< 20 June	22 June >

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of military brats[edit]

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

The concept of a "Military brat" has some meaning, however the distinction between a "military brat" and someone who happened to grow up in a military family is subjective.

If there are a group of people who either identify as a military brat, or have this supported by reliable sources then the list makes some sense, however I have looked at a couple of handfuls of the articles in the list and I can't find reason to place any of them in this group.
If the list is just of people who grew up in a military family, then I can't see the relevance of the list. The military family background is not a notable feature of many of these peoples' lives. Pi (Talk to me!) 23:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 23:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete subjective and possibly endless list. Mztourist (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list defines it as the offspring of military personnel, but that violates WP:LISTCRITERIA: your parents' occupations (unless they're royalty) generally doesn't make a lot of difference. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated List of fictional military brats. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a military brat does not make you notable, all these people are notable for completely different things. Vici Vidi (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned above, this violates WP:LSC and is likely an endless and subjective list that adds no real value to the articles it lists. I see no reason to keep it. Aguy777 (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How long do you have to have had a parent in the military while a child? Does this have to have ever caused you to relocate, or does it count if you lived in a stable home and your parent was deployed? Lots of issues with the list. This list might be helpful if it told us how long the parent in question was in the military, how many bases the person lived at as a child, etc, but for most of these people we do not know those details.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA in that removal of the participants from the list does nothing to reduce encyclopedic and topical relevance, and including them on the list does nothing to enhance it. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Allscripts. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZappRx[edit]

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

no evidence of notability ; fails NCORP. All references refer only to staffing and funding. DGG ( talk ) 23:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Could probably just be mereged to Allscripts based on this.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamberipa[edit]

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

Ineligible for PROD as it was PROD'd in 2015.

No indication this is a notable surname. No articles contain this word so not suitable as a disambig.

Original PROD rationale from 2015 was "Unsourced and fails WP:GNG notability". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom rationale. There appears to be a footballer from Namibia with this surname, that's all I could find on the topic. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and no articles exist of people with this surname.—Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A search using ((in title)) reveals no articles about people with this surname, and I am not finding any significant coverage of the name. If articles about people with this surname are created in the future, this can be recreated as a set index article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul L Martin[edit]

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

Advertising article, much puff evidenced. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article about a non-notable person whose biggest accomplishment is being one of a panel of a hundred (!) judges on a TV program. No significant coverage found. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article is not "advertising" or "puff" merely because it doesn't say anything bad about its subject. No exaggeration or extravagance identified. No attemnpt to showing any deficiencies in sourcing. Just calling someone "non-notable" is not a substitute for reasoned analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Basically what Scope_creep said. It is promotional piece for a subject lacking in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 23:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. Also a glaring example of WP:PROMO KidAd (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2020 (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. Following Special:Diff/963828553. (non-admin closure) NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Cornett-Ching[edit]

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

Nominating in good faith. Lacks WP:IS and fails WP:NMOTORSPORT. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 22:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's probably a good idea. There's only two sources and she hasn't competed in stock cars since 2016. If other users can find more info and sources on her in the next few days that could save the article from deletion, they are welcome to, but if not, then I'd say it's OK to delete it. Cavanaughs (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Cavanaughs[reply]
Keep this should never have gotten to AfD. A simple WP:BEFORE Google search for "sarah cornett-ching", no keywords or filters, renders the following examples of independent, signficant coverage within the first five pages of search results: [1], [2], [3], [4] (free account required), [5], [6] and [7]. Add in filters or addendums and you get more results. Easily passes GNG despite the fact that she doesn't meet WP:NMOTORSPORT. I implore both the nominator and page creator to look for sources before resigning to the undesirable fate of deletion. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:47, 22 June 2020 (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. Black Kite (talk) 08:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Maisnik[edit]

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

A man behind some billboards, and "the inventor of Hugo's Amazing Tape" (whatever that is) is clearly non-notable Huldra (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If not merge into Katherine Saltzberg, which in any case should also be deleted since that person is likewise not notable (as the non-WP:RS sourcing itself betraysNishidani (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find enough coverage of this subject to show notability. The article needs to be developed. Lightburst (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:Lightburst: good luck with that. The article you link to is about Angelyne, it mentions Maisnik in exactly 1 sentence, Huldra (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's coverage in The Hollywood Reporter. Per WP:NEXIST, the article should be retained and improved. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon! An article with 26 words on its subject (leaving out the fact he's a dad to someone with a slightly greater visibility) passes WP:NOTNEWS? Farcical.Nishidani (talk) 07:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources are about Maisnik, who is mentioned only incidentally. Find sources about Maisnik and how he developed his business; otherwise delete as non-notable. --NSH001 (talk) 08:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article spends more telling us about his daughter then him, we already have an article on his daughter we do not need this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Saltzberg[edit]

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

Non-notable plumber. Many sources are not about him, at all Huldra (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Huldra (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That’s right, most sources are just mentions, has no independent coverage in a reliable source therefore fails WP:GNG before anything else. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article coatracks mainly about an organization he was one of the co-founders of. The things is we have an article on that organization, so no reason for the coatracking here. I am not saying one way or the other if that organization is notable, but Saltzberg does not gain notability from being connected to it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Patkar[edit]

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

queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion log :-
- 03:45, 21 June 2020 User:Anthony Appleyard block deleted page Tara Patkar (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, WP:XFD)
- 20:17, 9 December 2019 User:HickoryOughtShirt?4 deleted page Tara Patkar (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
- 20:01, 9 December 2019 User:GB fan deleted page Tara Patkar (A7: Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
  - Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Was going to suggest draftifying, but the creator is blocked indefinitely, so unlikely to be workinf on it further. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete this article, because Tara Patkar is a very important person because he is a first founder of roti bank and his team provides food daily more than 1000 needy people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by लाल सिंह चड्डा (talk • contribs) 02:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Devanagari username transcribes as "Lāla Siṃha Caḍḍā" :: 'C' is pronounced "tsh". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Appleyard, Its 'Lal Singh Chadda' as per name in Indian English ~ Amkgp 💬 07:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article reads like a WP:PROMOTIONAL article. The reliable sources from 'Reuters', 'Economic Times' and 'Hindustan Times' are an interview of the person and personal opinion on an event. It makes hard to conclude notability from these type of mentions about the person ~ Amkgp 💬 07:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tara is doing good work and Wikipedia Folks should consider updating notability threshold to support such efforts in the future --Martina Del Giorno (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Suprised this article made it this far without getting deleted. Furtherly, certain parts sound WP:PROMOTIONAL and the sources are extremely unreliable. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilian people[edit]

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

Entirely unsourced WP:OR essay trying to present the population of a regional subdivision of Italy as if it were a separate "ethnic group". Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O'Donnell, Ontario[edit]

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

Poorly sourced article about a shortlived purported (but not fully verifiable) ghost town, with no strong evidence that it would get past WP:GEOLAND as a standalone topic. There's a lot of completely unsourced original research here, and even the few things that are footnoted are mostly citing unreliable primary sources, like a ghost towns blog and a mining industry blog — literally the only reliable source in the article discusses it solely in the context of having been a roast bed rather than in the context of ever having been a place where people lived, the industry blog does the same, and the only other new source I could add also just namechecks it a single time on one page as a roast bed. But whatever it was or wasn't, it was definitely never "legally recognized" in the sense of having a municipal government — so even if it was populated at all, its notability test would fall under the "populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG" clause, but it isn't being shown to pass GNG.
A redirect to Walden, Ontario (the borough of Sudbury in which the remains of whatever this was are geographically located) would be a potential option here, but the quality and depth of sourcing on offer do not rise to the level of earning it a standalone article as an independent topic in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commment What does GNG look like here? Looking at 1920s Ontario newspapers, there's certainly articles mentioning someone is from "O'Donnell, Ontario". Nfitz (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Articles mentioning someone is from O'Donnell, Ontario" is not how you get a place over GNG. GNG is not about counting up how many articles you can find which happen to briefly mention O'Donnell in the process of being fundamentally about something or someone else — GNG is about finding articles in which O'Donnell is itself the primary subject of the piece. Bearcat (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the primary concern here was concern that the very existence was purported. I'd think that the number of articles for current small Ontario towns that meet GNG are the exception, not the rule. But the information below points to a scholarly article and a book reference to meet GNG. How is that not enough? Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book isn't a GNG-assisting source at all, as it doesn't contain any content about O'Donnell except a brief glancing acknowledgement of its existence on a single page. And the scholarly article is a start, but not a finish all by itself if it's the only substantive source that can be found, because GNG requires a lot more than just one substantive source. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's at least one scholarly article directly on the yards as a townsite and over 30 on their environmental impact, and several books mention them. I'm not sure this is notable as a townsite, but I think it's clearly sourceable and notable as the O'Donnell Roast Yards and would consider moving there. SportingFlyer T·C 23:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly additional sources I was able to find from some brief searching referring to it as a distinct and named populated place, e.g. this monograph on environmental pollution which talks about residents or this history of the area which I suspect is the source for some of the information on the websites directly cited in the article. The standard of having a municipal government would invalidate a lot of mining and CPR towns that existed on company property early in the 20th century, and I'm concerned that not having coverage of them on Wikipedia would lead to coverage that doesn't properly capture the human geography of these areas, where industries like mining and forestry drove town development rather than the other way around. However given that it's within the former boundaries of Walden (itself a former township, and one rather arbitrarily created and with a legal lifespan not much longer than O'Donnell itself), a place within the Walden article might be a suitable alternative to a full article, alongside similar former mining towns like Creighton, High Falls, Worthington, Victoria Mines, etc., none of which had municipal governance either to my knowledge. I find the idea of re-framing the subject as being about the roast yards and their environmental impact to be compelling as well though it was not my focus while editing the article. If other editors were willing to broaden/shift the scope with a focus on those I would appreciate it as I don't have access to most scholarly journals. Julius177 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said that places aren't allowed to have Wikipedia articles if they didn't have municipal governments — but a place in that boat has to be able to show that it can clear WP:GNG on its sourceability, because a place does have to have had some form of objective legal recognition before it's handed an automatic notability freebie that would exempt it from having to have better sources than this. But brief mentions on one page of a book, attesting that a place exists but not containing any substantive or non-trivial information about it beyond just the fact that it exists, aren't notability-making sources: a source has to support substantive content about the subject, not just offer technical verification of its existence, to count as a notability-assisting source. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - I'd rather have the edit history world-visible while the UNESCO application is underway. There's lots of content that doesn't currently have reliable sources: this should be pruned, but we have one very good RS and no pressing concerns with respect to problematic editing: we can be patient. If it fails in the UNESCO bid and no more good RSs emerge, then the well-sourced content should be merged to Greater Sudbury. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised there's any RS in the last few decades. I'm not troubled that there's only one, given a lack of contemporary newspapers and publications available digitally. The sources I've checked, don't have much coverage from that area, though I do keep coming across incidental mentions of the community from papers that are further afield - so it was certainly called this in the day. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2020 (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. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ystrad Mynach College[edit]

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

This university existed up until 2013 when it merged with Coleg Morgannwg to become Coleg y Cymoedd, but how does it meet WP:NOTABILITY? Pahiy (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion had been opened but without tagging the article itself or notifying its original author. Both now done. AllyD (talk) 20:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep wp:school outcomes 2.Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions have enough coverage to be notable, although that coverage may not be readily available online. However there are no refs to back any of the page.User:Davidstewartharvey
Keep. CFEs are clearly notable institutions. Why propose this for deletion and not all the other CFEs in Category:Further education colleges in the United Kingdom? No consistency there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The present article is a brochure-like list of the facilities and past principals. A broader history to the institution would take account of unfortunate events such as the Health and Safety at Work Act fine in 2003 following a student's drowning [8]. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2020 (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. Noting also the copyvio issue. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Guliyev[edit]

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

This person doesn't exist in the history of Azerbaijan. This article is a direct spam version of Fuad Abdurahmanov. Somebody modified in 2009 on ruwiki under Radik Guliyev. Furthermore, it was falsified even more, to a degree that a website copied from wiki. It's used as the only reference on this article.

However, the real Ibrahim Guliyev lived in 1900-1938. See this link. There's no further information about him.

We deleted the article from azwiki after a thorough examination. It's sad to see that the article has been translated into different languaged. If possible, i would use your help to delete them as well. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Your explanation of the sequence of events that led to the creation of this article on en-wiki seems plausible enough to me. A cursory web search doesn't turn up any evidence that this person existed. The only thing that comes up is that web page you mentioned that is currently used as a source on the article itself, and which is indeed probably just the result of citogenesis and lazy copying from ru-wiki or az-wiki. Besides, regardless of where that web page got its (fake) information from, the en-wiki article is a copyvio anyway, as its text is copied word for word from that very page. So, apart from this article most likely being a hoax, it's also about a non-notable person who might or might not exist, contains info that cannot be verified anyway, and is entirely a copyvio to boot. Ealuscerwen (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Definite hoax; nonexistence of such laureate of "State prize" (established much later to replace well-archived Stalin prize, also without such a laureate), Nobel Peace prize (of 2007; was included in Russian version, despite the date of death and the fact that Nobel prizes aren't given post mortem) and USSR Academy of Arts membership are very easy to check. Toghrul, thank you for bringing this up; just deleted this from RuWP. Nominated also at Ukrainian WP. Tatewaki (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable sculptor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - GNG and NARTIST fail. Netherzone (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2020 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adeyinka Adesope[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. A before search shows him majorly mentioned in primary sources such as this. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep : though the article is poorly sourced, the subject is a successful and notable real estate developer with significant independent media coverage available from a Google search results such as these: [[9]] [[10]] [[11]]. More Google search would bring out more indepth coverage of the subject. Ugbedeg (talk) 6:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Struck out !vote from sockpuppet. Celestina007 (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugbedeg, One of the three sources you presented above is already present in the article. The two new ones you just mentioned coupled with the 4 already present in the article do not discuss subject of the article with significant coverage they merely mention him in passing & as such do not adhere to WP:GNG Look below at the table & look at my analysis. Celestina007 (talk) 11:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://nigeriarealestatehub.com/nigerias-real-estate/	Press release	Pre packaged material which isn’t independent of the subject hence can’t be reliable	Mere announcements	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/property/stakeholders-urge-government-to-focus-on-affordable-housing/			Subject isn’t the focus of the article, the source merely tells us he gave a speech at the event hence has no overall value when ascertaining notability	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/walk-everyday-to-live-longer-lagosians-urged/	This is a blatant sponsored post	No editing oversight	The staff of the organization going for a fitness walk around an estate doesn’t show exactly how subject of our article is notable	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/iconic-project-atlantic-resort-evolves-into-the-oceanna/	sponsored post	no editorial oversight for this particular published work / Guest editor	This sources literally isn’t even about the subject of our discussion.	✘ No
https://www.dailytrust.com.ng/grenadines-cappa-dalberto-sign-n40bn-atlantic-towers.html	press release		As usual, yet again the source isn’t even about the subject of our discussion it discusses a whole different thing entirely & tells us how the subject of our discussion gave a speech which means absolutely nothing and does nothing for WP:GNG.	✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/palton-morgan-gets-coo/			Literally discusses a whole different person & tells us for the umpteenth time how subject of our article gave a brief speech.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using ((source assess table)).

Celestina007 (talk) 12:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the sourcing is indepdent, reliable and significant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the subject does not seem to meet WP:NBIO, especially when separated from more notable business ventures they are affiliated with. Too many of the cited sources are unreliable, lack in-depth coverage, or only mention Adesope in passing. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet WP:NBIO and WP:GNG, and per source analysis by Celestina007.--Jack Frost (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles that basically mention the existence of an individual and that don't received independent reliable coverage are not notable per WP:BIO, also WP:GNG applies too. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chand Singh (soldier)[edit]

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

Before anything else, I am thankful and In my opinion the subject has more than significant contribution to the country and the army. But it does not simply follows WP:SOLDIER. He was awarded the second highest honor only (Maha Vir Chakra) (not multiple times), not the highest honor that is Param Vir Chakra. Zoodino (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 17:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single award of a second-level gallantry award does not meet WP:SOLDIER. A Google Books search doesn't indicate significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. Honourpoint isn't RS. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, definetely doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER based upon his award. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Revellions[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:GNG and WP:BAND. On the latter, the subject doesn't appear to have any chart placements in Ireland (or elsewhere) and no awards (despite unsupported claims of "widespread critical acclaim throughout the world"). On the former, the subject doesn't appear to have received anything other than trivial passing-mentions in the two main newspapers of record of Ireland. And, while the main Irish pop/rock music magazine has covered the subject, it is only to the extent that might be expected of ANY republished press release announcing an album or gig or similar. The SPA, COI, PROMO and total lack of references (for the excessive hyperbole and fancruft) is also a significant concern. Guliolopez (talk) 23:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 17:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suzy K Quinn[edit]

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

Why the page should be deleted Non notable author who doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG nor WP:AUTHOR. I don’t see any evidence subject of article has won any notable awards hence WP:ANYBIO also is not satisfied here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.106.217.147 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject easily passes WP:GNG. See Daily Gazette, The Guardian, The Bookseller, Daily Express, Echo, Pocklington Post, BBC 4, Sunday Times, Bangkok Post, What's On Dubai, and My Weekly. The Polish translation of one of her books is analyzed in this peer reviewed paper. While not reliable sources, one of her books has been the subject of a college thesis, and she's cited in another. pburka (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep echoing the comments above as she passes GNG. The page has already survived a speedy deletion and proposed deletion, I don’t see why a discussion is needed personally. The IP user seems to have an agenda to delete.BookwormBurrow (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan Yadav Mahasabha[edit]

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

A non-notable organisation with no in-depth coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:ORGDEPTH. GSS ^💬 16:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 16:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NORG and likely non-notable overall per nom. desmay (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MiaCMS[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very short lived product (15 months) that attracted a small amount of publicity in its day but had nothing distinctive or enduring about it. Perhaps merge basic details to Mambo (software). Mccapra (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2020 (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 Young Ones (TV series)#Series 1 (1982). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting (The Young Ones)[edit]

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

How does this meet WP:NOTABILITY? Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge into the Young Ones. User:Davidstewartharvey
Redirect to The Young Ones. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Only twelve episodes were ever released for The Young Ones and all twelve of them have separated articles in this category Category:The Young Ones episodes. Any reason why this one has been singled out? Ajf773 (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is normal that unless a single programme of a series proves it meets wp:gng it stays within its parents page.User:Davidstewartharvey

- User:Ajf773, I haven't looked at the others, I was just judging whether this one meets the requirements for a standalone article, it's one that has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 06:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the other page of the programmes questionable about their notability too - refs are like internet database of film, and an interview with Alex Sayle which just has a passing mention. This all of these need looking at.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article. Fails WP:GNG. --Slashme (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on the basis of WP:GNG. The information could be succinctly contained on the main topic page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 12:35, 30 June 2020 (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. Rlendog (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Picard[edit]

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

Successful college hockey player, but how does he meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #4 as a two-time NCAA D-I first-team All-American. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (edit conflict), He passes WP:NHOCKEY for being on the first team AHCA All-American Team. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination per helpful comments above. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 22 June 2020 (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 Sudhir Shivaram. MBisanz ^talk 03:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

India Nature Watch[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur; provided sources are passing mentions, and I'm not seeing more in-depth independent coverage anywhere. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudhir Shivaram (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Sudhir Shivaram was one of the founding members of India Nature Watch, which is already mentioned in his article.
Preserving the redirect is useful so that editors have the ability to merge material about Indian Nature Watch to Sudhir Shivaram.
Cunard (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:45, 28 June 2020 (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 (non-admin closure) as withdrawn by nominator with no other support for deletion WP:CSK#1 Pi (Talk to me!) 03:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Holland (academic)[edit]

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

~~Has had an interesting career, but how does he meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG? Boleyn (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't have a high opinion of biologically-inspired computation, but his citation record in it is high enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:C#1 on GS cites in a highly cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw nomination oer comments above. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Cinemas[edit]

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

Exists, but doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete No refs to prove notability"User:Davidstewartharvey

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2020 (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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Red Phoenix ^talk 19:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go! Puzzle[edit]

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

~~Exists, but how does it meet WP:NOTABILITY?~~ Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep – This downloadable game has been reviewed in several notable gaming magazines and websites, including at least one substantial and lengthy review in Eurogamer. I am unsure whether these reviews alone are sufficient coverage for this game to be covered by a standalone article though, so I am definitely open to arguments in favor of deleting this. Ealuscerwen (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't justify a deletion here, not with four WP:VG/RS sources covering it in a non-trivial way: GameSpot [12], Eurogamer [13], Engadget [14], and IGN [15], and per Metacritic there seems to be even more coverage in magazines. That should be enough to meet WP:GNG in my eyes. If I look at a WP:ATD merge, it's impossible, since two teams worked on this game (both with wiki articles). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP It gets significant coverage by reliable sources. such as https://www.ign.com/articles/2007/06/29/go-puzzle-review-2 and what others have mentioned and what's linked to in the article already. Dream Focus 03:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per helpful comments above. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2020 (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 Novartis. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 16:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genomics Institute of the Novartis Research Foundation[edit]

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

Quite borderline, but I don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Novartis. No real standalone notability as it's really just a branch of the company. Anyone can call themselves a research institute, and this is all standard WP:ITEXISTS. I don't see anything really worth merging though, and I have no prejudice against deletion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect If anything is important here then we will know later. Bvatsal61 (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Novartis. Mccapra (talk) 06:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to WildTangent. Clear consensus not to keep, merging per ATD.(non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genesis3D[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Last AfD was no consensus. It is borderline, but I don't think it passes WP:GNG though it has mentions and some coverage. Boleyn (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as with the previous discussion. The following sources were unearthed last time this was at AfD, but I didn't take the time to dissect them:

Pedersen, Roger E. (2003). Game Design Foundations. Wordware Publishing. p. 166. ISBN 9781556229732.
Chen, Jim X. (2007). Guide to Graphics Software Tools. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 247. ISBN 9780387224305.
Ahearn, Luke (2001). 3D Game Art: F/x & Design. Coriolis. ISBN 9781588801005.

#1 is a source with actual information about the engine, but what is useful is minimal. Three sentences about how Genesis3D was reused for Destiny3D, the rest about some technical and licensing restrictions. #2 is just an appendix page with bare-bones technical information and thus not useful. #3 does not have a preview but, according to summaries available online, the "Part II" of this book is merely a how-to guide for making games in Genesis3D and the related Reality Factory engine, and hence not useful either. In terms of online sources, all that I could find from last time is already in the article, with the exception of a lame April fools' joke. I still think that these sources are not sufficient to satisfy the "significant coverage" aspect of WP:GNG. Courtesy ping to previous AfD'ers: @Ferret, MrClog, and Czar. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 16:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent WildTangent. Above assessment is sound that the topic isn't independently notable, but given that there is some source coverage, it would be a sufficient alternative to deletion to merge said content to the developer's article. (not watching, please ((ping))) czar 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to WildTangent as a WP:ATD per Czar. Nothing much to add on this. The first book source is surprisingly decent, but the rest (including the article's sources) is very weak in terms of the coverage's quality and depth. Doesn't meet WP:GNG on it's own with no multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, but there is a perfect way to WP:PRESERVE the subject elsewhere. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget Racers (2002 video game)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Borderline, but I don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Last AfD had little participation and was no consensus. Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Through Metacritic, I found a number of reviews, including from GameSpot and IGN, Official PlayStation Magazine, and others. I've added some of this in for now. I think there's enough here to warrant a keep. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Phoenix, it's not the same game here. The article talks about the game released in 2003 in West, the one you are refering to released in 2001. It is a bit confusing, but per List of Choro Q video games, there are three games all named Gadget Racers for the English version (two released for GBA and PS2, one in 2001 as Choro Q HG, the other in 2002 as Choro Q HG 2, and the third for PS2 only in 2003 titled Choro Q HG 3). This article is about Choro Q HG 3 as the article says. GameSpot review is about Choro Q HG (1st game). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What manner of ridiculousness was the developer thinking? That's not just "a bit confusing", that's significantly confusing. In which case, delete. I repeated a BEFORE check and can't find anything for a different Gadget Racers, and I don't see the search term as plausible. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per my argument above. The first AFD had it all wrong. The sources found back during that time were for a different game released in 2001 of the same name (which is obviously notable and should have it's article). This game is a sequel to Choro Q HG 2 (also titled as Road Trip Adventure in North America), so there is a potential to expand it with a sequel section. But, the English version of this game, Gadget Racers, released in 2003 (Japan in 2002 as Choro Q HG 3), so the redirect would be useless. My head hurts trying to clear this mess up. This game fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, wasn't able to find anything. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Red Phoenix, and Jovanmilic. Putting aside the stupidly-confusing problem regarding its title, the game does not offer any significant coverage from reliable sources. I can see this being a brief mention in the article for Choro Q HG 2, but not as its own article. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:41, 25 June 2020 (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unexploded[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:MUSIC as per notice in above article BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 15:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 15:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Featured on two, possibly three compilations (I can't find any record of the Flak compilation actually existing). The "untitled album" seems to have never been released. The EPs are self-released. The artist's website lists a couple of publications that have covered his music, but all links are either dead or lead to mags and blogs that are, to put it mildly, not notable themselves. The old listeners on last.fm rule of thumb test (less than 1000, with just one song that received more than 100 scrobbles) also doesn't fill me with confidence that this artist is notable or that further searches will result in me finding any significant coverage in non-English sources. Ealuscerwen (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have never heard about this guy but I decided to look him up. But I actually couldn't find anything that is about him (aside from a Spotify page which is not a notability inducing source). Since this is not the primary meaning of the word "unexploded", it makes the search extremely difficult since most of the results are about bombs and stuff like that. I searched with "unexploded band" but the results were not any better. I could not find anything. But maybe I just did not search properly. I will try again and maybe I find something about this guy. Update: I searched with "unexploded rock band" and I found pages that are about this project, but unfortunately, they are Google Play, Facebook, Discogs and Spotify pages. So no reliable sources whatsoever. The rest of them are still not about this. By the way all of these "sources" copy the Wikipedia biography. Update again: I searched for the EPs too. "Unexploded Where We Belong" did not bring any results that are about the EP. "Unexploded Venomlake" brought an itsy-bitsy bit more results that are about the EP but actually this EP is only mentioned in the context of Unexploded, in Wikipedia mirrors, the another was the official site of the artist. So there is no coverage whatsoever. It seems that nobody noticed this guy's music so he remained in the underground without any coverage. The Danish Wikipedia has no article on this either. So this is an unnotable music project. And to think that this page managed to stay here since 2010... GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2020 (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 Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forever Grips[edit]

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

A non -notable organization that Fails wp:ORGCRIT, doesn’t meet WP:GNG. The article is pure promotion and advertising.Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:G11. This organization lacks the necessary notability, and the article is complete WP:SPAM. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 14:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – should be a speedy deletion, see WP:G11. Besides, not a notable organization anyway. Ealuscerwen (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, failing WP:ORG. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 16:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 applied Yeah, it's spam; AfD template was also blanked out. This doesn't need seven days to linger. Nate • (chatter) 18:25, 21 June 2020 (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. Per WP:CSD#A10. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somatosensory rehabilitation of neuropathic pain[edit]

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

SPA duplicate of page currently at AfD Somatosensory rehabilitation of pain, these two AfDs should be linked. No independent medical research supports this therapy model, which is practiced, promoted (in multiple Wikipedias) and taught by a clinic in Fribourg. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article is created solely to frustrate the process. Even, if that process ends with keep this page would need deleting and redirecting. This page contains unsourced material that has been carefully removed from the main article it is better to redirect it. I think this page comes under WP:Fringe too. PainProf (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the above and the AfD for the page that this duplicates. XOR'easter (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2012 in astronomy[edit]

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

No actual prose coverage, article was created in 2012 but was since abandoned and orphaned. Other pages offer more relevant content such as Template:2012 in space and 2012 in spaceflight, and there are no other similar articles with this title (20XX in astronomy). Nrco0e (talk · contribs) 01:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the existence of the template and no real pattern of "astronomy in year" articles. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Article does not provide much information about astrology and significance of 2012 in astrology. Ashishkafle (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For your interest, there's a (significant) difference between astronomy and astrology. Ealuscerwen (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, this is the only '[year] in astronomy' article. As it stands, it contains almost no actual information. If someone wants to, they can recreate this as a substantial article (preferably with the less restrictive title pattern of "[year] in space"), but currently this article is redundant and not up to encyclopedic standards. Ealuscerwen (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summit1g[edit]

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

I would like to ask somepne[sic] to create afd for this article, as this is a non-notable streamer with poor sources available. 118.223.144.122 (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm actively editing the article and will update it with adequate notable citations. As for notability the fact that the article passed as a stub, proves that it met Wikipedia AFC criteria, with more edits to the page citing good references it would definitely be improved. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 13:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article seems more like a promo. The person is not notable out of twitch either. Ashishkafle (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Promotional language is removed and some notable citations have been added. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 15:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it's best if the nominator closes this discussion as the article has been updated and most of the original criteria for deletion has been fixed. If the nominator is ready to consider this proposal, follow this link WP:WDAFD, to learn about how to withdraw the nomination. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 09:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Bucket loads of sources on this guy: [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] includes The Verge and Washington Post. Afd is not a cleanup. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 10:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article has been cleaned up and improved. He has received some coverage, including the sources indicated above. It's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I spent over an hour cleaning up the article (It now reads more like a proper wikipedia article rather than an amateurish school newspaper article/promotional material). There were numerous grammatical and formatting corrections (sources that were misplaced/mistitled) that needed to be made. A previous user (or unregistered user) not fluent in English (nor well-versed in proper English grammar) really liked inserting the word "onto" in multiple places throughout the article. StayGoId (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the amazing work editors have done to rescue the subject. I’m not one for thinking streamers are notable subjects usually, but this one clearly has had notability established. Red Phoenix ^talk 22:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Karr O'Connor[edit]

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

Simply Not notable enough, and not enough media coverage is found. If we have to make such articles for each person then wikipedia will become another type of LinkedIn or Social media. Light2021 (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG. No proper sources and references for the article. Ashishkafle (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tray Savage[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO; no indication of awards or charted songs. Article was created shortly after his death, though Wikipedia is not a memorial, and except for obituaries, there is just passing biographical detail in secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper or reliable references and sources. Ashishkafle (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sorry about his recent death but I must agree with the nominator. Savage's only media notice is in regards to his death, and as a musician he earned no notice that would qualify for notability for musicians. Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject not notable enough to have its own article. Also no real sources talking about this person in the media. Haseo9999 (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2020 (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 consensus that this subject is a distinct notable topic that satisfies our guidelines for an article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duchess of Sussex[edit]

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

There is really no reason for this to be a separate article. There has only ever been one holder of the title, and the content of the article merely replicates the content of the articles Meghan, Duchess of Sussex and Duke of Sussex. In addition, much of the article deals with what is explicitly not within its defined scope, i.e. women who were not duchesses of Sussex. Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to a dab-page - The material in this article on Lady Augusta Murray should be merged into that article. and the article on the second (morgamatic) wife of Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex could also usefully be listed, even though neither had the title, due to non-compliance with the Royal Marriages Act, they might be searched for as Duchesses. Perhaps a better outcome would be to rename this to Duchess of Sussex (disambiguation) and re-create the present name as a redirect to Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, with a "otherpersons" capnote leading to the dabpage. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. wow that was a quick deletion proposal. Just kidding. I think there is enough content to have it as a stand alone article. cookie monster (2020) 755 17:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is consensus to not retain the page, it should redirect to Meghan. cookie monster (2020) 755 18:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:B41A:93B5:519F:A15D (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The focus here is on the title rather than the current holder of that title. "Duchess of Sussex" is a novel style with a history & context, and that title deserves encyclopedic mention. It could use (1) an update since Jan 2020 when the Duke and Duchess withdrew from the royal family, losing the use of "HRH" but retaining the right to it (2) clarity about whether "Duchess of Sussex" is now a royal courtesy title or a noble courtesy title (3) a few words and a link to the relevant authority over such titles and styles, presumably within the College of Arms, with Her Majesty the ultimate authority of course. This particular strange case reveals a lot about how these titles are given and taken away. --Lockley (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it cannot really be "novel with a history", can it? :) I do not see evidence of significant coverage of the topic; the title of the duke's wife is never discussed independently from the dukedom itself. All three of your points apply to Duke of Sussex just as much, and there is no reason to duplicate the information when all of it concerns a single dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Despite WP:NINHERITED, this appears like an article consistent with other ones for British royalty titles (eg. Duchess of Cambridge) and I see no reason why this one would be any less notable than the others (and the points Lockley makes are also quite convincing): at the very least, nominator could have considered WP:ATD and could have suggested a redirect as this is a valid search term to its so far only holder. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course a redirect is a possibility. That is what this discussion is supposed to establish. Other stuff exists, such as Duchess of Cambridge article. Similarly to this article, that topic that does not need an article separate from Duke of Cambridge. There is no significant coverage of either title independently from the article about the dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 11:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as we've got Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of York etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I understand the nom, however, upon reading the article I found it informative regarding the history of the title and even the non-use of it is of note (and per the refs, it is chronicled in reliable sources). Can't see a reason not to keep what is a well written and informative article, and per others articles on other British titles such as Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Cornwall, and Duchess of York etc. Britishfinance (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how you could have drawn that conclusion from the references, Britishfinance; only one out of the 10 references mention the term "Duchess of Sussex" and even that one is in reference to Meghan Markle rather than the title itself. That none of the ten references contain anything about the title Duchess of Sussex says a lot about the notability of the topic. The same is true for the articles Duchess of Cambridge, Duchess of Cornwall, and Duchess of York; they too are original research compilations with no sources to demonstrate notability or, worse yet, verify the content. Besides, citing the existence of some other articles as reason to keep another article does not contribute anything to the discussion. As WP:WHATABOUTX says, "just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist". Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A google search of "Duchess of Sussex" "Lady Augusta Murray" or "Duchess of Sussex" "Cecilia Underwood", gives plenty of references (more in Google books) regarding the fact that these two women did not become a formal "Duchess of Sussex". A google search of "Who Was The Duchess Of Sussex Before Meghan Markle", gives more refs discussing the history of the title, such as here, here. I do think that this is of interest to readers and per NEXIST, there are plenty of references discussing the history of the title and why it was not used. I can't see the reason to delete or redirect this information (which so others have written about). Even Quora (not an RS) have: Who was the first Duchess of Sussex?. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not call 10 hits "plenty of references", especially when all of them repeat one fact alone: that the two women were not duchesses of Sussex. We can probably agree that a piece with the phrase "Shady As Heck" is not reliable (thus failing WP:GNG). Washington Post is impeccable but it does not discuss the title Duchess of Sussex; rather it is about the history of the dukedom. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-English sources are just as valid for demonstrating notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sooraj Surendran[edit]

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

Not notable enough. To sufficiently justify the claims made in the article, we would need sources that significantly cover his work from outside of India ... I can't find a single one. Indeed the sources provided seem marginal, at best. The article has been written by single-purpose accounts which make spammy edits like these ones to Nursing care bed and this one to Motorized wheelchair. Graham87 09:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His Contribution is getting more attention now a days, recently he developed an low cost smart electric wheelchair Electronic Control System for Motorized wheelchair.By this Huge difference in price will come to Motorized wheelchair and help disabled people. He is notable person and his contribution is valuable. His works are covered by all Medias in kerala.Even National Medias Indian Express also covered his work. People should know his work. Simple thing , am an person using an motorized wheelchair,his invention will help thousands of people like me and he is using his knowledge for social helping. Like me lot of people. BhaskerDeepak

One More Information i like to share is , He is working on an Electronic Controller Unit for Motorized Wheelchair , which will help Blind Old Age people for their movement and also developed an Electronic Control Unit for Seat Lifting mechanism for Motorized Wheelchair. His Social Contribution and contribution to disability Industry is more in Technological scale. He should be supported and given more chances. BhaskerDeepak —Preceding undated comment added 10:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not judge a subject's notability for an article on how worthy their cause is, but rather how often they are mentioned in reliable sources. A link to the Indian Express article would be nice, but unnless it is a substantial feature article with testimonials from international clients, I doubt it will count for much here. Graham87 11:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i Read his invention news in Indian Express and later read in almost all medias[ With in India], No body reported outside of india. Attached the indian express newspaper cutting even. Article came inthe Indian Express is not an feature report , it's explaining his invention details. A Person like him should be supported for his contributions to disability field by providing reference like wikipedia articles including his news citations. May be he can be an inspiration to upcoming generations who are planning to provide their technological contributions to disability field. Media news cited is stating that , he spend more than 3 years for understanding the customization requirements commonly coming in Motorized wheelchair and done these contributions. BhaskerDeepak

One more Point is He is from an Remote Village, his inventions contributes to disability field a lot. Almost all well known medias of that particular provinces reported the news as it is an major contribution from him. But an reliable sources still not reported his news is not his problem, we need to consider the reference news and support him like providing Articles like this. As an Contributor and an needy person , i felt the importance of his contribution. We need to support persons like him, after that only may be outside india somebody will report his news.BhaskerDeepak

You didn't attach anything, and that's not how Wikipedia works: this site does not make moral judgements in cases like this about who gets articles. Graham87 11:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

. This is the attachment , i attached in the article page for his Indian Express News reference. Please have an look. Please read other news citation also , almost 10 reference citations is there. He is an indian upcoming Electronics Engineer , may be he will honored for his current invention after this crisis.BhaskerDeepak

I've checked out the article using optical character recognition software, since I am blind and use a screen reader. It does not really satisfy the requirements here, because it seems to take his word (or the word of his press agency) about the uniqueness of the product as gospel, so it is not really an objective article. Unfortunately I have had to nominate File:News Sooraj.jpg for speedy deletion, now that I know it exists, because you almost definitely do not have the right to release a random newspaper article under a Creative Commons license, unless you happen to be the newspaper publisher. I also nominated file:Sooraj Surendran1.jpg for deletion while I was there, because it is badly sourced, and if it wasn't taken by the uploader it was almost certainly a copyright violation as well. Graham87 15:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person is not notable. The work done by Sooraj Surendran is not notable either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishkafle (talk • contribs) 14:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:GNG does not specify that the subject needs international coverage. To me, the sourcing in the article is sufficient to prove notability. Mbdfar (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Mbdfar says, the nominator's request for a "feature article with testimonials from international clients" is not required. I don't know why we would need coverage from outside of the subject's home country; that's not part of the standards. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mbdfar and Toughpigs: I normally wouldn't be so strong about insistance on international coverage, except that the subject of this article works in a very niche area in disability that is almost guaranteed to get (relatively non-objective) feel-good coverage if the media finds out about it. I feel like, if he really was notable enough for Wikipedia, I'd be able to find materials from, say, international charities that discuss his work. I'm not specifically picking on India here ... I'd hold coverage restricted to any country to this standard ... even the US, the most populous developed country. I'm going to notify WikiProject Disability about this discussion; I thought this would happen automatically, but it seems not to have. Graham87 04:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the other thing that concerns me about this article ... at the moment the only way to stop it from being perpetually orphaned is to unduly promote his products in other Wikipedia articles. There is no objective coverage that says he has yet pioneered or revolutionised anything, so this would be undue weight. Graham87 04:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge: Ostrich Mobility seem more notable than Surendran, they can be bought internationally, were used in a recent film, and 2,000 were provided to the local region (which also has a WP page). I think the page should be renamed to Ostrich Mobility which has more sources, and his work can be moved to a heading under there. While he seems an interesting designer or is not clear how much contribution he individually is making compared to Ostrich Mobility. He doesn't yet meet the WP:Academic requirements but there are clear, independent notable sources regarding the impact of the products. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:the sourcing in the article is sufficient to prove his notability, his contribution is noted and bought by sources.-NeethuRafale (talk) 06:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's difficult to to decide this AFD because so much of the article relies on non-English sources. WikiProject India might be able to assist evaluating those sources. The few sources in English are not convincing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As Mbdfar says, Sourcing seems sufficient for proving Notability. Moreover interesting work.-KocheAjay (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is difficult to establish that Surdendran or his inventions are notable from the content contained within the article. Perhaps this would be better located on the Indian version of wikipedia. While international coverage isn't required to be on the English language wiki, I have some doubts per WP:BIO. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 12:38, 30 June 2020 (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 Cthulhu Mythos deities. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lumley deities[edit]

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

There is no evidence that this article's subject is notable. Honestly, I have no idea why this is a "controversial" deletion. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss this group of fictional deities as a collective. Furthermore, all of the provided sources are primary. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete'. The topic clearly fails NFICTION. This was deprodded because some people abuse the PROD system and force us to waste our time here; the only controversy is related to why they have not been banned from the process (WP:POINT, etc.) yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please stop the personal attacks on the deprodder. It is unnecessary and does nothing towards making the case for deletion. If it continues I will do a proceduaral close of this AfD to put a stop to it. You may not agree with Andrew's opinions on what is, and is not notable, but he is entitled to them. As it happens, I was looking at the same time at a sister prod, Ramsey Campbell deities. I found some discussion of Campbell's creation of new creatures in the Cthulu Mythos, but not quite enough to tempt me to deprod. I haven't looked at this one (at least not yet), but assuming there is a similar amount of material, there is at least an arguable case for it, so deprodding is hardly an abuse of the process. SpinningSpark 10:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This topic does not seem notable enough (as a WP:GNG fail) to warrant an article. Also note that fictional entities are also suggested to follow the GNG guideline.

I do agree that an AfD is a better option for this article's deletion than a PROD, and any potential attacks towards any other contributors involved should stop. I do not recommend a procedural close for this AfD as long as editors are willing to focus on the content and not on the contributor. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 12:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Hold This list ties into List of Great Old Ones, a higher-ranking topic which is also currently under discussion. I ask to hold off a decision here, until one is reached about the List of Great Old Ones, and treat it as a subtopic of List of Great Old Ones/Cthulhu Mythos deities. Daranios (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why? We could just remove the links. If no secondary sources exist, then there is nothing to preserve. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this position is not in keeping with Wikipedia policy. Obviously this article is lacking in secondary sources, but what would an article about a fictional subject be without plot-summary, which is naturally based on primary sources? - That's to preserve. E.g. WP:NOT says summarys should be contained (only they should not stand alone); Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction lists as elements based on primary sources which are fine to include "background information on fictional creatures"; and WP:PRESERVE: Instead of removing content, consider ... merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article; all that under the premise that the parent topic is fine to include as in WP:LISTN, which is under discussion. Daranios (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Light Merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities - The topic as a whole, that is the list of deities created by Brian Lumley, does not have significant coverage that would pass either the WP:GNG as an article, nor WP:LISTN as a list. The individual entities are already covered at the main Cthulhu Mythos deities article, as well, making this an unneeded WP:CFORK. The parent article already includes both the real world information presented here (the stories that they first appeared in) as well as their fictional history, and as the vast majority of the information here is not cited to any sources, reliable or not, there is no content needed to Merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update - As pointed out below, the little bits of real world information on the stories that these characters originated from are missing from the main list, so it would probably be fine to merge that. I have revised my recommendation accordingly. Rorshacma (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could see, the stories these deities appeared in are missing in Cthulhu Mythos deities except for one! If I missed them please let me know. As another piece of real-world information missing in Cthulhu Mythos deities, the attribution ot Brian Lumley is present only for a minority. So there is real-world content to preserve! I can't see how deletion would be better for Wikipedia than a merge. Daranios (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple of them that are included, as information in a footnote instead of the text of the article, but yes, you are correct, it looks like I was mistaken and most of them are missing that information. Rorshacma (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: none of these have achieved any third party coverage, the way we've seen for some of H. P. Lovecraft's creations. There is some passing mention of one of the deities, but not enough to establish notability of that deity, let alone the whole list. (You'd be better off trying to expand an article about that deity than trying to WP:COATRACK all of them onto one's notability.) But if it would produce a compromise, it's possible that the one deity mentioned briefly in independent sources would be appropriate to clean up and merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Most of these deities appear in the Enciclopedia de los Mitos de Cthulhu. Playing with Power talks about these deities as a group, but only as one example among several for how these "Lovecraft circle" deities affected and were affected by role-playing games. That together may be too little to keep the list as it is now, but the statement that there is basically no third party coverage and therefore deletion would be preferable to even a merge - even though everything points toward the parent topic being notable - is incorrect. Daranios (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federation Mapper[edit]

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

A YouTube channel with 3.5k subscribers, no sources in the article, no independent-reliable sources (in fact none at all) available online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Bingobro (Chat) 08:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 08:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bingobro (Chat) 08:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable video channel with no reliable independent in-depth sources for WP:GNG. A quick search doesn't bring up any results. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG, the articles seems like a promotional article written to promote and advertise the subject. I even wonder how it got here instead of being speedily deleted. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. A non-notable YouTube mapping channel. I've seen dozens of more """notable""" channels in the same category as this one, and I suspect that the page was created either by the owner of the channel themselves or a friend or diehard fan of theirs. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 21:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the channel. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above, a non-notable YouTube channel which should been tagged for A7 instead of bringing here. Antila ✉ 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - CSD:A7. Not a skerrick of notability, nor a reasonable claim to such. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Eickert[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not sufficient to show the subject actually meets the notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (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. I'm channeling psychic energy to uncreate this article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Circle of Fellowship[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one source is not enough to ever pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One source, (awfully poor), on a posty who was able to re-create himself using physchic energy several times? No. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:10, 27 June 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudify[edit]

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

Misuse of Wikipedia. Paid writing. Press coverage and influential marketing based media coverage to justify article references. clearly non-notable. Light2021 (talk) 06:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for paid promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This reads like the text from a PowerPoint presentation. doktorb _words^deeds 18:20, 25 June 2020 (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. Black Kite (talk) 08:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unaussprechlichen Kulten[edit]

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

What makes this fictional book notable? I can't find any in-depth discussion of it that is not WP:PLOT. At best I think we can redirect this to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos, since there is really no content to merge outside a sentence about the origins of the title (and the Book of Eibon seems to a primary source too...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Discovering H. P. Lovecraft says that it's "Howard's greatest addition to the Mythos". The nomination is proposing merger not deletion and so is more time-wasting contrary to WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos#Unaussprechlichen Kulten, disregarding the rambling and inaccurate comment made above, this fails GNG. Per nom, the sources that are not in-universe are passing mentions, and a literal dictionary entry unrelated to the topic. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos#Unaussprechlichen Kulten, where it is already covered. There is nothing to merge, as the only inline citations are from a collection of short stories, and a literal dictionary definition. There are plenty of trivial mentions of the book, but any actual out-of-universe discussion on it are very brief. Even the source that Andrew mentions above only has a couple of sentences that actually discuss the book outside of an in-universe description of it. Rorshacma (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussed at length in the books Encyclopedia of the Undead and Discovering H. P. Lovecraft. Numerous other books contain more than a passing mention. A fictional element that not only appears in numerous Lovecraft stories, but has been picked up by multiple authors is notable. SpinningSpark 23:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PLOT summary is not a "discussion at length". The second source contains only the sentence cited by Andrew above, and then launches into a plot summary. The first source gives us a sentence about involvement of two other people in this creation, one who might have suggested it to Lovercraft in a letter, and another who might have translated the title. Hardly an in-depth discussion (the entire paragraph about this book is five sentences; half of which is PLOT; as I said, there is not enough content anywhere about this book to even de-stub it, unless we found plot, and even that is rather short). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a grotesque misrepresentation of what is in the sources. Discovering H.P. Lovecraft has much more that the sentence quoted by Andrew. Yes, it does have some in-universe description, but after that, a new paragragh goes into a discussion of the title, the people involved in creating it, and its German grammar. Five other names besides Lovecraft are involved in this, three of which have Wikipedia articles. The next paragraph moves on to a story by Robert Bloch (not one of the five above) and an out-of-universe discussion of von Juntz, the fictional author, and a comparison between Lovecraft's, Howard's and Bloch's representation of him. That paragraph spills over on to the next page which gbooks won't show, but it clearly continues as an out-of-universe discussion of the same topic.

Encyclopedia of the Undead has more than you claim for almost exactly the same reasons; after a brief in-universe description, it returns to an out-of-universe discussion. Your claim that it is only five sentences is demonstrably and countably wrong. True, there are only five full stops, but a sixth sentence spills over, just like the first source, on to a page that gbooks won't serve. So clearly both books have more information that we haven't yet read. I also find your repeated use of "might" to denigrate the sources distateful. There is no doubt that Lovecraft meant the book to be synonymous with Howard's Nameless Cults. The source does not doubt this, it only questions whether it is an entirely fictional invention of Howard, or if Howard based the idea on a real book. SpinningSpark 13:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about page 429 of The Encyclopedia of the Undead? That is actually viewable for me in the preview when I click on your link. The remainder of the text of it reads as "...to be desired (the name literally means Unpronounceable Cults. Lovecraft, however, liked the idea and gave it at least three editions - Dusseldorf (1839), Bridewell, and a heavily expurgated version published by the Golden Goblin Press in 1909". So, it just finishes the sentence on its name, and then has one additional sentence on its fictional history. Rorshacma (talk) 15:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, I don't see in-depth discussion here, half-focused on plot, 2-3 sentences we can rescue are not in-depth. This article is destined to be an eternak stub (outside a fancruft plot summary); all we can really say is that this book was created by Howard, then reused by Lovercarft, and that they played a bit with German grammar or such. That's a sentence, maybe two, of non-plot content if we are generous. How can anyone think this deserves a separate article is beyond me (per Wikipedia:One sentence does not an article make). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and Spinningspark. The topic is notable within several overall Wikipedia collections, including Robert E. Howard and the Cthulhu Mythos. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- In-universe notability is not a valid criterion for Wikipedia, per WP:NFICTION. We require evidence that the work has been subject to in-depth treatment outside primary plot sources. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:09, 20 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos § Unaussprechlichen Kulten The provided sources are not in-depth analyses of this topic. Instead, most of them are either primary sources or in-universe descriptions. Even the Lovecraft Annual has nothing useful. Honestly, for the purposes of this discussion, it does not matter if those two pages have any usable content. Significant coverage in one source is not enough to demonstrate notability. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Sourcing is sufficient. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, in universe sources without independent commentary do not count towards notability, also per Susmuffin. b uidhe 03:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources currently in the article provide real-world, non-plot-related information. — Toughpigs (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suprisingly well done article that doesn't just recapitulate Books in the Cthulhu Mythos#Unaussprechlichen Kulten. If not kept it should be condensed and merged rather than a straight redirect. Artw (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Books in the Cthulhu Mythos § Unaussprechlichen Kulten as per prior rationale.GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvaine Strike[edit]

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

A clear violation of WP:PROMO and no claim of notability established. AshMusique (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is time that we deleted every single article that is sourced only to IMDb. We would not tolerate so many articles sourced only to a reliable source, to tolerate so many sourced only to one particular unreliable source undermines the overall reliability of Wikipedia. This travesty needs to end immediately.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that such an undersourced article has existed for 14 years shows that Wikipedia needs much better safegaurds against abuse of the system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and John Pack Lambert. It’s a scandal that this has existed for 14 years - and even worse, that an editor with clear COI issues added blatant promo material 2 years ago unchallenged. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - changing my vote based on new sources however significant sections will need rewriting to fix ongoing COI issue. WP:TNT may be more productive. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a clear case of WP:BEFORE part c not being done. This article should've had an advert tag and should've been cleaned up in the 14 years it existed unsourced. I've began fixing it up with the sources I could easily find. Strike meets WP:DIRECTOR as (if you bother to google her) she is often cited by peers (ie. actors/directors in South Africa) as an inspiration (crit. 1). She has one of France's highest awards/recognitions for creatives (Ordre des Arts et des Lettres), so meets WP:ANYBIO crit. 1. Is the article in bad shape? Yes. Is that a reason for deletion? No. Do sources exist about Strike? Yes. Many of them. WP:DINC - Samsmachado (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well referenced ... I don't see how this was nominated, and I'm perplexed at User:Johnpacklambert thinks this particular article is a travesty - once again raising concerns about their competency to participate in AFD discussions. Can you explain User:Johnpacklambert why there aren't any reliable sources for this subject? Nfitz (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article had no references when all !votes prior to mine were left. So while neither JPL nor Cardiffbear checked whether sources exist by doing a simple google search, I don't know that this was necessarily incompetence. Samsmachado (talk) 22:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was totally unsourced when I voted. And it’s still a disgrace that it’s taken 14 years to fix it. The COI issue is also still a problem. Nevertheless I have changed my vote to reflect the new sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the comment was solely related to this article, then no, I agree, that it's no necessarily incompetence - and it was only JPL I was expressing concern about. But there's a long history here. Nfitz (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article was sourced only to IMDb, which is not sourcing at all. The fact that anyone finds my objecting to articles only sourced to IMDb problematic is not a good sign for Wikipedia being strong on requiring reliable sources especially for biographies of living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert, would you like to change your !vote (as Cardiffbear88 did) in light of WP:NEXIST and changes made to the page? Or do you have new rationale for keeping your vote for delete? Samsmachado (talk) 13:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing now is adequate. I still hold to my view that we need to create a procedure that allows for a prod deletion against an article if it is only sourced to IMDb that can only be removed if a source other than IMDb is added to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Barbieri[edit]

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

The subject of this biography is a model and actress who seems primarily notable for having dated O.J. Simpson and testifying at his trial. I checked with the relevant Wikiproject to confirm that she does not appear to meet the SNG WP:NACTOR. That leaves her as a BLP1E for the Simpson case. So I propose merging any relevant content to O. J. Simpson murder case. JBL (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - WP:BLP1E. Not otherwise notable. --Jack Frost (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unremarkable career of very minor roles as an actress, none of which rise to the level of showing notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Figure is not notable as an actor. In relation to Simpson, BLP1E applies, and there can be mention of her in Simpson-related articles where applicable. However, a standalone article is not warranted. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Lotus Quickr[edit]

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

Though it is The 'IBM' product. I am suggesting merging entire Lotus software series into one article only. It is unnecessary to have multiple pages. it seems to write for mere promotional purposes by the style of writing to the content and references. It seems like we are copying website content to Wikipedia. Light2021 (talk) 06:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSOFT. Couldn't find any significant coverage. - Harsh 13:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Better to merge as suggested by Light2021. Ashishkafle (talk) 14:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was procedural close as the page in question is not in main article space. Use WP:MFD instead if you wish to pursue this further. (non-admin closure) --Finngall ^talk 15:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Machetazic/sandbox3[edit]

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

Clearly a Speedy Deletion material. Light2021 (talk) 06:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Koding[edit]

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

Clearly non notable. From the style of writing to references like Crunchbase, angel.co profile.. nothing but a SEO promoting article. Light2021 (talk) 06:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough. Ashishkafle (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fulcrum Digital[edit]

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

Fully promotional article written by a PR person. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A quasi-website article created and tended by a succession of WP:SPAs, setting out the company's wares in blitzes of buzzword bingo, uncited biographies of its executives, etc. Discounting fastest-grown and best-places to work listings and routine announcements, all of which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, searches are finding more announcement coverage about site openings, but not the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked through Google Search and Google News and didn't find anything that would qualify as WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Totally agree with the lack of notability. Ita also a great example of add copy. Where a bunch of meaningless buzzwords are used to make a topic seem notable and interesting when it totally isn't. Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator of this article did not make any useful efforts at establishing the notability of the organization. Looked through the sources but nothing reliable was found. Checked Google but nothing meaningful about the organization was found except some few press releases. Ugbedeg (talk) 10:44,25 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to The Man Who Lived Forever. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Hunger[edit]

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

Fails WP:AUTHOR. No reviews for only novel (also co-authored). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to R. DeWitt Miller and bold her there as target of redirect. PamD 10:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: have linked and expanded the unsourced last sentence which I'd previously overlooked. I think this gets her into notability. Imdb suggests there are other films too. PamD 10:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Commment~~ Redirect. I created the article very early in my time here and am not sure I'd bother now. There are indeed reviews of the novel, at least; see here. These might be no more than one-line comments of course. The later short stories were all sold to one editor, and led me to a bit of trivia which doesn't help notability but which I found interesting: her third story appears in the same magazine as Stephen King's first sale. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to redirect per Piotrus's note below, though I think it's borderline whether it meets WP:NBOOK -- the Dave Truesdale review is a fanzine and not a reliable source, and the other two might be trivial mentions. Until someone can check those reviews to see if they're non-trivial I think we should give the article the benefit of the doubt, so redirect for now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment have expanded the article with sourced info about two notable films based on her stories. PamD 10:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Despite the recent improvements, and curious trivia, Hunger's work doesn't reach notability. --Lockley (talk) 21:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Piotrus, thank you Piotrus. --Lockley (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject falls short of notability guidelines. Only trivial mentions in the sources provided. Ugbede (talk) 6:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ . The subject might make a good thesis topic for someone studying the early years of science fiction, but there are insufficient secondary sources currently available for a Wikipedia article. We have no biographical information and, for all we know, the name might have been a pseudonym. pburka (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Piotrus. pburka (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of actual notability as a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, just a reminder to the nominator and others looking at sci fi authors/works, a great resource to look is the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, so we find that Hunger's book The Man Who Lived Foreve is wikinotable enough for an article as it has multiple reviews; in The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction, Astounding Science Fiction, and by Dave Truesdale see here, so its not the case of "no reviews". Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. She is mentioned in this list but I think such a mention is not sufficient by itself, and I am afraid the subject fails WP:NAUTHOR, and I am not seeing any other sources to expand this. But based on the source linked by Coolabahapple I've stubbed The Man Who Lived Forever so now there is a valid redirect target. Ping other participants so they can reconsider their vote: @Clarityfiend, PamD, Mike Christie, Lockley, Ugbede, Pburka, and Johnpacklambert: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, your pings did not work; you have to sign in the same edit that you add the pings. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Ok, I'll try again: @Clarityfiend, PamD, Mike Christie, Lockley, Ugbede, Pburka, and Johnpacklambert: --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/ea.cgi?2650 More texts than in the article.Xx236 (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha7[edit]

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

Clearly non notable. Seems like written by some company people only to promote the company. This is just to promote for SEO/ digital marketing purposes. Light2021 (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2020 (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. under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LeanIX[edit]

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

Clearly non notable. Seems like written by some company people only to promote the company. Light2021 (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per G11 The concerns of nom are accurate and this shouldn't have required an AfD. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Powa Technologies[edit]

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

This article including all the companies which is not even functional or being merged into one another. this is classic example of blatant misuse of wikipedia being used for promoting one self and his own companies. This article has misused all the parameters from using Press coverage, non-notable media mentioned to the editing by none other than paid editor on wikipedia. I am nominating all of his companies on the ground of misuse of wikipedia for promoting personally. Light2021 (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Wilson, Jay D., Jr. (2017). Creating Strategic Value through Financial Technology. Hoboken, New Jerseye: Wiley. pp. 248–249. ISBN 978-1-119-24375-5. Retrieved 2020-06-21.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Fletcher, Nick (2016-04-18). "Dan Wagner and the fall of 'unicorn' startup Powa Technologies". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Cellan-Jones, Rory (2016-03-21). "Powa: The start-up that fell to earth". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Woo, Stu (2016-10-31). "U.K. Startup Powa's Failure Sparks Cross-Atlantic Spat". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-05-05. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Bounds, Andrew (2012-10-24). "Lone ranger with a mass target - Entre". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Titcomb, James (2014-06-12). "Powa Technologies valued at £1.6bn after acquisition". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Burn-Callander, Rebecca (2014-01-29). "Dan Wagner: PowaTag will be 'the first British true internet sensation'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Strauss, Karsten (2013-09-13). "The Secret Technology That Attracted $76 Million And Could Eat Amazon's Lunch". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2013-12-31. Retrieved 2020-06-21.

Sources with quotes
Wilson, Jay D., Jr. (2017). Creating Strategic Value through Financial Technology. Hoboken, New Jerseye: Wiley. pp. 248–249. ISBN 978-1-119-24375-5. Retrieved 2020-06-21.`((cite book))`: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) The book notes: Powa Technologies Case Study In February 2016, British FinTech startup Powa Technologies went into receivership at the hands of Deloitte, signaling the collapse and failure of a once-promising startup. While tech (and even FinTech) startups fail on a regular basis, Powa was unique in that it represented a FinTech unicorn. It had risen to prominence and successfully acquired other FinTech companies while raising approximately $175 million in funds. For additional perspective on the hype surrounding Powa prior to its failure, British PM David Cameron had lauded Powa as a potential lightning rod for the UK's recovering post-recession economy. ... Powa's story serves as a cautionary tale to FinTech startups and includes many valuable warnings of exactly what not to do when trying to raise capital, develop products, and grow your FinTech startup. We attempt to shed light on the collapse and also provide key takeaways to help prevent a repeat in other FinTech companies. Several of the more glaring issues that led to Powa's failure appear to be a complicated and tension-filled management structure, too much funding, too high of a burn rate, and a bad product. However, before we delve into these specific problems, let's begin with a brief historical overview of the rise and fall of Powa.</blockquotee> Fletcher, Nick (2016-04-18). "Dan Wagner and the fall of 'unicorn' startup Powa Technologies". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: Founded by the flamboyant Wagner in 2007, Powa was developing a product called PowaTag, which would allow consumers to scan an item or advert with their smartphone and see details or buy the product immediately. It was billed as the Shazam of shopping; Powa also built retail websites and made tills and card-reading technology. Wagner said in 2014 that Powa was worth $2.7bn and the company claimed that 1,200 businesses had signed up for PowaTag, although it was later reported that many of these were non-binding letters of intent. But it all came crashing down two months ago, when US-based investment group Wellington Management, which had put up £137m in loans and equity starting in 2013 and was Powa’s biggest investor, called in £42m of loans that were due for repayment in December. Cellan-Jones, Rory (2016-03-21). "Powa: The start-up that fell to earth". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: But last month Powa Technologies collapsed into administration - and it rapidly became clear that it was more akin to a lame old donkey than a unicorn. Its demise has raised questions about the health of London's much vaunted fintech (financial technology) sector, and about the wisdom of sky-high valuations for unproven businesses. In recent weeks, I've spoken to a number of people connected to the mobile ecommerce company in an attempt to work out what went wrong. What those people have told me is that Powa was an almost textbook case of how not to run a company - no clear strategy, directionless management, overblown claims about the technology and a reckless attitude to money. Woo, Stu (2016-10-31). "U.K. Startup Powa's Failure Sparks Cross-Atlantic Spat". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-05-05. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: Powa signed partnerships with many banks, telecom firms and retailers in Europe, Asia and North America, but former employees said the deals had no or little upfront money and that Powa constantly missed product-delivery deadlines because they spread their resources too thin. ... A report released in April by Deloitte, which helped lead the administration, showed that Powa’s main company made £4.8 million ($5.9 million) in revenue in 2015. Its staffing costs were £24.8 million and its real-estate costs were £2.3 million that year. Bounds, Andrew (2012-10-24). "Lone ranger with a mass target - Entre". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: Powa Technologies, one of the smooth-talking Londoner's companies, has developed a mobile payments system similar to Mr Dorsey's Square, the dongle that turns mobile devices into payment card readers. He even used the same stock shot as Square to promote it, which earnt him a "cease and desist" letter from the US company's lawyers in July. ... Powa's newest product, mPowa, will im-prove current payment systems, he says. Far smaller than the bulky payment terminals currently used in restaurants, for instance, its card chip reader connects via Bluetooth to the merchant's mobile and sends a receipt by text message or email to the cardholder. It levies a 0.25 per cent fee per transaction on top of what the card services provider charges, usually about 2.5 per cent. Titcomb, James (2014-06-12). "Powa Technologies valued at £1.6bn after acquisition". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: The mobile payments company Powa Technologies has acquired a Hong-Kong rival in a deal that it says puts a $2.7bn (£1.6bn) valuation on the British startup. ... Major retailers including Argos, JD Sports and Laura Ashley have signed up to use Powa’s technology, which allows shoppers to bypass tasks such as entering card and address details when making purchases. The company’s technology, PowaTag, scans a code placed on a website, shop window or advert that directs consumers to the checkout on their smartphone. Burn-Callander, Rebecca (2014-01-29). "Dan Wagner: PowaTag will be 'the first British true internet sensation'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: Powa Technologies has developed a payment technology, PowaTag, that will allow consumers to buy a product simply by taking a picture on a smartphone. ... In order to ensure a monopoly in the marketplace, Mr Wagner has spent the last year building partnerships with retailers, merchants and brands. According to Forbes Magazine, Harper Collins, Hoover and Lavazza, have already signed up. Mr Wagner refused to name names. “I can tell you but I won’t,” he laughed. Strauss, Karsten (2013-09-13). "The Secret Technology That Attracted $76 Million And Could Eat Amazon's Lunch". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2013-12-31. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: When UK-based POWA Technologies managed to raise $76 million in a series A last month it turned a few heads. Why? Because it’s not every day that a British tech firm – or any tech firm raising capital for the first time – attracts such a large sum, and from a single American financier, no less. ... In other words, PowaTag will be eating Amazon’s lunch, as well as that of any number of low-price online retailers. All manufacturers will have to do, it would seem, is lower their prices to match those of their competition. ... Part of Powa’s $76 million will go to building a supporting infrastructure for PowaTag. Additionally, the company will be hiring “hundreds” of sales personnel in the next year and they will not all be focusing on PowaTag. By licensing its already released Powa ecommerce platform to retailers, it hopes to change the in-store buying experience by offering the personalized touches associated with online shopping, i.e. remembering your likes, dislikes and customer profile. Self check-out, Wagner said, is also part of the package. “There’s a demand from the retailers to change the physical experience and you’ve seen elements of that in the Apple AAPL +1.07% store.”

Sources with quotes

Wilson, Jay D., Jr. (2017). Creating Strategic Value through Financial Technology. Hoboken, New Jerseye: Wiley. pp. 248–249. ISBN 978-1-119-24375-5. Retrieved 2020-06-21.((cite book)): CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The book notes:
Powa Technologies Case Study

In February 2016, British FinTech startup Powa Technologies went into receivership at the hands of Deloitte, signaling the collapse and failure of a once-promising startup. While tech (and even FinTech) startups fail on a regular basis, Powa was unique in that it represented a FinTech unicorn. It had risen to prominence and successfully acquired other FinTech companies while raising approximately $175 million in funds. For additional perspective on the hype surrounding Powa prior to its failure, British PM David Cameron had lauded Powa as a potential lightning rod for the UK's recovering post-recession economy.
...
Powa's story serves as a cautionary tale to FinTech startups and includes many valuable warnings of exactly what not to do when trying to raise capital, develop products, and grow your FinTech startup. We attempt to shed light on the collapse and also provide key takeaways to help prevent a repeat in other FinTech companies. Several of the more glaring issues that led to Powa's failure appear to be a complicated and tension-filled management structure, too much funding, too high of a burn rate, and a bad product. However, before we delve into these specific problems, let's begin with a brief historical overview of the rise and fall of Powa.</blockquotee>
Fletcher, Nick (2016-04-18). "Dan Wagner and the fall of 'unicorn' startup Powa Technologies". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Founded by the flamboyant Wagner in 2007, Powa was developing a product called PowaTag, which would allow consumers to scan an item or advert with their smartphone and see details or buy the product immediately. It was billed as the Shazam of shopping; Powa also built retail websites and made tills and card-reading technology.
Wagner said in 2014 that Powa was worth $2.7bn and the company claimed that 1,200 businesses had signed up for PowaTag, although it was later reported that many of these were non-binding letters of intent.
But it all came crashing down two months ago, when US-based investment group Wellington Management, which had put up £137m in loans and equity starting in 2013 and was Powa’s biggest investor, called in £42m of loans that were due for repayment in December.
Cellan-Jones, Rory (2016-03-21). "Powa: The start-up that fell to earth". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
But last month Powa Technologies collapsed into administration - and it rapidly became clear that it was more akin to a lame old donkey than a unicorn. Its demise has raised questions about the health of London's much vaunted fintech (financial technology) sector, and about the wisdom of sky-high valuations for unproven businesses.
In recent weeks, I've spoken to a number of people connected to the mobile ecommerce company in an attempt to work out what went wrong.
What those people have told me is that Powa was an almost textbook case of how not to run a company - no clear strategy, directionless management, overblown claims about the technology and a reckless attitude to money.
Woo, Stu (2016-10-31). "U.K. Startup Powa's Failure Sparks Cross-Atlantic Spat". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2017-05-05. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Powa signed partnerships with many banks, telecom firms and retailers in Europe, Asia and North America, but former employees said the deals had no or little upfront money and that Powa constantly missed product-delivery deadlines because they spread their resources too thin.
...
A report released in April by Deloitte, which helped lead the administration, showed that Powa’s main company made £4.8 million ($5.9 million) in revenue in 2015. Its staffing costs were £24.8 million and its real-estate costs were £2.3 million that year.
Bounds, Andrew (2012-10-24). "Lone ranger with a mass target - Entre". Financial Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Powa Technologies, one of the smooth-talking Londoner's companies, has developed a mobile payments system similar to Mr Dorsey's Square, the dongle that turns mobile devices into payment card readers. He even used the same stock shot as Square to promote it, which earnt him a "cease and desist" letter from the US company's lawyers in July.
...
Powa's newest product, mPowa, will im-prove current payment systems, he says. Far smaller than the bulky payment terminals currently used in restaurants, for instance, its card chip reader connects via Bluetooth to the merchant's mobile and sends a receipt by text message or email to the cardholder. It levies a 0.25 per cent fee per transaction on top of what the card services provider charges, usually about 2.5 per cent.
Titcomb, James (2014-06-12). "Powa Technologies valued at £1.6bn after acquisition". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
The mobile payments company Powa Technologies has acquired a Hong-Kong rival in a deal that it says puts a $2.7bn (£1.6bn) valuation on the British startup.
...
Major retailers including Argos, JD Sports and Laura Ashley have signed up to use Powa’s technology, which allows shoppers to bypass tasks such as entering card and address details when making purchases. The company’s technology, PowaTag, scans a code placed on a website, shop window or advert that directs consumers to the checkout on their smartphone.
Burn-Callander, Rebecca (2014-01-29). "Dan Wagner: PowaTag will be 'the first British true internet sensation'". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Powa Technologies has developed a payment technology, PowaTag, that will allow consumers to buy a product simply by taking a picture on a smartphone.
...
In order to ensure a monopoly in the marketplace, Mr Wagner has spent the last year building partnerships with retailers, merchants and brands. According to Forbes Magazine, Harper Collins, Hoover and Lavazza, have already signed up. Mr Wagner refused to name names. “I can tell you but I won’t,” he laughed.
Strauss, Karsten (2013-09-13). "The Secret Technology That Attracted $76 Million And Could Eat Amazon's Lunch". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2013-12-31. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
When UK-based POWA Technologies managed to raise $76 million in a series A last month it turned a few heads. Why? Because it’s not every day that a British tech firm – or any tech firm raising capital for the first time – attracts such a large sum, and from a single American financier, no less.
...
In other words, PowaTag will be eating Amazon’s lunch, as well as that of any number of low-price online retailers. All manufacturers will have to do, it would seem, is lower their prices to match those of their competition.
...
Part of Powa’s $76 million will go to building a supporting infrastructure for PowaTag. Additionally, the company will be hiring “hundreds” of sales personnel in the next year and they will not all be focusing on PowaTag. By licensing its already released Powa ecommerce platform to retailers, it hopes to change the in-store buying experience by offering the personalized touches associated with online shopping, i.e. remembering your likes, dislikes and customer profile. Self check-out, Wagner said, is also part of the package. “There’s a demand from the retailers to change the physical experience and you’ve seen elements of that in the Apple AAPL +1.07% store.”

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Powa Technologies to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains negative material about Powa Technologies' collapse:
After the collapse of the business a series of articles by the Financial Times called into question several of the claims that had previously been made. Powa's self-proclaimed 2014 valuation of $2.6 billion was investigated and it was concluded that $106 million (£75 million) was a more accurate figure.[18] The claimed "10-year strategic alliance with ‘limitless’ potential” deal with China UnionPay that Dan Wagner personally described in a quote to the BBC as “Why did China UnionPay decide to partner with a little British technology company? We’ve trumped ApplePay and the rest of the world here.” was found to be unknown to China UnionPay who had their lawyers request that Powa stop making the false claims[19] and the majority of the partners upon which the investment and consequent valuation had been based, were found to be just Letters of Intent at best.[20]
The article contains other negative material:
As of early 2016, the company had run into financial difficulties, missing payments to staff and third parties.[10] Its Hong Kong office had failed to pay its employees wages on time and to its ex-employees within 7 days, with some of the employees having to seek help from the Labor Department.
I do not consider the article to be promotional.
Cunard (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious if you have read all those articles yourself or just made a copy-paste job here and taken entire space for this discussion. If you will read all those media coverage, it is merely Press coverage or typical marketing of any company. secondly this article is written by the company itself. Light2021 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see you are back after a block and long hiatus to bludgeon the Wikipedia process yet again (more on that in another forum). I am curious how this company would want this "Press coverage" and how they would have even requested it after the company had already gone belly up. There are more than enough references to meet WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Don't get personal. Keep it simple and to the point about your opinions. I have read the article and wikipedia is not for writing failure or news story of a fraud or scam. secondly I studied about the founder, he has been using press and media to use as marketing tool and all of his company including his own biography including the Photograph (which is a real non-sense for any notable person, I am happy he did not put his facebook profile pic). Tell me why this is wikipedia worthy to keep? and how it is an encyclopedic worthy by any means possible. and I will change my deletion stand immediately. Light2021 (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not personal. Its about your editor conduct. I highly doubt you will adhere to your promise, but there is no such thing as "wikipedia worthy to keep" in any guideline I know of. An article is notable if it receives significant coverage in reliable sources. For companies such as this, it must have references meeting WP:ORGCRIT which is certainly does as shown above. To say that these are all PR articles because of the founder's behavior is a fallacy as one isn't associated with the other. Can you tell my how the BBC article I showed you above is PR? --CNMall41 (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wagner[edit]

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

This article including all the companies which is not even functional or being merged into one another. this is classic example of blatant misuse of wikipedia being used for promoting one self and his own companies. This article has misused all the parameters from using Press coverage, non-notable media mentioned to the editing by none other than paid editor on wikipedia. I am nominating all of his companies on the ground of misuse of wikipedia for promoting personally. Light2021 (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep It is a BLP article for a notable British serial entrepreneur. He created a early version of an online portal in 1984, which was the earliest in the UK. It wasn't thee earliest, but it was certainly very early and it makes him notable. He is very well known, and a surfeit of coverage. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Light2021, the format of the article is the standard way of doing BLP's of business people who have started or run a series of companies. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As stated above, the person is a well-known and notable British entrepreneur. I am curious if you actually did a WP:BEFORE or nominated along with the dozens of others?
Speedy keep. The subject meets WP:BLP and WP:GNG Ugbedeg (talk) 7:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

1. He floated his first company for £120m, aged 31. Now Powa CEO Dan Wagner says the UK doesn't get tech.

2. "Everything I have has got an A on the end," Wagner says. "I'm thinking of changing my name by deed poll to Dan Wagna." Now, even his City detractors must concede that's not such a bad joke.

3. Twitter? Seriously. “The system is unbelievable. It generates powerful rules combined with the flexibility and speed to make changes and test new approaches with immediate results. It’s a superior product representing great value for money.”

4. Dan Wagner: 'Maybe I'm not the best person to run a public company.'

On What level of articles are considered Press and Journalism? He is using media and press just to build his public images where most of the articles are published in online blogs without having any journalistic background.

He is rich, does it make him notable for wikipedia? Look at the profile pic, is it facebook? Wikipedia is not for writing Autobiographies, not for covering and rewriting media coverage for sure.

and most important part is - this article has been questioned for COI issues. it has been written by his press team which is violation of wiki norms. Light2021 (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Light2021: There was a lot of work done in 2017 and 2018 to clean up the article and remove the puff. It was decent and factual and consensus based. scope_creep^Talk 10:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reasons above. Article easily passes WP:BLP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 23:29, 24 June 2020 (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 clear, policy-based consensus. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Millie, New South Wales[edit]

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

Categorized as a "town" in New South Wales, but is very clearly not a whole town. The Australian Place Names gazetteer shows it as a locality, and this Australian tourism site mentions it as a crossroads, this book from 1889 calls it a "pastoral holding". There's a bunch of GBooks results where it appears in name only, basically listed as a placename with no elaboration. I think it's fairly clear that it doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND as either a legally recognized entity, or a notable non-recognized populated place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 28 people live there, according to the 2016 Australian census. Passes WP:GEOLAND. Needs improving. SportingFlyer T·C 06:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a defined locality, even if the current article is very poor.--Grahame (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
leaning keep This is a former town which for some reason the Australian census is keeping on the books. The census data actually covers a considerable area in which the point marked as Millie sits at one edge; three families totalling twenty-eight people is a group of farms, not a town, which is exactly what GMaps shows. The only decent historical evidence is the war memorial registry entry, which links to some articles from the 1900-1901 era which describe the erection of the memorial in terms which make clear that there used to be a town there, but there certainly is not one now. I'm having some trouble with the exact location of the memorial, as different sites give different coordinates, and the aerials aren't high enough resolution to locate it. My qualms about keeping this stem from the necessary synthesis in putting this all together: the census doesn't say explicitly what the area of Millie is supposed to be, and one can only tell the town is not there by looking. But 28 people is certainly not the population of a town named Millie, and besides the memorial, that's about all there is to work with. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the defined locality is Millie as shown by openstreetmap.--Grahame (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Permit me to clarify: what I cannot see from the census data is how they classify this area. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The census data is for exactly the same areas as shown on its map. Census data is now shown for state defined localities.--Grahame (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article will likely never progress beyond a stub but it is clearly a place. Cavalryman (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Defined locality. I can see old newspaper articles about it too. [21] ("We will now proceed to Millie, which consists of an hotel, and post and telegraph office, and a police station about three miles away...." and goes on to discuss all the local residents of the area in 1897); there are many newspaper mentions, e.g.,: [22] [23] [24]. It is hard to say Millie was ever a "town", but it was definitely a community name applied to the residents of its immediate area.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 11:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear pass of GEOLAND, as a community with a known population. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 07:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO as a populated, legally recognized place. ps. it is a parish, recorded by the ABS as a SSC (ie. state suburb). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the sources presented are insufficient to meet the bar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pez (artist)[edit]

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

Most, if not all, of this article's sources are WP:SPS, WP:Unreliable, or mention the subject only in passing. AviationFreak💬 21:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. AviationFreak💬 21:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepdent 3rd party secondary reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see discussion of Pez's work in these published sources:
- Philadelphia Murals and the Stories They Tell by Jane Golden, David M. Scobey, Robin Rice and Monica Yant Kinney, Temple University Press (2002), pp 37 & following
- Modern Spain by Enrique Ávila López, ABC-CLIO (2015) pp 284-285
- Stanford Alumni Magazine Vol 24 (1996), pp 16-17

I think this is enough to demonstrate notability. I'll add these to the article in a Further reading section, so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And doing that, I just noticed that there's already a link to a Time Magazine article from 2005, based on the book Street Art: The Spray Files by Louis Bou. It's clear that Pez has been a recognized figure in this field for years. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is very sparse. Yes, he got included in a couple books, but the coverage is quite trivial and that is about it in English. I've cleaned up the article by removing unsourced sections and informal-speaking style writing. What's left is not much, and the available sourcing is not going to support the small amount of text that is there now. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have taken out the Modern Spain listing in Further reading; it's clearly multiple pages on the subject (we can only see the first half-page in the snippet view). I don't think that you should take those out at all, really. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: my browser showed me the entire entry on page 284-285, which was two short sentences.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Sorry, that was the wrong one. The Philadelphia Murals link is the one I'm talking about, with more than a page of content, taken out of the article's further reading section. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: I don't care if you put it back in. It's not particularly helpful as it's a narrative passage told in second person about Pez vandalizing something. I took it out because do not usually link Google books entries in the further reading as they are snippet views and display differently for different readers.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, coverage is sparse and trivial. Not enough reliable third party coverage about him or his works. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 12:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikhil Utkal Adivasi Congress[edit]

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

Minor political party that contested one election. No indication of significance - borderline A7 IMO. No sources located to indicate any significance outside of that, and no native-language name to search. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'll try to beef up the article with some additional refs over the coming 48 hours. There isn't a lot of material (tribal politics in Orissa in 1950s isn't very well covered by online refs...). But in the meantime, the party was represented in national parliament per https://loksabha.nic.in/members/partyardetail.aspx?party_code=88&lsno=1 and thus passes WP:NPOL. --Soman (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL doesn't actually cover organizations, it covers people. There's nothing in there about automatic notability for political parties, which still have to hit NORG/GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the overwhelming consensus that parties represent in national parliaments and/or state legislatures are sufficiently notable? --Soman (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like most SNGs/deletion precedents, I think that's generally based on the assumption that topics which meet a certain threshold will have substantial sources about them. But of course that's not always the case. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since the party members who served in the national legislature are notable (and should have articles, but might not, we have atrociousy low coverage of all national legislatures outside the US, UK and maybe a few other European countries, horrible for most parts of Africa and Asia), then the organization would seem to meet default notability guidelines as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Red Sea Astrarium[edit]

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

Possibly WP:CRYSTALBALL. Park still not opened as of 2020. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:33, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The announcement, development and failure of this park was covered by the press in some detail. When the article was nominated, it included some press release language and promises that the park would open circa 2017; I edited the article to put everything in past tense, and cut the more peacocky sentences. I added a couple of sources that discuss the struggles of the project from an outsider's point of view:
- "Jordan-Based RGH Entertainment Vows To Stay Open Amid L.A. Layoffs" by David Robb, Deadline (Feb 25, 2015)
- "Dreamscapes and Drug Towns: Jordan's Aqaba Is the Future of Segregation" by Ty Joplin, Albawaba (July 10, 2019)

Even failed projects can be notable, and this one speaks to economic changes in Jordan. I think that the sources demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:11, 21 June 2020 (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. I've taken the liberty of undisambiguating the author Stefan Klein. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Klein[edit]

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

Non notable narcissist. Yet another vanity autobiography from this individual. Was not notable as a musician as repeatedly deleted Død Beverte Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Død Beverte (2nd nomination). His "band" was not notable, the repeatedly deleted Dethcentrik (now salted), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dethcentrik (4th nomination). Now he is pretending to be notable as a storm chaser. Let's look at the sources supporting that laughable claim. 1. Viewer photos shown on a weather broadcast. 2. photo credit from wikicommons. 3. video credit. 4. no mention of him. 5. Quote from him. Nothing even coming remotely near notability. "He openly speaks out against weather and climate misconceptions". What a wank.
The rest of the article shows the truth, this is just a coatrack to try and use Wikipedia again as a venue to promote his "music". All that has repeatedly been found to be non notable. Nothing has changed since the last afd. Without the lastest vain claim of notability in another area this would be a textbook G4 speedy deletion.
Note that in another act of hubris the subject moved an article on an established author Stefan Klein (physicist) to put this garbage as the primary topic. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and salt if viable) - If this AfD ends up like the previous band-oriented AfDs linked by the nominator above, we're in for a real slog. From the previous AfDs it is quite obvious that this guy's two bands got some minor notice but not nearly enough to establish musical notability. As for his new "career" in storm chasing, he has received no significant media coverage for that either, and the portion of the article based on that endeavor desperately tries to refbomb the reader with sources that are actually about the weather systems that he observed. The good news is that he may be running out of names under which to promote himself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if/when this article is deleted, restore Stefan Klein (physicist) to its rightful namespace status. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom and the !vote above. XOR'easter (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable. We really need to going to making every article go through the Articles for creation process. Currently it is far too easy to create articles on Wikipedia, and relative to that far to difficult to get the articles deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet criteria for WP:CREATIVE, WP:NARTIST, WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Doomsdayer - Biography of an entirely non-notable subject whom seems desperate to have a biography listed on Wikipedia, despite the fact that WP:BAND, WP:NBIO, and WP:GNG are nowhere near being met. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Good grief. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2020 (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 snow keep. (non-admin closure) —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apple's transition to ARM processors[edit]

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

Straightforward WP:CRYSTAL - this has not happened, and is just speculation based on rumors. JimKaatFan (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep: I'm sure we can wait a couple of days before talking about it, especially given that if Apple announces something, there will probably be some more details to add. As it says, WP:CRYSTAL Guy Harris (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a couple of days have passed, and Apple's announced it. Now we can add facts rather than whatever speculation the "experts" were making. Guy Harris (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Citing WP:CRYSTAL as a reason to delete this article is absurd. The plain text of that policy clearly states:

All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. [...] Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included[...]

The fact that so much reportage, discussion, and expert analysis on this exact topic has been published in reliable and independent sources establishes both that the topic is verifiable and that there is significant coverage sufficient to establish the presumption of notability. The article is literally less than 24 hours old, and is readily acknowledged as a stub. The Wikipedia Way calls for preserving and building upon the newborn article, not smothering it in its crib. — Jaydiem (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah whatever. This is the article creator talking, so big surprise. It's a guy that wanted to be the one to create the article so he jumped the gun and created it before anything has actually happened. Notice his edit summary "Here we go!" like he's boarding a theme park ride or something. We could really do without this kind of editing on Wikipedia, but that's just my opinion. JimKaatFan (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[admin hat] The above editor/AFD-nominator has now been warned about this commenting-on-editor-rather-than-edits/content. DMacks (talk) 02:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The decision to move has been officially announced as of the morning of June 22, so CRYSTAL is no longer a valid rationale. The same article exists for Intel, and while this article requires cleanup, there is no reason to delete now. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 18:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's an official announcement now, and just as notable as the Intel transition. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's official and will impact customers and developers for years to come. Haseo9999 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as arguments for deletion are moribund now but I guess potentially warn article creator that we have WP:CRYSTAL for a reason and don't pull stunts like this in future-it can backfire. Blythwood (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The transition has now been officially announced and it's important to document these changes in an article. We have a page for the PowerPC-Intel transition, so it's only logical to have one for the ARM transition as well. Herbfur (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Given how Tim Cook has pretty much spilled the beans on the ARM transition period, I don't think this merits a deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This transition has been confirmed at WWDC 2020 Cooluncle55 (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. While the creation of the article jumped the gun, it's now confirmed to be happening and is likely to be as notable as Apple's transition to x86 processors. I see no reason to delete it. Sonictrey (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. It's now confirmed to be happening. There is a Apple's transition to Intel Processors page, so I do not see the reason for this transition. The rationale for deleting this post is no longer valid. Retroity (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2020 (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. Also noting that the editors appear to be a part of a sockfarm, and have been blocked. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tannerwell[edit]

All news Articles will be correctly cited in the next 24 hours so please don’t delete the page till then — Preceding unsigned comment added by RapCaviar (talk • contribs) 02:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bio of a non-notable musician. Previously speedily deleted (A7) as well as speedily deleted as a copyvio at DJ Tannerwell. There is no reliable sources covering this person. The four references consist of a web site that promotes music for artists that send in a song, a Facebook page, a ticket sales site, and a site which just copied the artist bio (perhaps from youtube bio) replete with bad caps. Whpq (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The original rationale does not apply to the article it its current state, and there seems to be sufficient consensus for a WP:HEY keep (since the only non keep !vote calls for a move to draft until the article is improved, which it was)... (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobleworks[edit]

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

Promotional page for non-notable company; the only independent source on the article is to an extremely marginal news website, and my searches indicate this is not an oversight. JBL (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Saitz, Greg (2007-12-20). "Hokey holidays: Hoboken company makes inappropriate cards for every appropriate occasion". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Nagy, Evie (2006-12-21). "Naughty or Nice? - Plenty To Choose from - Spicing up the holidays with cutting-edge cards". The Jersey Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Fung, Althea A. (2008-02-08). "Spreading love ... and the laughs". The Jersey Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Genovese, Peter (1992-12-24). "Yule cards you'll not soon forget". The Central New Jersey Home News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21 – via Newspapers.com.
Falvey, Diane (2015-04-29). "Laugh It Up! For 35 years, taking the "road less traveled" has paid off for Ron Kanfi and NobleWorks". Gifts & Dec. BridgeTower Media. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Donohue, Bill (2002-01-23). "Catholicism Trashed By Greeting Card Company". Catalyst. Catholic League. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
This article falls under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources.
Janssen, Kim (2013-05-05). "Islamic gag gifts called 'bigoted'". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.

Sources with quotes
Saitz, Greg (2007-12-20). "Hokey holidays: Hoboken company makes inappropriate cards for every appropriate occasion". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: At NobleWorks, a greeting card company in Hoboken, the staff measures its success by the flow of outraged complaint letters. ... Cards from NobleWorks skewer most ethnic, religious and alternative lifestyle groups, as well as some other species. The resulting letters come from all corners; the company has framed an open letter from the Catholic League that singles out NobleWorks as "arguably the worst offender" for greeting cards that obscenely portray Christmas. ...,p>A privately held company founded by Christopher Noble, who died in 2001, NobleWorks has branched out into posters, magnets and calendars. ... The company has secured a licensing deal with Elvis' estate, and cards featuring him will debut next year. Nagy, Evie (2006-12-21). "Naughty or Nice? - Plenty To Choose from - Spicing up the holidays with cutting-edge cards". The Jersey Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: A best-selling holiday card depicts a befuddled George W. Bush kneeling at the funeral of Pope John Paul II, who lies resplendent in crimson robes. "What happened to Santa?" the confused President asks. This card, along with more than 2,000 other designs, is the product of Hoboken greeting card company NobleWorks. With the tagline "the Humor Company," NobleWorks is dedicated to spreading joy with cutting-edge art and irreverent humor. Card messages range from political to plain silly, and designs are available for every occasion, including fictional holidays like Festivus, which the hit TV show "Seinfeld" made popular. NobleWorks was established 26 years ago by Christopher Noble and Jay Purvis. The company was started with a $400 loan from Noble's mother, and the first line of black-and-white graphic art cards were created and sold out of Noble's kitchen in Manhattan. Current president and creative director Ron Kanfi joined the company in 1983, and became a partner in 1987. He acquired the company when Noble passed away in 2002. Fung, Althea A. (2008-02-08). "Spreading love ... and the laughs". The Jersey Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: Hoboken-based greeting card company NobleWorks Inc. has been producing humor-driven greeting cards with outrageous tags like that for more than two decades. The company, run by Ron Kanfi, gives those with a raunchy and sarcastic sense of humor the opportunity to put to paper what's in their minds. Created in 1980 by Christopher Noble Peterson of Summit, NobleWorks began as a greeting card company that produced handmade cards. ... With cartoonists featured in The New Yorker, Penthouse and MAD Magazine, NobleWorks is able to produce specialized product lines, including a section totally devoted to Liberace and, soon to come, a line of Elvis Presley cards. Genovese, Peter (1992-12-24). "Yule cards you'll not soon forget". The Central New Jersey Home News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21 – via Newspapers.com. The article notes: Christmas cards, birthday cards, get-well cards — NobleWorks, the company Noble started in his apartment 10 years ago, has a slightly twisted card for every occasion. A NobleWorks Valentine's Day card: Wife rolls over in bed and reaches for something on the night table. ... The card has won a Louie, the greeting card industry's equivalent of an Oscar. NobleWorks has won four Louis, not bad for a company whose founder kicked around as a painter and magazine ad salesman before "hatching a plot" and forming his own company. ... The company's bestsellers are its astrology cards — each with a detailed horoscope and a list of celebrities born under the sign — and "talk-bubble" cards — photographs colorized and dialogue added, a la the speeding nuns. Falvey, Diane (2015-04-29). "Laugh It Up! For 35 years, taking the "road less traveled" has paid off for Ron Kanfi and NobleWorks". Gifts & Dec. BridgeTower Media. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: When Ron Kanfi came to the United States as a tourist and began working at an alternative greeting card company called NobleWorks, little did he know that in 2015, he’d be running the company and celebrating its 35th anniversary. ... At around the same time he joined the company, NobleWorks began to change its “attitude.” The company launched its first humorous greeting cards with its Ten Best Jokes collection. “They were more reader cards than greeting cards,” Kanfi said. Each card had a theme with 10 questions on the cover and 10 answers inside. The jokes covered a wide variety of topics, from cute to quite politically incorrect. “We did what we thought was cool and fun,” he noted. Donohue, Bill (2002-01-23). "Catholicism Trashed By Greeting Card Company". Catalyst. Catholic League. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. This article falls under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. The article notes: Every December we uncover greeting cards that obscenely portray Christmas. In this regard, NobleWorks, a greeting card company from Hoboken, New Jersey, is arguably the worst offender. NobleWorks has two categories of greeting cards: “nice” and “Extra” (which they call “naughty”). There are no cards in the latter category for Ramadan, Hanukkah or Kwanzaa. But there are more than a dozen tailored to Christian holidays. For example, the “Extra” selection has a Christmas card that comments on how someone exposed himself at a party. Another card has a picture of Our Blessed Mother holding baby Jesus with the inscription, “Losing those 15 pounds was sure to be a bitch.” And there is another one with the picture of an angel that remarks how she will still enjoy the holidays even though she is having her period. Janssen, Kim (2013-05-05). "Islamic gag gifts called 'bigoted'". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21. The article notes: A joke birthday card that depicts an Islamic girl doll as a suicide bomber who’ll “Blow Your Brains Out” drew criticism Satuday as “bigoted and moronic” from a leader of the Chicago area’s Muslim community. The card, which shows a picture of a “talking doll” wearing a hijab — the traditional head scarf worn by many observant Muslim women — has the words “She’ll Love You To Death” and “Pull string for message — if you dare!” printed on its front. ... The card, made by New Jersey-based Nobleworks, is a spoof of “Aamina, the Muslim Doll,” a toy designed to teach Muslim children basic Arabic phrases such as “Peace be unto you” and “If God wills it.”

Sources with quotes

Saitz, Greg (2007-12-20). "Hokey holidays: Hoboken company makes inappropriate cards for every appropriate occasion". The Star-Ledger. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
At NobleWorks, a greeting card company in Hoboken, the staff measures its success by the flow of outraged complaint letters.
...
Cards from NobleWorks skewer most ethnic, religious and alternative lifestyle groups, as well as some other species. The resulting letters come from all corners; the company has framed an open letter from the Catholic League that singles out NobleWorks as "arguably the worst offender" for greeting cards that obscenely portray Christmas.
...,p>A privately held company founded by Christopher Noble, who died in 2001, NobleWorks has branched out into posters, magnets and calendars.
...
The company has secured a licensing deal with Elvis' estate, and cards featuring him will debut next year.
Nagy, Evie (2006-12-21). "Naughty or Nice? - Plenty To Choose from - Spicing up the holidays with cutting-edge cards". The Jersey Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
A best-selling holiday card depicts a befuddled George W. Bush kneeling at the funeral of Pope John Paul II, who lies resplendent in crimson robes. "What happened to Santa?" the confused President asks.
This card, along with more than 2,000 other designs, is the product of Hoboken greeting card company NobleWorks. With the tagline "the Humor Company," NobleWorks is dedicated to spreading joy with cutting-edge art and irreverent humor. Card messages range from political to plain silly, and designs are available for every occasion, including fictional holidays like Festivus, which the hit TV show "Seinfeld" made popular.
NobleWorks was established 26 years ago by Christopher Noble and Jay Purvis. The company was started with a $400 loan from Noble's mother, and the first line of black-and-white graphic art cards were created and sold out of Noble's kitchen in Manhattan. Current president and creative director Ron Kanfi joined the company in 1983, and became a partner in 1987. He acquired the company when Noble passed away in 2002.
Fung, Althea A. (2008-02-08). "Spreading love ... and the laughs". The Jersey Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Hoboken-based greeting card company NobleWorks Inc. has been producing humor-driven greeting cards with outrageous tags like that for more than two decades.
The company, run by Ron Kanfi, gives those with a raunchy and sarcastic sense of humor the opportunity to put to paper what's in their minds.
Created in 1980 by Christopher Noble Peterson of Summit, NobleWorks began as a greeting card company that produced handmade cards.
...
With cartoonists featured in The New Yorker, Penthouse and MAD Magazine, NobleWorks is able to produce specialized product lines, including a section totally devoted to Liberace and, soon to come, a line of Elvis Presley cards.
Genovese, Peter (1992-12-24). "Yule cards you'll not soon forget". The Central New Jersey Home News. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Christmas cards, birthday cards, get-well cards — NobleWorks, the company Noble started in his apartment 10 years ago, has a slightly twisted card for every occasion. A NobleWorks Valentine's Day card: Wife rolls over in bed and reaches for something on the night table.
...
The card has won a Louie, the greeting card industry's equivalent of an Oscar. NobleWorks has won four Louis, not bad for a company whose founder kicked around as a painter and magazine ad salesman before "hatching a plot" and forming his own company.
...
The company's bestsellers are its astrology cards — each with a detailed horoscope and a list of celebrities born under the sign — and "talk-bubble" cards — photographs colorized and dialogue added, a la the speeding nuns.
Falvey, Diane (2015-04-29). "Laugh It Up! For 35 years, taking the "road less traveled" has paid off for Ron Kanfi and NobleWorks". Gifts & Dec. BridgeTower Media. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
When Ron Kanfi came to the United States as a tourist and began working at an alternative greeting card company called NobleWorks, little did he know that in 2015, he’d be running the company and celebrating its 35th anniversary.
...
At around the same time he joined the company, NobleWorks began to change its “attitude.” The company launched its first humorous greeting cards with its Ten Best Jokes collection. “They were more reader cards than greeting cards,” Kanfi said. Each card had a theme with 10 questions on the cover and 10 answers inside. The jokes covered a wide variety of topics, from cute to quite politically incorrect. “We did what we thought was cool and fun,” he noted.
Donohue, Bill (2002-01-23). "Catholicism Trashed By Greeting Card Company". Catalyst. Catholic League. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
This article falls under Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources.
The article notes:
Every December we uncover greeting cards that obscenely portray Christmas. In this regard, NobleWorks, a greeting card company from Hoboken, New Jersey, is arguably the worst offender.
NobleWorks has two categories of greeting cards: “nice” and “Extra” (which they call “naughty”). There are no cards in the latter category for Ramadan, Hanukkah or Kwanzaa. But there are more than a dozen tailored to Christian holidays.
For example, the “Extra” selection has a Christmas card that comments on how someone exposed himself at a party. Another card has a picture of Our Blessed Mother holding baby Jesus with the inscription, “Losing those 15 pounds was sure to be a bitch.” And there is another one with the picture of an angel that remarks how she will still enjoy the holidays even though she is having her period.
Janssen, Kim (2013-05-05). "Islamic gag gifts called 'bigoted'". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
A joke birthday card that depicts an Islamic girl doll as a suicide bomber who’ll “Blow Your Brains Out” drew criticism Satuday as “bigoted and moronic” from a leader of the Chicago area’s Muslim community.
The card, which shows a picture of a “talking doll” wearing a hijab — the traditional head scarf worn by many observant Muslim women — has the words “She’ll Love You To Death” and “Pull string for message — if you dare!” printed on its front.
...
The card, made by New Jersey-based Nobleworks, is a spoof of “Aamina, the Muslim Doll,” a toy designed to teach Muslim children basic Arabic phrases such as “Peace be unto you” and “If God wills it.”

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NobleWorks to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cunard. I sat down to write this comment in the expectation that I would withdraw the nomination with thanks for finding better sources, but then I started to read the links. Here's my quick summary: Link number 5 doesn't work for me, but it doesn't look like it's an RS. Link 4 is in a column called "Passing By", which is described as follows: "'Passing By' features offbeat, intriguing, and little-known people and places." It and the first three links are extremely similar in flavor: puff interviews with the owner of the company in a local newspaper, quoting a couple of their cards, with no substantive content about the company not directly conveyed by the owner. About link 6, again it definitely confirms that the company exists and that Bill Donahue was offended by it (specifically, it seems he was offended that they don't publish enough racist or antisemitic jokes). The last is again the same sort of thing (basically it is a better version of the source currently in the article, in that the Sun-Times is a better RS than the Chicago Monitor), and again it confirms that the company exists and has offended someone, but with no significant coverage. Taking all of these sources together, maybe we could write two sentences about the company plus one or two sentences about someone being offended (I probably wouldn't include Donahue, as that's undue if no one else noticed he was offended), at most; none of them has what I would call significant coverage of the company. --JBL (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The journalists wrote profiles about NobleWorks and as part of their work, they interviewed people affiliated with the company. The journalists then included quotes from them which is standard journalistic practice. I think there is enough independent research and analysis in the sources to establish notability. I do not consider the profiles of the company to be routine coverage.
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Audience says:
The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.
The Star-Ledger says it "is the largest circulated newspaper in the U.S. state of New Jersey". I consider the The Star-Ledger to be a regional or statewide newspaper. The Star-Ledger meets the requirement that "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary".
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The subject is certainly notable, as per above, but in its current state, it can not remain as a live article. Extensive rewriting is in need, and until it is completed, this article should be kept in the draft space. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 14:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be ok with this. --JBL (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Puzzledvegetable (talk · contribs) and Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs), I rewrote the article to add sourced material and remove unsourced material.
Cunard (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Still looks a little spamy. Try to trim some of the extraneous, non encyclopedic material. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 11:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:HEY passes GNG. Djflem (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:HEY by Cunard. References contain several WP:SIGCOV pieces from various newspapers on the company, meets NCORP. Britishfinance (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Berkan Demirbag[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem to be notable. The whole article is mostly referenced to IMDb which is an unreliable source. Couldn't find any independent coverage. Keivan.f^Talk 00:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2020 (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 Dear Dumb Diary. And no, leaving the Internet Archive link in the history isn't a copyright issue - it's a lending library, they own those books and lend them out digitally. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dumb Diary: Live Each Day to the Dumbest[edit]

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

Non-notable individual entry of a book series whose only reference is possibly a WP:COPYLINK ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 00:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 00:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dear Dumb Diary (with the history preserved under the redirect) per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I was unable to find substantial coverage about Dear Dumb Diary: Live Each Day to the Dumbest that would allow it to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Does not need a seperate article. Ashishkafle (talk) 14:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Nominator Why a redirect to the book series article, when other individual book entries don't have one? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 14:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other book in the series could have redirects created to the series article too as they are plausible search terms. I support a redirect to the book series per Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting, which lists several reasons including:
1. "They have a potentially useful page history ..." – Dear Dumb Diary: Live Each Day to the Dumbest contains potentially useful information in the "Synopsis" section that could be incorporated into the series article.
2. "They aid searches on certain terms." – readers who search for this book's title will be directed to the series article, which has information about the book (currently, it's just the book's year of publication but an expanded article could discuss the book more).
Cunard (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could the Internet Archive link be a possible WP:COPYLINK? ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 14:26, 22 June 2020 (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.