings Road Publishing. ISBN 9781786068507.
"This Character From Dungeons & Dragons May Be A Big Part Of 'Stranger Things' Season 2". Elite Daily.

Which, oddly, say the same thing. Pretty much all they do is describe the monster, note that it came out in the early 80s, and describe the speculation that it was going to be the big bad of the 2nd season of Stranger Things (which speculation turned out to be false, but eh, whatever). If the two were not both so closely tied to Stranger Things I might have a different opinion. Or if I had found more than 2 sources that were significant and independent and even reliable adjacent (which is about where I think the two sources I listed are). All the other sources I could find were either rampant speculation opinion columns or only name dropped the beast (or both). I don't know if this is a target for merging into Monsters in Dungeons and Dragons. Rockphed (talk) 12:20, 9 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pubusi[edit]

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

No sources bar a single New York Times article, which is insufficient to establish notability. A newspaper article that mentions a social practice only briefly and in passing isn't a basis for a whole article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree there are insufficient sources that establish WP:N. All that can seem to be found is that single reference that just doesn't meet the criteria. LandonRules ^(Talk) 15:29, 7 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Garmina Paygar-Flangiah[edit]

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

The only claim of this foorballer for notability according to WP:NFOOTY is one game for Atlanta, which is unsourced, and I was not able to source it. The article has been written by the subject. Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Atlanta" in this context is not one of the best attended clubs in the world Atlanta United FC but rather fourth-or-something-who-knows-what-the-US-is-doing tier Atlanta SC. Fails WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG, feels promotionally written. SportingFlyer T·C 07:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if he did get a trial with the Lithuanian second league it's still the second league and not the top league in Lithuania. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Probably a discussion for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues, but Paygar-Flangiah has (needs to be verified) made an appearance in the new National Independent Soccer Association which classes itself as professional, as seen here: [6] - whether it meets Wikipedia's understanding of a professional league is something to be determined. Point being it could be NFOOTY is actually passed, if our listing of leagues was up-to-date. R96Skinner (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is what I meant by one game, but it is unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG as their doesn't seem to be any results for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems very doubtful that WP:NFOOTY is met and there's no evidence that WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 22:34, 8 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. Tone 07:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Campbell[edit]

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

no apparent reliable sources at all; there will be some newspaper sources, but they do show lasting notability. Written in 2006, and I hope our standards have risen. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have added a ref to a 2008 book which has 3 pages about her (no time right now to use it to source particular bits of the text). And the postcard reproduced in this source seems another proof of notability. PamD 11:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Searching Google books for "phoebe campbell" murder finds a few more good-looking sources. PamD 11:27, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the postcard in this source is pretty good too. PamD 11:28, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldwe keep anybody whose image appears of a postcard someenterprising phorographer had printered? (remember, theseare not official cards,just private cardsaproduced as an early form of sensational jounralism. ? DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the book reference that PamD added shows, there is lasting notability. There was, of course, significant newspaper coverage at the time, and later newspapers (1898/99, 1935, etc) also point out that she was the first woman hanged in Canada after confederation. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 7 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 redirect to Vorkosigan Saga. Tone 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time of Isolation[edit]

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

Concept from a series of novels. Unsourced and so tagged since 2009. Fails WP:V. WP:N, MOS:INUNIVERSE. Sandstein 07:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 07:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Vorkosigan Saga. Vorbee (talk) 07:58, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be merging unsourced fancruft. This text has no reason to be in an encyclopedia. Sandstein 08:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga; does not meet GNG but it is a plausible search term that is mentioned nine times in the target. Zerach (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Zerach. Same applies to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komarr (fictional planet) so you might want to comment there too. ~Kvng (talk) 20:39, 10 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. Tone 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BackOffice Associates[edit]

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

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

All references are mere announcements, orelse PR like ref. 6, and do not meet WP:NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 07:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added a second Findsources above for the company's recent name change. AllyD (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally created by a WP:SPA (via AfC, from where it was accepted by now-blocked User:Ktr101) and subsequently maintained by other WP:SPAs. Althought the article has been much edited (and was recently copied as Syniti), it has not gone beyond a list of corporate acquisitions and investments, which are regarded as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a company going about its business, but the best available item about the company appears to be the 2013 Matt Sarrel piece in Enterprise Apps Today; I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now on the grounds that the sources online don't seem to support corpdepth. I did not look behind paywalls, but did check the most obvious sources available. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 17:31, 7 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. Tone 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Komarr (fictional planet)[edit]

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

Fictional place. Unsourced and so tagged since 2009. Fails WP:V. WP:N, MOS:INUNIVERSE. Sandstein 07:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 07:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN fancruft and I cannot see the purpose of a redirect. Zerach (talk) 09:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary plot details, no notability. TTN (talk) 19:36, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Only plot details. Despite being the habitat of the famous Komarr chameleon. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vorkosigan Saga it is a plausible search term that is mentioned 19 times in the target. ~Kvng (talk) 20:38, 10 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) 04:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoa (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

A completely non-notable fictional creature. The single primary source being used in the article is about the extent of the coverage on it. Suffice to say, I was unable to find a single reliable, secondary source mentioning it at all. Rorshacma (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 04:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:NFICTION. Not a very active user (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As with most other D&D monsters, completely non-notable. TTN (talk) 16:12, 9 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. Commenting editors are almost evenly divided on how to interpret and apply the relevant guidelines in this case, and the relist did not produce any new participants to break the deadlock. I have no obvious reason to discount either side, and I doubt another relist would help much, so I'm closing this no consensus. RL0919 (talk) 04:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael P. Moran[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR notability guidelines as he has not played any significant roles in film or television. Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I found two sources about his death: 2004 Variety obit and a small verification that an obituary exists from the Richmond Times-Dispatch. That's all my limited WP:BEFORE gives me. ミラ P 23:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Switching to Delete. The subject seems to only have had marginal roles. ミラ P 00:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Switching to Weak keep per RebeccaGreen. ミラ P 16:03, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because passes WP:NACTOR. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing NACTOR is not a matter of just having had roles — every actor has always had roles, because having roles is the job description, so if simply listing roles was all you had to do to get an actor over NACTOR then there would never be any such thing as a non-notable actor anymore. Rather, getting an actor over the notability bar is a matter of reliably sourcing that he has been the subject of media coverage about his having had roles. And while the Variety obit is a start, it's a short blurb so it doesn't get him all the way to the finish line all by itself -- and legacy.com just aggregates the paid inclusion classified obits that every dead person who exists gets the moment their family places one, so that one is not a notability-building source at all. Moran requires more sources than this before he's notable enough, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just an obituary. Bearcat (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines. I am not convinced either source is reliable, one is absolutely not (IMDb) and the other one does not look to be. Even if it was, GNG requires multiple, reliable secondary sources, which we clearly do not have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found and added some more sources, including some reviews of off-Broadway stage performances where he is described as "The galvanizing force"; "comes close to stealing the show"; "the cast is strong, particularly Michael P. Moran". As for film and TV - although he never had starring roles on screen, he is listed in IMDB's "first billed" cast for 8 titles: 6th in The Big Heist and A Perfect Murder, 8th in Harvest, 9th in Squeeze Play, 10th in Physical Evidence, 12th in The Turning, 13th in Scarface, and one of 12 in The Eden Myth. So I would say that he does meet WP:NACTOR#1 "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." NACTOR does not require starring roles, but significant roles, in multiple notable productions - and he had that. (NACTOR does not actually require "that he has been the subject of media coverage about his having had roles" - WP:AUTHOR specifically states "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work ... or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", but NACTOR does not.) I will add more sources as I find them. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR most certainly does require sources — if simply listing roles was all it took to exempt an actor from having to have any sources, then no actor would ever actually have to show any sources at all. Every actor has always had roles, so our notability standard for actors would automatically have no meaning at all if simply listing roles gave them an automatic free pass over NACTOR #1. Rather, outside sources have to tell us that any given role was "major" enough to count toward getting the actor over #1 — and they have to do that by writing and publishing content that is specifically about the actor, and not just by verifying his existence in a cast list. So yes, adding new sources helps, but it's not true that actors don't require sources to pass NACTOR. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is your interpretation - it's not what NACTOR actually says. And it doesn't use the word "major", it says "significant". RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just my interpretation. It's a simple, incontrovertible fact that every actor who exists at all can always list roles — having roles is the job description — so if all an actor had to do to pass NACTOR #1 was list their roles, and there were no requirement to actually show any sources to support the significance of the roles, then every actor who exists would be guaranteed a Wikipedia article and no actor could ever be deleted as non-notable anymore. Which is precisely why AFD very routinely deletes articles about actors who can't show actual sources to support their passage of NACTOR. And "major" vs. "significant" is what's called a distinction without a difference — the words are virtually synonymous, and don't mean different enough things to turn "but you said 'major' while NACTOR says 'significant'" into a mic drop. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR.4meter4 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How? I said in the nomination that it does not. What significant roles has this actor had?--Rusf10 (talk) 00:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability calls for significant roles. "Security guard #2", "Hotdog vendor", "Morgue attendant", are barely one step over being an extra on set. Ifnord (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is close to a no consensus close but I'll give it another week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:49, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer the questions of those who say he has had no significant roles: 1. He has had significant roles on stage, as I noted above. 2. The productions that I named above were: The Big Heist, in which he played Louis the Whale; A Perfect Murder, in which he played Bobby Fain; Harvest, in which he played Henry Upton; Squeeze Play!, in which he played Bozo; Physical Evidence in which he played Tony Reugger; The Turning, in which he played Jim McCutcheon; and Scarface, in which he played Nick The Pig. The fact that he has also played "Flea Market Chicken Seller", "Party Guest", "Cop #9", etc, does not mean that he has never played significant roles. And I do not agree either that there is no difference in meaning between 'major' and 'significant'. RebeccaGreen (talk) 05:39, 7 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 withdrawn. It has since come to light that the creator of this page just copy-pasted their own still-pending draft directly into mainspace to bypass the fact that it's been getting rejected at AFC for exactly the same reasons why I nominated it here, so it's been speedy deleted. Bearcat (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne d'Arc Boulevard[edit]

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

Article about a suburban arterial road, not reliably sourced as having any notability claim that would clear WP:ROADOUTCOMES. As always, every road in every city is not automatically notable enough for an article in an international encyclopedia -- the key to making a road notable is to provide context for what might make it important, not just to describe its physical characteristics. But this just does the latter, not the former, and for sourcing it cites one local news brief about the opening of a roundabout and a public transit map -- which means the second is not a notability-supporting source at all, and the first is not enough all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:46, 7 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Game Engine[edit]

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

Fails notability criterion WP:GNG, and subject-specific criteria not found to apply. Virtually all the sources are self-published, leaving little independent coverage on which to base a claim of notability. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article has been Proded so is not eligible for soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is written in a promotional style, with lines like "The engine is known for..." and does not give any mention of drawbacks. Jeb³_{Talk at me here} 18:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The promotional style could be fixed, I believe. E.g. the unfortunate sentence """The engine is known for its versatility, supporting...""" could be just changed to a simpler sentence """The engine supports...". As for the drawbacks, I am not sure what should be added -- the drawbacks are missing features compared to others, e.g. support for more platforms (like XBox) or languages (like C#). I don't think Unity (game engine) or OGRE explicitly list any drawbacks of the respective engines either. (P.S. I think that this is not related to the notability concern.) MichalisKamburelis (talk) 07:21, 9 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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 00:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oyinkansola Alabi[edit]

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

Entirely promotional article which fails WP:GNG, sourced to interviews and quotes from the subject. Half of the article was added by a single purpose account in August 2019. A WP:BEFORE search of Google news only finds interviews and mentions that the musician Harrysong was a client. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Quite a number of sources in many of the most credible newspapers in Nigeria, but the main issue as pointed out by the nom is that they are not INDEPENDENT, which can be subjective. Let me see if I can find some independent coverage before the AFD runs out.HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This un-independnently sourced PR bloat for the "emotion doctor". Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the lengthy list of references, there is a dearth of significant independent coverage. The WP:GNG isn't met and I'm not seeing any claims that would show notability for any SNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Papaursa. The subject does not appear to be notable. None of the sources cited in the article are independent of him. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 02:29, 12 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Youth Symphony[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. My searches can only find press release/routine announcement type stories about this organization, no significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP According to an Austrian website The New Jersey Youth Symphony features fourteen ensembles, available by audition for students in grades 3 – 12. Its premiere ensemble, Youth Symphony, was awarded first place in the prestigious 2014 Summa Cum Laude International Youth Music Festival and has appeared in such internationally renowned concert halls as Carnegie Hall in New York City, J.F. Kennedy Center in Washington, DV, Musikverein in Vienna, and Smetana Hall in Prague. The New Jersey Youth Symphony was featured on NJTV’s The State of the Arts and all of its ensembles appeared at the New Jersey Performing Arts Center for its 35th Anniversary gala concert. plus the fact that it has been in existence for 40 bodes well for notability.Djflem (talk) 16:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Please link to this "Austrian website". Appearing in notable venues does not grant notability, as notability is not inherited by association. 331dot (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the article: ref 1Djflem (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance in world-renowned concerts halls does bestow notabiilty; that's how the performing arts.Djflem (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC) work.Djflem (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's only true if there is significant coverage of the performance itself, not just its mere occurrence; press releases or basic announcements do not count. 331dot (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage appears local. Rockphed (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems like more than enough to satisfy WP:GNG. I just did a first pass at removing some of the promotional language. There are still plenty of issues, but notability doesn't seem to be one of them. A quick comment on "local," though: when the New York Times covers a symphony playing at Carnegie Hall, that's not the kind of source that can be dismissed with "just local coverage." That's a paper that serves a region with more people than most countries, reporting on a venue people travel internationally to play at and attend. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites: When the New York Times covers a group playing at Carnegie Hall, it is no different than the Ames Tribune, in Ames Iowa, covering a group playing in the Iowa State University music hall. Just because the New York Times is a national paper does not mean that everything it writes is intended for a national audience. Or do you think that grammar school 94 is notable? Rockphed (talk) 12:54, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's different. Not only is it a national paper, but even the metro section covers an area with 35 million people, an above-average-sized country. A small town paper can cover routine goings-on in those areas (proportionate to its size), but there are 2,500 schools in New York City alone and who knows how many thousands elsewhere in the metro area. All of that (combined with all the various politics, weather, transit issues, events, etc.) has to fit in a few pages of that metro section (or otherwise be included in the national version, too). So yes, NYT has a "local" section, but it's absurd to say it's anything like a paper covering Ames, Iowa. So there's no room for smalltown-like coverage. As for grammar school 94 ... to make this point you had to reach back to an 1896 issue... when circulation was a few thousand. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have to reach back to 1896. I merely grabbed the first entry I found that met my search conditions, which happened to be from 1896. And every mention of this group (except 1), is in the local section of the NYT as far as I can tell. That one is a review of the aforementioned performance at Carnegie Hall, which is probably in the local events reviews section. Rockphed (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PATCH is local, the NYTimes and the Star-Ledger are not.Djflem (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved so the promotionalism has been toned down and there is reliable sources coverage in reliable sources such as TNYT imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to be getting close to a Keep consensus, hopefully another week will add clarity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to vote keep, as it seems to have won international acclaim, enough to justify passing WP:BAND. 198.255.228.27 (talk) 18:46, 7 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 redirect to The Tribe (1999 TV series)#Series 1 (1999). czar 02:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Major[edit]

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

Absolutely not notable enough for a standalone article: Major's only "significant" role was The Tribe, so fails WP:NACTOR. And the article's only "source" is a WP:NOTRS fansite, so clear WP:BASIC fail as well. Article has also been 'notability' tagged for over 5 years, so if anyone was going to find sourcing for it, it would have happened by now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Tribe (1999 TV series). WP:BEFORE gave me only another New Zealander with the same name: [7] ミラ P 00:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:14, 7 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. czar 02:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Geraldine Donnelly[edit]

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

Minimally sourced biography of a person notable only as a local district councillor. As always, this is not a level of office that automatically entitles a person to have a Wikipedia article -- the lowest level of office in Northern Ireland that automatically guarantees a Wikipedia article to every holder of it is Stormont, while local councillors qualify for articles only if they can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of coverage that marks them out as much more special than most other local councillors. But the volume and depth and range of sourcing here is not demonstrating that: it's referenced to a smattering of the purely routine and expected local coverage of her death in the local media, with no evidence whatsoever of the UK-wide career coverage it would take to make a local councillor more notable than the norm. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 02:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. No notable councillor and "deputy" mayor of a population less than 100K population nor have any indication/sources to support any outside political career that support subject's notability. Fails WP:NPOL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - run of the mill local politician without any claims to notability. We have deleted articles about local politicians with much more coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 8 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. Tone 07:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ida Odinga[edit]

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

promotional article for wife of prime minister. Spouses of heads of state such as Presidents are notable by convention here, but it does not extent to heads of government like prime ministers. Possibly it should, but AfD discussions have been consistently otherwise. CErtainly there is nothing here presentthat would show any independent notability DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:19, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:20, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she's clearly notable on her own and covered in several reliable sources in a significant manner. Passes GNG. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She's covered and profiled in variety of of third-party Kenyan and international sources. Also prominent in political and business circles. Agree, she passes GNG as well. Scanlan (talk) 12:49, 13 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. Tone 07:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opiyo Oloya[edit]

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

no evidence of notability . District superintendent of schools, columnist. Totally promotional article, to the extent that it is a possible G11 DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:21, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:23, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half of the references are self-written, and another is not a reliable source. A GSearch results in stuff like LinkedIn, an interview here and this blurb from a convention he was at here. I guess technically one could make an article from those two latter sources, but I am inclined to default to delete as this is a BLP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Oddly this article somewhat downplays his standing as an author and he might be notable as an author of several books rather than for other stuff included in this. He is also a fairly frequent commentator on East African affairs. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Following up on what Mccapra said, the guy seems to actually be notable as a journalist and author. The article was strangely focused on his career in education, but I added the references to support his notability as an author (primarily reviews of his books). Gilded Snail (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on a combination of GNG and WP:AUTHOR. Here are some reviews: Literary Review of Canada; Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice. I cleaned up the article some. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:59, 13 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. Balance of policy based argument favours delete. Sources proposed (e.g. by 1990'sguy) are churnalism, i.e. based on press releases. Guy (help!) 10:09, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NewtonX, Inc.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NCORP. References are a mix of run of the mill business new, driven from press releases and AI Hype. scope_creep^Talk 00:07, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As you said above, fails to comply with notability guidelines. Hasn't been covered by independent, reliable 3rd party sources, and doesn't seem to be significant or notable. Luke (talk) 00:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:45, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the Deletes in the previous AfD. All the coverage seems to use the same phrasing, which is incredibly suspicious. Rockphed (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First off, the first AfD for this article was closed only a month ago. It usually should be a while before another AfD is filed on the same topic, so this seems like WP:Gaming the system. On the substantive question of whether the article is notable, I think it meets WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Numerous sources discuss NewtonX (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), and combined together, they show that it is notable enough to keep. The AfD closed as "no consensus" a month ago, with multiple editors believing it to be notable, and nothing has changed to suddenly warrant deletion since then. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage which is not simply PR regurgitation to show it passes either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets take a look at the references:

Reference 1 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH "NewtonX raises $3 million for AI that connects executives with experts in any industry standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage and is Examples of trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage

Reference 2 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH "Two Sigma leads $12m series A for expert knowledge network NewtonX" Similar to the above.

Ref 3. Sascha Eder states: This is a primary ref and fails WP:ORGIND.

Ref 4. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly the same as ref 2.

Ref 5. An article from paid news branding agency

Ref 6 Ref 6 is invalid as it it is an example of dependent coverage under WP:ORGIND.

Ref 7. Ref 7 is a name drop and states Newton X is interested. It is hype and non-notable.

Ref 8. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND

Ref 9. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly the same information and Reference 1 which means it is coming from a press release.

Ref 10 This is name drop from Sascha Eder stating

Ref 11 Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND

Ref 12.Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND

Ref 13. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND

Ref 14. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Exactly same as Ref 2 which means its coming from a press release, which itself fails WP:ORGIND

Ref 15 Another primary reference. A consulting firm interviewed them to post a review of their work as an investment report. Not independent and in-depth.

In total there is 7 references mentioned $12million being raised from the press release. There is 2 which mention $3 millions. Not a single secondary source is present that is in depth that provided independent coverage of the subject. An analysis of the reference you supplied are merely run of the mill business news and name drops. scope_creep^Talk 19:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The particularly disappointing aspect of Scope Creep's analysis is that there are overviews of the company given in some of those citations and they are from widely known business publications. They are not merely passing mentions. Therefore, the article does meet WP: Coredepth.Knox490 (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Notability and WP:Permastub, not to mention WP:Puffery and the above rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NewtonX was mentioned with other with other technology-enhanced expert networks in a relatively recent Medium article. [8] Bmbaker88 (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is one word name drop. scope_creep^Talk 00:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medium is partially self-publishing, is it not?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Medium has no editorial oversight and anyone can publish anything there. Not reliable IMHO. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The citations used in the article are reliable and with Scope creep calling some of the references press releases (when there is no indication that they are press releases), he is setting up a straw man. In addition to the Tech Crunch [9], VentureBeat [10], Forbes [11], and Inc. [12] publications--all of which are authoritative with respect to the field of business--NewtonX Inc. is quoted in other reliable citations, such as Forbes [13]. This clearly establishes its notability (making it pass WP:CORP and WP:GNG). desmay (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the point that the first AfD for this article was closed merely a month ago. And it is customary that there should be a reasonable amount of before a subsequent AfD is filed about the very same thing. Why? Because if things are rehashed endlessly after a decision has been reached, this is unfair to the new AfDs that need adequate attention to them. If we go round and round in a loop covering the same exact matter, it is not an efficient way of doing things. It is merely WP:Gaming the system. Wikipedia needs volunteer editors and we should make the doing the work as pleasant as possible and not make the work repetitive and therefore tedious. As far as the main issue of of whether the article is notable, I agree that the article meets WP:GNG and it also meets WP:CORP. Furthermore, I checked all these sources (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11), and only one could be argued to be a press release - namely Business Wire. Frankly, I don't understand why they have been called "press releases" by another editor when they are clearly not. The Associated Press, Wired, Kiplinger, etc. are highly respected news sources. After all is said and done, let's move on and stop endlessly chewing over this matter. Knox490 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article clearly passes WP:GNG; a simple Google search alone for NewtonX provides 753,000 results (an increase from the previous yield of 227,000 results). [14] AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Google hot counts don't count towards notability and never have done. scope_creep^Talk 08:39, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they establish the fact that the company has received significant press coverage. A non-notable company would receive that many GHITS.AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 09:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't and your argument is completely fallacious. scope_creep^Talk 09:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets look at each of the new posted references:

1. Apnews Its states: Germain Chastel, CEO of technology consultant NewtonX, says Twitter helps the company be more visible A google of these words turns up 4 sites with exact same wording, indicating it comes off a press release. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH

2. Forbes. Apart from being a new drop, a small paragraph the words Identifying the voice of the customer and garnering market feedback is paramount to success, particularly in B2B turns up in four sites, indicating it is from a press release. This fails WP:CORPDEPTH.

3. Focus on the previous company. Essentially a name drop and has no content.

4. This is growth of the company. Another tiny paragraph. According to WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as capital transaction, such as raised capital are considered trivial coverage and can't be used to prove notability.

5. Techtarget. It states You can move between plans, something you can't do if you're tethered to in-house hardware in quotes meaning its being quoted. Single sentence. It is primary. Not independent, nor indepth. That is so generic.

6. Not specific to the company. Merely another name drop. It fails WP:ORGIND as it is another quote. Not independent of the company.

7. Exact same words as Wells Fargo Innovation Incubator Announces $1 Million in Award found on seven other sites indicating it is a press release. Here they are saying the press release: [15] Fails WP:ORGIND

8. Another name drop, with no content.

9. Another $3 million in seed funding. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage such a capital transaction, such as raised capital

10. This one came up before. An interview with the founder and only a small part talks about the company. Not independent.

11. A single sentence. Sascha Eder states: This is a primary ref and fails WP:ORGIND

I've heard the same argument in the previous Afd about excellent companies who provided business news and should trusted e.g. VentureBeat. Here is NewtonX press page, with VentureBeat on it [16], clearly indicating they are being used for advertising. No one is saying that these companies are not excellent bearers of business news, but like most US businesses subscribe to the advertising dollar. scope_creep^Talk 09:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Apnews Its states: Germain Chastel, CEO of technology consultant NewtonX, says Twitter helps the company be more visible A google of these words turns up 4 sites with exact same wording, indicating it comes off a press release."

This is simply not true and attempts to engage in mind reading. Journalists and other web content creators often have deadlines or see no compelling reason to create original content for small snippets of words or are simply lazy. As a result, it is common to see small snippets of material copied on other websites. It is not like web content is some doctoral dissertation and the penalty of plagiarism will apply for copying small snippets. I often see Wikipedia articles with snippets copied for germane topics such as say clocks, oranges, giraffes, Civil War, etc. I personally find it very easy to put something in my own words so I don't copy web content word for word, but we should recognize that people have differing talents and attitudes about original content being on the web. For example, people in Asian or other more communal cultures place a lower estimation on the value of originality than someone in the highly individually focused West.

After all is said and done, you cannot arbitrarily call something a press release merely because you want it to be. You have to clearly demonstrate this to be the case.Knox490 (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see you've been paid to write this User:Renzoy16.scope_creep^Talk 09:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Knox490 we only the discuss the references here. Nothing else. Your comments smack of WP:MERCY and WP:TRIVIAL. I've checked every one of the references. I'll check that one again. scope_creep^Talk 12:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the star tribune with the same words: [17] The exact words. There is more. scope_creep^Talk 12:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knox490 I totally agree with the latter half of your paragraph.scope_creep^Talk 12:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Bing's news section shows articles about the company in top tier publications, such as Tech Crunch, VentureBeat, Yahoo Finance, Inc., Entrepreneur, and the list goes on. [18] The topic meets WP:N and if there are sources in that list which aren't currently present in the article, they can be added there. Carajou (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very curious search url. What has got this: HDRSC6 got to do with it. scope_creep^Talk 20:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have made six edits this year. You only appeared at 3.30 this afternoon to vote. scope_creep^Talk 20:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You seems to have a clear WP:COI. scope_creep^Talk 20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since, *some* people didn't get it the first time, this company raised twelve million dollars in Series A funding, which was reported in various media sources that are of significance, such as TC and VB. That is newsworthy and distinguishes NewtonX, Inc. from insignificant startups. Eliko007 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Curious how you come in, after being away three months, come straight here and repeated the same argument as above, which has been debunked. I've posted it to WP:COI. scope_creep^Talk 21:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Funding can't be used to establish notability per WP:NCORP. scope_creep^Talk 21:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yeah, all of the sources I've clicked so far are pretty terrible (including those linked above). Definite WP:CORPDEPTH issues. Furthermore some funny business going on here. I see in this AfD several relatively inactive accounts that I'm used to seeing pop up together, but always in one completely unrelated topic area, which makes this quite strange. More so that so many people are getting WP:ORG so wrong, pointing to brief mentions, press releases, routine coverage, trade publications, etc. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, I noticed that as well. They cropped up together in its first nomination.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP. I don't think the keep !voters are helping matters by indiscriminately throwing up sources without regard to the quality or depth of coverage. Businesswire and finmes are clearly pulling from the same press release. Maybe there's a non-trivial mention buried in one of the dozen or so links that have been posted so far, but I can't find one. Nblund^talk 01:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I cannot find references that meet WP:ORGCRIT to show notability under WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no idea why it was recreated under a different title, but this still Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 15:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found these additional articles at notable websites that are interviews/etc. as far as the executives at NewtonX that mention NewtonX (Forbes, Entrepeneur, IntelligentCIO, etc). [19][20][21][22] If the company was not notable their executives would not be getting interviews/etc. As far as WP: Coredepth, these newly cited articles I am mentioning that are at Forbes and IntelligentCIO do talk about the company substantially in the articles.[23][24] Press/interviews in these publications is hard to get - especially articles which substantially talk about the company. And the two new 2 additional articles which substantially mention the company aren't the only citations which do this (if you look at some of the articles cited by others above, you can clearly see this). If you ran a small business like a florist shop, realty franchise, corner store, it would be super difficult to get this type of press unless you were notable and a game changer in the industry. My family ran a small business when my parents were still working and the business certainly wasn't mentioned in Forbes, IntelligentCIO, etc.Knox490 (talk) 23:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it would be super difficult to get this type of press au contraire. Ideamensch (link 15 above) actually says "We don’t turn down any entrepreneur who wants to do an interview". Applicants simply send in answers to a standard set of interview questions. Similarly, the Forbes New York Business Council articles are both written by the company's CEO as part of a paid program through Forbes itself. IntelligentCIO appears to be a product of Lynchpinmedia, which provides "Content Syndication" to the tech industry. In other words: you pay them and they put up ads disguised as articles on third party websites pause for suggestive eyebrow raise

Its actually not very difficult to get a company to publish your articles if you pay them for the privilege. I think WP:THREE would be worth following here: just pick a couple of good articles and stop flooding the discussion with this stuff. It's not persuasive. Nblund^talk 23:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nblund, Well said. I have to say I'm very suspicious of Knox490, Carajou, and Eliko007's comments. You?

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

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

The result was merge to Thomas Cook Group. Stifle (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cook Hotels & Resorts[edit]

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

Purpose for this article seems a bit too late. Not sure if deletion is needed or should it stay but, if it were a necessary article, it could have surfaced itself as an article way before Tom Cook collapsed. EROS ^message 14:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the one hand, notability is not inherited. The hotel and resort group owned by the now defunct Thomas Cook group is not notable just because Thomas Cook group is in the news. On the other hand, I haven't looked for sources on this. On the gripping hand, if we only made articles on organizations that exist contemporaneously with wikipedia, we would not have articles on Roman senate, Confederate States of America, or The Third Reich. Rockphed (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: After a WP:BEFORE, it seems that the notability of the hotel chain is entirely solely related to the collapse of Thomas Cook as a whole. Much as how we don't have articles on people only known for one incident if they don't have independent notability outside of that event, this should probably just redirect to Thomas Cook Group. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:22, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect: This article is almost completely referenced to internal sources. Once you remove these, in accordance with WP:RS, there is nothing left. Dormskirk (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Thomas Cook Group 79.77.212.154 (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: with Thomas Cook Group as per above. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:06, 11 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.