Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 28 October	30 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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 Castle Rock (Stephen King). Clear consensus to merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King) (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Pangborn

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

Non-notable character. Sources 4-8 are trivial mentions at best. I see nothing worth merging. TTN (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm usually in pretty firm agreement that the fiction articles TTN nominates need something done, even if I don't always think a neat and tidy deletion is the best approach. But here, I'm wondering exactly what's wrong with the Romper and Uproxx sources, which seem entirely dedicated to a dicussion of the character? Now, certainly, the plot retreads could be later down with section hat links to the earlier novels, but that's an editorial issue. I'd need to pull them to see what all is involved, but there are several scholarly articles that seem to make commentary on the character too. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 00:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing of substance in any of these sources aside from one paragraph from creators on their decision to include the character, which can easily fit in the main article. They're just a bunch of fluff articles that say nothing. TTN (talk) 00:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What main article? The main point about this character is that they are recurring and so appear in several works. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The TV show, which is the basis for all of these references. In response to below, sources 1-3 aren't anything special either. I initially paid them no mind because they weren't even used in such a way to even imply they were important. There is little from which to build an article, which is why the person who added them seemingly couldn't even use them in a proper manner. TTN (talk) 14:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article linked below – Castle Rock (Stephen King) – is about the setting, not the TV show. It seems that there's isn't actually a single main article for this stuff. The character appears in multiple works in multiple media for which we have many articles. It is therefore better to consolidate our information about the character under the obvious heading – his name. Putting it elsewhere would obfuscate the topic and so confuse our readership. There's no reason for this or benefit to be gained. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew D. (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the others who recommended it, but my recommendation to merge to the setting was intentional. All of the works he has appeared in, be it the books, movie adaptation, or current TV show, take place there. He is/was the sheriff and resident of said town, which is why that would be the single main article in which the information regarding him would be appropriately covered. Rorshacma (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a glass-half-empty problem with the nomination which dismisses some sources but, by implication, the others are ok. The rest seems to be arguments to avoid such as WP:JNN and WP:ITSTRIVIAL. Relevant policies such as WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE indicate that we should not be considering deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King) which seems like the most clear target for merging. Not individually notable, and the fact that they appear in multiple works doesn't automatically guarantee them an article._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:08, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King). The coverage is niche/passing. This in uproxx is the best source, and it dedicates two paragraphs to the character, summarizing his biography with little analysis outside differences in his bio in book vs movie. I don't think this level of coverage is sufficient for a stand alone entry. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King) per above. The coverage is too passing/plot summary based to support an independent article. But, as a major character who has appeared in multiple books/adaptations that take place in the fictional town, merging some of the content to that article makes sense. If it is kept, though, it definitely needs to be rewritten, as the current article is acting like his appearance in the Castle Rock tv series is a direct continuation of his appearances in the book, which it very clearly is not. Rorshacma (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not independently notable enough for a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 20:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King). The article solely is not notable enough to exist in its own right, so I believe merging is the best option. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge perfectly fine article with sourcing that denotes notability. If it is worth merging, it is also worth keeping. WP:PRESERVE Wm335td (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge,The article is not notable enough to stand alone, but should not be deleted either, Merge to Castle Rock (Stephen King). Alex-h (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the castle rock. Not suitable for standing alone at now.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Museum of Government Waste

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

Not notable and no major edits since 2012. Film does not appear to have ever been released and “film’s website” ___domain is broken Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - literally the only source was the Daily Caller, which is deprecated - David Gerard (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nom. Does not appear to meet WP:NFILM. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if after 7 years it is unclear if a film was or was not released on schedule it is a clear case of not notable. Wikipedia has major issues with needing updating. We still have lots of US place articles with 2000 demographic data and no 2010 data, when we are just months from the 2020 census.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Clear consensus to Keep, even after re-list, that was not refuted. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World-Wide Baraca and Philathea Union, Incorporated

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC) HighKing⁺⁺ 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep -- The main source is an encyclopedia, presumably a RS. It may have been significant a century ago, but is clearly now defunct, which archives deposited with a Seminary (which presumably considers the archive significant). With a defunct organisation, whose heyday was probably 70-120 years ago, the lack of mentions on the Internet is unsurprising. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. If other published encyclopedias (including old ones and specialty ones) covered a topic, wikipedia should to.4meter4 (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as per 4meter4 and Peterkingiron. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bd2412 T 12:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City

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

It seems that this regional insurance company is not sufficiently notable to meet the requirements of our now not-so-very-new WP:NCORP. Yes, it goes about its routine business, and some aspects of that business receive attention (or press-releases?) in the local business press. But despite discussion on the talk-page and the attentions of a (properly-disclosed) paid editor, no solid independent in-depth coverage has been found. Making a loss of $100 million might seem important or even inconceivable to ordinary people, but is not really significant in business terms (Parmalat managed to mislay about $16 billion a few years ago). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:05, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep a simple click of the "news" link above shows ample news sources for the company. Google news, etc. Loads of KC Star and such.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have a COI here (Blue KC is a client), so not voting. I would like to note that Excellus BlueCross BlueShield, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, BlueCross BlueShield of South Carolina, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, and Blue Shield of California all exist under similar circumstances. Of course, I'm not arguing there is any inherited notability here, just that Wikipedia precedent seems to indicate that the subject matter is notable. Mary Gaulke (talk) 17:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom or, alternatively, selective merge with Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. In fact, as part of a larger project, I would merge all or most Blue Cross/Blue Shield associations into that target article or, if article length is concerned, to Member companies of Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. I tagged the original version of the present article with a Notability query in 2013 and more recently gave an assessment of its more recent text at Talk:Blue_Cross_and_Blue_Shield_of_Kansas_City#Notability_query, where I indicated my view that the current article references fell under the WP:ORGCRIT "Examples of trivial coverage". For this AfD I have taken a wider look for anything which might indicate notability for the company: again, I am seeing the routine coverage typical of a company going about its business, but nothing to satisfy WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 10:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the nominator's case seems to be that the company is so big that a 100 million dollar loss is insignificant, which I would say would be a reason to keep and not delete. Are you guys really thinking about deleting this article?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Paulmcdonald: I'd personally favour a selective merge and redirect to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation than to a delete, but to your question, as I understand it, a company's asset size or revenue is of little bearing in terms of notability. What matters is sufficient reliable sources which establish the organization's notability. No firm guideline as to how many, but the Wikipedia essay WP:THREE provides some guidance that is sometimes used in AfD discussions, as well as in page move and merge discussions. As well, even if there is sufficient reliable sources, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be considered such that there are sufficient sources to write more than a perennial stub- or start-class article. In terms of company size, Central 1 Credit Union was recently deleted because, aside from the fact it was written like an advertisement, it generated little, if any, significant coverage by reliable sources, despite it having nearly $100 billion CAD in assets under management.Doug Mehus (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I tagged for notability in 2013 I didn't propose deletion, probably influenced to some extent by size. But really, if all that we can say about a company is that it was founded, offers products to operate in a market and appoints executives, then that is all appropriate for their website but is far from establishing the claim to notability for an article here. That information in the present article also does not really seem appropriate for merger into Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, hence my preference for simple redirect. AllyD (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The standard: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This has clearly been met just from the sources in the article alone, but as noted above a quick news search shows a large volume of additional coverage that could just as easily build an article to meet the standards. Subject passes both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP easily.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment on Central 1 there were no independent sources on that article and the only sources were the company website. This company receives plenty of independent third party coverage.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV based on the sources already present in the article. It's a large independent licensee, so it is its own entity separate from the parent organization. It has more than a million people that it insures and a lengthy history. It's a reasonable content fork.4meter4 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 You and I agree sometimes, disagree other times. Here we sort of disagree, but not completely since redirect/selective merge is a variation on keep. At any rate, the Kansas City Star articles referenced are all trivial and trite coverage (that is, they relate to product or service announcements and corporate/government partnerships). So, those don't count. Haven't looked through all possible sourcing here, but I trust that the nom and AllyD have done their due diligence. Their rationale is sound. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't consider corporate/government partnerships trivial as they involve public finances and responsibilities. Here's a non-trivial peer reviewed journal article on an innovative way Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City stopped a doctors' revolt over control of treatment decisions by creating an innovative new model for insurance company/doctor decision making: "Kansas City blues discover talk therapy"; Moskowitz, Daniel; Business and Health, Apr 2000, Vol.18(4), pp.21-22. I found that in under two minutes. I am not so confident the nominators followed WP:BEFORE.4meter4 (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4 Government partnerships can be tricky; if it's just strict churnalism, then it's trivial, but if the company is directly related to the botched rollout of Obamacare, for example, then that might be significant coverage. Your journal article appears, at first blush, like it might qualify. So, WP:SIGCOV may be met here, but I remain uncertain as to whether WP:CORPDEPTH is met. Ping me if further sources turn up so I consider changing/striking the delete part of my vote. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have two responses: 1) That's not trivial coverage, that's significant coverage that you (apparently) just don't have interest in (a variation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT; and 2) If it were WP:TRIVIAL then it's still one of the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions as "notability fallacy". The standard is: "The spirit and the letter of the guideline are concerned with having enough content to write articles from a neutral point of view" and that has been exceeded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect/Selective Merge to Blue Cross Blue Shield Association - Concur with nom and AllyD. Searching through all 11 pages of Google web search results for "Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City" revealed only trivial press coverage, mostly in local daily and community newspapers and trade publications—lots of company partnerships, service announcements, executive appointments, churnalism, and directory listings (WP:NOTDIR), nothing which meets WP:SIGCOV. Similar story with Google News search results. Not finding anything that would meet WP:SIGCOV, possibly one source, maybe two, but nothing that passes WP:CORPDEPTH on which to write more than a perpetual stub- or start-class article which negatively affects Wikipedia's reputation and editorial integrity. -DM
Merge/Redirect, although whether to a "Member companies of Blue Cross Blue Shield Assocation." as Dmehus suggested, or to the main "Blue Cross Blue Shield Association" article. Same goes for other member companies that don't have separate notability. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 00:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a word of caution: if Wikipedia were run by majority, then the closing decision would be to delete or merge. However, Consensus is not the same thing as majority. Wikipedia has a significant history of decisions and as process that we use. While certainly consensus can change, the place to change long-standing consensus like the general notability guideline is not in this AFD. The standards have been exceeded, this is not the place to change the standards just to delete an article (no matter how many editors !vote "yes").--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Huge company, has served millions, sources exist, article could be hugely expanded. All the BC/BS state-level entities have huge history and impact and are notable, i would think. --Doncram (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Kansas Cities are certainly not some small region with little population. Major company, major presences in the healthcare of Missouri and Kansas, and a thank you to @Diannaa: for fixing this article from its COPYVIO state rather than trying a needless TNT maneuver like the nom is trying here. Nate • (chatter) 04:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: Coverage looks WP:TRIVIAL to me. --Darth Mike^(talk) 14:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, you just took a position in a deletion discussion and specifically referenced Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions‎ as the reason.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a corp with c. $3 billion in 2018 revenues - if it was freely quoted, it would have a market cap. putting it in touching distance of the S&P500. With 1 million members, at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, it makes no sense to delete this or merge into another article. We clearly have many other standalone BKC WP articles for other states. A google search provides hundreds of refs to this CORP. Would a Kansas WP reader expect to find a WP article on this company - of course they would. Britishfinance (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For example, here is the Wall Street Journal with a full article on BKC's withdrawal from ACA in 2017 Exit Leaves 25 Missouri Counties With No ACA Plans for 2018

Keep. Clearly meets WP:SIGCOV Wm335td (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

58th United Kingdom general election

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

It has been long-established that we shouldn't have articles on the election-after-next for full cycle elections. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (3rd nomination) as a recent example (or this, this or this). This article should not exist until 2019 United Kingdom general election is over (and even that article has been moved prematurely as Parliament has not yet ratified the election). Number 5 7 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per past precedent. We have created pages for the last few UK general elections at the start of the campaigns for the previous elections (see 55th election, 56th election and 57th election). None of these pages were deleted, although the 55th was nominated for deletion the nomination failed. This page has valid information about the election, especially relating to the date. The nominator concedes that, if not already, this page will be valid in 44 days time, so quite different to the example of the 2024 United States presidential election nomination of 2018, where the page would not be valid for over two years. If there is a hung parliament following the 2019 election, this election could take place in a few months time. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftiy until 13 December. Keep: Seems silly to delete less than six weeks before needing to recreate it. I think the comparisons to previous deletions of presidential election articles is flawed as, in the UK at least, the second a general election is called there are important political calculations to be made about the following election. 79.77.0.19 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All content is about UK elections generally and nothing is specifically about the 58th election besides the date. Recreate the article after the current campaign is over when we will have literally a single actual fact about it, even if only 44 days away. Draftify is fine, but this is all just copy-pasted from 2019 United Kingdom general election; it is redundant and serves no purpose. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's only a brief period in which this will be the election-after-next,and as soon as a UK election is called it becomes a distinct entity needing different coverage from the one that comes after it.(The deletion,on the third try,of the 2024 USA presidential election article was an even worse mistake...the date-fixed-by-law-into-the-indefinite-future status of USA elections is more thoroughly established,and of longer standing,than the UK law that has actually only been followed once and has been campaigned against in a major party's manifesto...there is nothing speculative about assuming American election day is not likely to change).12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear what "on the third try" is supposed to mean. It was deleted on the second nomination too, for very good reason, but recreated over a WP:SALT without consensus. Adding to note that there are zero sources on this 58th election...an article ought to have citations that actually reference the topic (WP:NOTE)... Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well,I'm especially bitter about people deleting mentions of scheduled American election days from articles on future years,when standing law requires those elections to be held on those dates in those years,while keeping speculative predictions of things that may or may not happen in those years.They may not need full-blown articles yet but no harm is done.The 57th election being called is what makes the 58th something that there can now be articles about...you can't fault there not having been any UNTIL know as a reason not to acknowledge that circumstances have changed.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with others, don't see the point in deleting now. The planned date of the election may also be of interest to readers. Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING is not a policy-based argument to keep. The date could also be mentioned at List of United Kingdom general elections and this redirected there. Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the sake of convenience, just keep the article? What is the point in deleting an article that will ultimately be recreated in a number of weeks? No need for this excessive bureaucratic debate over a inevitable article that will eventually come into existence, so why not now when the groundwork has already been laid. Eolais | Talk | Contribs 23:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with Eolais. Deleting or even discussing the deleting of an article that will be recreated in a matter of weeks when there will be no question of its existence is just adding to unnecessary busywork when when editors can be spending more productive time creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones.Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It'll become much more relevant two months from now. There's no need to delete it now only to inevitably recreate it a few weeks later. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Always going to be relevant. It will become relevant soon. Peter Kelford (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will be relevant. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In 5 weeks will need to be created. What is the difference? --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While I was doubtful and can see the nominator's rationale, the fact that it would almost certainly be created as soon as the 2019 polls close (ie in 6 weeks) means deleting know is probably pointless. Also it is not unknown during election campaigns for discussion to start about the next election and attract a lot of coverage. For instance it may well be that party manifestos include pledges of electoral reform which would come in at the next general election (for instance changes to the voting age) and so might be discussed in the artilce. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - move the article to the Draft stage. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BURO, since even the nom accepts that the article would be uncontroversially recreated anyway in a matter of few weeks. Kahastok talk 18:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Errantius (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wait it out. The article will inevitably become notable/crucial following the 12th of December, so deleting it now, just to be created in a little more than a month, doesn't make any sense. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for simplicity; as noted above, it seems a bit bureaucratic to delete in the expectation that it will be created again, unchanged, before the end of the year (when it will be acceptable)

(Incidentally, calling it "58th" rather than "next" or a specific date seems an excellent change on what we've done when this has come up in previous years). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with others, don't see the point in deleting now. WP:NORUSH. The date also may be relevant to our readers. Wm335td (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others as this is a scheduled event and there's a past precedent for these articles. On 13 December we can move it to Next United Kingdom general election, but I guess this isn't possible at present since it would cause confusion. This is Paul (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment Within 1 day this deletion request has already been met with heavy opposition. I believe I speak for most people that there really is no need for the deletion of this article to be deleted. When the hard work is done, why undo it for the sake of it not being relevant right now. It will become relevant once the results of the subsequent election are released; no further reason for this discussion to continue, I think consensus has been reached. Eolais (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eolais: looks to me like a consensus after good discussion. Errantius (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is going to be kept, then it should be renamed Next United Kingdom general election. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not until it is actually the next UK general election. At present the next UK general election is the one before. Kahastok talk 14:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, we could use the Canadian example (see 44th Canadian federal election) & stick with the current title. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't we just do exactly the same thing as we did in 2017, 2015 and 2010? That is, wait until the current election is finished, and then move the article to Next United Kingdom general election? Kahastok talk 17:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we can move this on 13 December. This is Paul (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and WP:SALT due to repeated recreation after previous deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Shirazi

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

Per the third nomination Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 20:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Subject fails WP:BASIC. Repeatedly recreated to the point where this is becoming disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:OUTCOMES, and WP:SALT. This is a totally ordinary computer person. His first claim to fame is being Facebook's first intern. Notability is not inherited from whom you work or who's your relatives, except in extraordinary cases (such as collaboration between a world-famous musician and her piano player, like Bette Midler, or Jared Kushner). This has been deleted or merged three times already. I can't see consensus changing. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MILL, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:SALT. This has been deleted or merged three times already before. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per the arguments above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. Lexy iris (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being notable. Are all 4 nominations for deletion on the same individual?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VoiceX

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Also has COI concerns. Dee 03 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability, and all referenced sources are from within the company. As we all know from WP:NOTRESUME, Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. MacDoesWiki (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not seem to have enough coverage for the project to be notable. Mungano (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I have contributed to this article, I agree that it's notable. I support the deletion Helloanant007 (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with above. A search for news, on jstor, and on pubmed on the term turned up nothing. Jlevi (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Article does not have enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Dillon

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

Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of business executives, it very clearly fails to establish what she is notable. If you are SVP of a company, it doesn't makes you notable, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Below the threshold. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - while not all corporate executives are important, she is the head lawyer for one of the major media outlets, and is often involved in major libel issues, of which she appears to be an expert. She's presented for PLI, a major source of CLE's for lawyers. A search reveals lots of potential sources. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:37, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Subject not even included in The Washington Post, her employer and main claim to fame. Other senior VPs at the company don't have or need encyclopedia articles. StonyBrook (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to validate her as being notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arasakumar B. T.

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

Non-national political party official who does not appear to have been elected to any post that passes WP:NPOL. Either a vanity page or written by his political party, which has been caught using Wikipedia for promotional purposes in the past. GPL93 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES; state and local party officials are not automatically notable, and this one seems run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically notable just for being regional organizers with political parties, and this one is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to hold a notable political office to pass WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, people normally are not notable for being active in local organizations. Alex-h (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I completely agree with Bearian, being into local organizations doesn't pass someone in the criteria of WP:GNG. Kakaey (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SG Suryah

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a local-level political party official. Either a vanity page or written by his political party, which has been caught using Wikipedia for promotional purposes in the past. GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES; state and local party officials are not automatically notable, and this one seems run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People are not automatically notable just for being regional organizers with political parties, and this one is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to hold a notable political office to pass WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete looks like promotion of not notable politician. Fails WP:NPOL.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters

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

Unnecessary, non-notable, bare bones character list. There are some 10+ articles that can easily cover the context of their characters. TTN (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:ALLPLOT and WP:LISTCRUFT. Does not seem like it will become anything besides an indiscriminate character list with no real-world context._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note The character Hester Shaw currently has a stand-alone article, which spans pretty much the same as this LoC. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knockaround

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

Fails WP:CORP sources are limited to their own website or photographs and videos which don't mention the company. Theroadislong (talk) 17:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I Googled the company but couldn't find enough sourcing to suggest the company is notable enough. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oil (band)

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

This band has members from more well-known bands, but in itself the broken-up band does not seem to have meritorious releases. Multiple cleanup tags since 2012. Geschichte (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because having members from more well-known bands -is- point 5 of WP:BAND. And it's the subject of an encyclopedia written by Mark_Allan_Powell who appears notable. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes criteria #5 of WP:BAND. More significantly, a published encyclopedia has its own entry on the group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and if another encyclopedia has an entry on a topic (even a specialized encyclopedia) wikipedia should automatically cover it.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as exercising AGF, as well as the encyclopedia reference in the article there is also an offline reference to a detailed biography in Music Might which is a reliable web magazine source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GapChart

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

Completely fails WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have thus far been unable to find appropriate secondary sources on this topic, can anyone else find any? If not this should be deleted. EvilxFish (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found zero RS on this term except for blogs like this [1] from "fred Vernier", same user name of the editor who created this article in 2014. 01:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete I found zero independent, in-depth, reliable sources discussing this technique. With all primary sources, this article is original research. Without RS, a merge is not recommended and I don't see any compelling redirect targets. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found one substantial peer reviewed journal articles on the topic. Appologies for no urls as I am using my university's internal database to access this content:

"Using Gap Charts to Visualize the Temporal Evolution of Ranks and Scores"; Perin, Charles ; Boy, Jeremy ; Vernier, Frédéric ; Perin, Charles (Editor); IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 29 September 2016

Thanks for finding and posting the reference. While peer-reviewed, it is not independent of the creator Frédéric Vernier, so unfortunately does not contribute toward notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Media Group

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

No independent coverage found for this media group. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks third party coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete two, No consensus on two. Clear consensus for deleting Cecil Hammond and Flytime Music Festival. Several commenters indicated a belief that Rhythm Unplugged is or may be notable, so no consensus on that; it may be renominated separately if desired. Draft:Flytime Promotions is a draft, which should be discussed at WP:MFD rather than here. RL0919 (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Hammond

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

Promotional WP:UPE by Scottceneje & sockpuppets for Cecil Hammond & his business ventures, Rhythm Unplugged, Flytime Music Festival, & Draft:Flytime Promotions. Flytime Group has already been deleted. Cabayi (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they're Cecil's businesses, part of the same UPE campaign:

-- Cabayi (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as spam by suckpoppets. Salt all with Extended-Confirmed Protection, because they might be notable, but should only be developed by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as spam and as non-notable. The festival might be notable, but I can't see enough evidence that Hammond meets WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and delete votes. If there was no COI issue, I would have !voted to keep Rhythm Unplugged and redirect others to it. Only Rhythm Unplugged passes GNG to me. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cecil Hammond, fails WP:GNG. Keep Rhythm Unplugged obviously notable. Mahveotm (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that from common knowledge in Nigeria, Cecil Hammond does meet GNG, unfortunately there are not enough direct references to prove this and that may be why there are a lot of Delete votes, but I would definitely Keep Rhythm Unplugged, which definitely passes WP:GNG.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If there are not enough direct references about the subject, then they do not meet WP:GNG. -Mahveotm (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X-Pol: the Explicit Polarization Theory

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

Does not appear notable, is based entirely on primary citations all from J.Goa EvilxFish (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I found no reference to this technique that wasn't either a Wikipedia mirror or was written by the same person who coined the name. No independent sources. Agricolae (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources, written by SPA to promote it. Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings

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

I think we are firmly in Wikia territory here. We have a list of commentators, we have more sports coverage than you can shake a stick at, the Dolphins are still winless after pulling a Falcons Superbowl 2nd half, and we have this YUGE list of pairings? I believe we are falling foul of NOTDIR, for instance. (With apologies for what appears to be a baseball metaphor.) Drmies (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are also these articles: List of NFL on ABC/ESPN commentator pairings, List of NFL on CBS commentator pairings, and List of NFL on NBC commentator pairings. The CBS and NBC articles have been around since 2006, the Fox article since 2007, and the ABC/ESPN article since this year. List of NFL on Westwood One Sports announcers, NHL on Versus commentator pairings, NHL on Fox commentator pairings, List of ESPN College Football broadcast teams, List of Major League Baseball on Fox broadcasters, ESPN College Basketball broadcast teams, Olympics on NBC commentators are also relevant to this discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm we have an Eagles fan here--or so they claim. Tell us how much you hate Dallas, so we can verify your credentials. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm all in favor of lists of commentators. They're often independently notable; there's a long tradition of writing about the quality, color, and character of the people talking about the quality, color, and character of sports events. But pairings? For lists of commentator pairings to be notable separate from just lists of commentators, I'd think, per list policy, that the concept of commentator pairings would need to be notable. And, it's ... well, not, at least as far as I can tell. So my preference in the broader sense would be to delete any pairings list where the corresponding commentator list exists, convert pairings lists to commentators lists where the former exists but not the latter (if there are any), and retain any pure commentator lists. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with nominator and Squeamish Ossifrage. The idea of commentator pairings just isn't notable. This list just becomes an (accurate) trivia list. I would also support deletion of each one of the lists noted by Eagles247 for the same reason. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that of that list, at least List of Major League Baseball on Fox broadcasters is formatted in terms of pairings, but doesn't appear to have a corresponding simple list of commentators, and so is better restructured that deleted. That may be true of some of the others as well; I'm not really excited enough to dig into this mess that deeply. Olympics on NBC commentators is probably a special case that warrants independent editorial examination regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:LISTN which requires that the topic has "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Here, the sources in which the topic has received arguably significant coverage are either non-reliable source blogs or sources (Fox and NFL) which in this case are not independent. Cbl62 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a possibility that the list might actually pass WP:GNG somewhat as different parings are discussed but I doubt that "all" pairings are discussed. I'm going to the "common sense" argument here and going with ignore all rules and state that deletion of this list makes Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N K Mondal

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG, since the subject is a non-notable and non-elected politician with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nomination. Article was previously speedily deleted and create-blocked under the name N.K.Mondal, possibly among others. I was going to re-add the speedy tag here, but perhaps discussion would be helpful, so that WP:CSD#G6 can be invoked in the future if recreated. Deleting admins were Bbb23 and Primefac. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing here even attempts to claim that he has actually held an WP:NPOL-passing office, and nothing is stated that would get him over WP:AUTHOR as a writer. As always, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN; people are not automatically entitled to have articles on here just because they exist, but rather must achieve certain quantifiably notable things (e.g. a politician holding a noteworthy political office, a writer winning a noteworthy literary award, etc.) to get in the door. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another vanity page for a non-notable BJP politician. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES; state and local party officials are not automatically notable, and this one seems run of the mill. As a writer, the coverage on him is more of listings than significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Straube

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

I've looked for reliable sources, mentions in books and news for Robert Straube artist and Bob Straube artist. I've found a few snippets, some local press, a mention of him writing about his heart problems, but nothing that seems to back up notability and certainly not to the extent that he "may have been one of the most printed artists in American history" which is at best PEACOCK and at worst looks like a hoax. Happy for someone to properly reference the article and I'll close this down. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somewhat regrettably. Based on what little we have to go on from this stub, I'm pretty sure the subject was the artist responsible for several of the backgrounds used for the checks printed by the Deluxe Corporation. As they're one of the largest check-printing companies, that might very well make Straube's claim to be one of the most-printed American artists one of those "technically true" sort of things — although clearly not in the way people expect. Unfortunately, for Wikipedia to have anything to say on the matter, there has to be coverage in reliable sources. And the people in these sorts of corporate graphic design positions, even when their work is encountered everyday, just don't attract attention by reliable third-party authors... which appears to be exactly the case here. As far as I can tell, Deluxe doesn't even mention the artists responsible for its checks themselves (which makes sense, as this sort of work was almost certainly done as work-for-hire). Barring some sources that somehow evaded my search, we're left with no alternative but deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the artist may have been better known as Bob Straube, but searching for sources with that name didn't yield much either. The content of white bear center URL is preserved at https://web.archive.org/web/20100313032547/http://whitebeararts.org/?110120 shows that he was a well-liked instructor there, but gives no indicating that the her received much critical attention for his work. Vexations (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merck Molecular Force Field

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

Promotion article for none notable forcefield EvilxFish (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable (subject of multiple WP:RS)...no MMFF is included in many popular molecular molecular-modelling programs and various independent secondary-source articles likewise state that it is popular/important and worthy of being studied and evaluated (rather that just published for others to use). See for example doi:10.1186/s13321-014-0037-3 and arXiv:1705.04308. I don't see promotional/WP:NPOV content, but if so that would certainly merit being cleaned up. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are saying is correct then the article should be kept, note both of those references are primary though. I found a few forcefield pages that I believed were promotions (one of which has already been speedy deleted) based on their citations (usually all papers with a recurring author or lacking completely). I may have made a mistake in my assessment of this one. EvilxFish (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, second-person (independent), but not "a review article on the topic" (WP:SECONDARY). DMacks (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm really out of my element on this particular flavor of chemistry topic, but there's clearly discussion of the Merck Molecular Force Field in quite a few book-format chemistry works in addition to scads of journal hits. This Kluwer Academic computational chemistry textbook goes so far to call MMFF "popular" (as of 2004, at least), and frankly that's probably good enough evidence as any. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An easy keep on the basis that other researchers not associated with Halgren or his affiliation have written on the subject. For instance both [2] and [3] have MMFF in the paper's title. Halgren gets a decent number of cites for his papers on this subject. In particular this paper has 4,341 citations according to scholar. SpinningSpark 07:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable. Promo can be cut out. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Welfare Party of India. Consensus to merge (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welfare Party Kerala

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

Welfare Party Kerala is not a political party. The only non-notable chapter of the Welfare Party of India. Kutyava (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kutyava (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge to Welfare Party of India, assuming that independent RS can be found to support that article (which might be the case based on an extremely cursory search), or else delete. My initial reaction was to advocate for retention here, because we have articles for the state affiliates of the US Republican and Democratic parties. However, that's not really analogous. List of political parties in India tells us that (as of 2017, apparently) there were "8 national parties, 52 state parties and 1785 unrecognised parties", of which the Welfare Party of India is one of the latter; its article is currently entirely sourced to the party's own self-published website. If there is coverage of some of these literal third-tier parties in reliable sources, there's no problem with having articles for them (clearly, we don't have an article for all 1785 of them!), but they need sourcing. And there's certainly no expectation that their subsidiary affiliates would warrant inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Welfare Party Kerala is part of the Welfare Party of India, so it is best for it to form part of the main party's article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 15:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyright violation of https://www.isu3d.org/ and https://stereoworld.org/3d-organizations/international-stereoscopic-union/ SpinningSpark 23:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Stereoscopic Union

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

Non-notable stereo club, a Google search revealed no in-depth coverage in reliable sources (just a few mentions and listings) to meet Wikipedia's WP:NORG criteria. Aside from the notability concerns, the article also plagiarizes the organization's own website. GermanJoe (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, this article also is a blatant copyright violation and has been since it was created. I would speedy it if there wasn't an afd debate around it. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!}12:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chevvin 12:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:COPYVIO, WP:G12. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin Circle

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

Microscopic and local communist group in Italy, written in two lines and without any apparent encyclopedic relevance. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though small, the subject is relevant to Wikipedia. The article can and should be expanded. The article should be moved to "Lenin Club", consistently with what has been done with several other articles. As it was correctly pointed out, circolo translates into "club", not "circle". --Checco (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Expanded with what informations? I have found only a few sources that offer no interesting details. Can you explain the reasons why this subject is relevant to Wikipedia?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE in independent, reliable sources. There is coverage of the "Circolo Lenin" from after 2008 (e.g., this article) and also of an organisation of the same name in 1968-69, but neither of these can be discussing the party that is the subject of this article which was founded in the 1990's and merged in 2008. FOARP (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In fact it is so, there is no third-party source about this microscopic communist club, which clearly cannot be considered encyclopedic (indeed the user who expressed himself for "keep" was not able to provide any motivations).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total lack ofthird party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable group. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This discussion seems silly, that no one can find sources, meanwhile there is the fact that the organization has a different name in Italian which no one has searched under. For shame! I don't read Italian well, but numerous sources within Google Scholar's 28 hits on "Circolo Lenin" look like they have substantial mentions of the club, which looks like it adds up. Also search in general Google yields 4,030 hits. One hit is this Youtube video which seems to be about the 40th anniversary of Circolo Lenin in Puglia, like a conference panel or something, back in 2009 (it was founded in 1969). Looks like there is a lot. Tag for development, sure. And move/rename. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, the Circolo Lenin in question was founded in 1994 from a split of the PRC. Before stating that the discussion is silly, you should compare the sources with this page. In Italy, especially in the past, there will have been many communist clubs called "Circolo Lenin". And in any case not even the Apulian "Circolo Lenin" seems to me encyclopedic.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While comparing the sources with in this page, there is no independent, reliable sources.

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communism from below

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

Unknown and microscopic Italian communist group, there seems to be no source on this group: it is impossible to consider it encyclopedic. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Though small, the subject is relevant to Wikipedia. The article can and should be expanded. --Checco (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Expanded with what sources? Can you explain the reasons why this subject is relevant to Wikipedia?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG by a country-mile. No instances of WP:SIGCOV found in reliable, independent sources in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you want, a redirect to International Socialist Tendency would suffice. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the articles lacks anything approaching sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tiny, non-notable communist group. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. Tone 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dirge (Transformers)

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

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, mostly plot-summary Transformer-cruft. Belongs on Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons where there are multiple mentions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Skyrealms of Jorune#Setting. Tone 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorune

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Skyrealms of Jorune. BOZ (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Skyrealms of Jorune. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Skyrealms of Jorune#Setting as unnecessary article split._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Skyrealms of Jorune. Merging is not necessary as there is no sourced information to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takron-Galtos

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

Non-notable fictional topic TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is one of many (much worse) planet articles for that series, all of them listed in {{Legion of Super-Heroes}}. Their fate should be re-considered after this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these with only one page of history going back to 2006/2007 is probably going to have a successful WP:PROD. I'd recommend just going ahead with them if you think they're truly not notable. I just chose Xolnar as an example, but I don't plan to do a WP:BEFORE for all of them or bother with many AfDs here. -2pou (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the PROD patrollers love to undo PRODs about fictional topics, so I can't even bother. TTN (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Sigh. It's a gamble. Sometimes they work, but you need a tool like TW to keep track because the odds are that half the time some inclusionist will just discard prod 'because'. I still bother with prods, but about half end up here, including for pretty clear, unreferenced content. It helps to suggest in prod that 'this can be redirected to x', then it may be soft deleted instead. Or you can just be bold and redirect such stuff, the problem here is that if you are undone there is often no notificaiton. AfD at least makes undo of redirects less likely.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue of Mr. Link Dump has a particular special place in his heart for me, so he went above and beyond when doing his "job" of it. I doubt it's worth it in the long run. TTN (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blake's 7 planets

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

Same as previous AfD. WP:PLOT-only details, fails WP:N, and it doesn't have any value as a split list. There is no navigational benefit to redirect people to a list of trivial items when the context can be explained within the article itself. The topic of "planets in Blake's 7" is not notable either. TTN (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Happy to add this to the list of "planets of XXXX" lists deleted of late, for exactly the same reasons as the others (WP:FANCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:LISTN). Absolutely nothing seen in my WP:BEFORE shows the planets of Blake's 7 to be notable as a group. FOARP (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Is there no end to these ridiculous planet lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete and utter WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing notable whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- poorly sourced cruft. Reyk roaming (talk) 09:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 2000

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, not enough sources.124Sanroque (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/redirect – Makes a decent case for meeting GNG. At the very least, we should merge and redirect to AEBN. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG. Nothing to merge and sufficiently obscure so it's unlikely to be a search term. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV Kakaey (talk) 07:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 15:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SX Video

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any assertion of notability, such that speedy deletion may in fact be appropriate. Madness ^Darkness 23:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Steven Scarborough. RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hot House Entertainment

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Steven Scarborough and, if anything is thought to be notable enough to save, merge it there as well. This company does not inherit the notability of its founder; redirects, however, are cheap. No clear sign of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as to justify a standalone article. Madness ^Darkness 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Exactly what Madness said. There are a few sources like this and press releases in industry publications but not enough to constitute significant in multiple independent sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jjaibot

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

Non notable software created in 2019, created by UPE, the page has traits of COI and possible UPE, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It does have some news coverage but I do not believe it is significant enough. EvilxFish (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: seems it's an initiative to fight climate crisis...shouldn't be deleted.

That isn't relevant when considering if it warrants a Wikipedia article. EvilxFish (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources are pretty bad. The International Business Times source is generally seen as unreliable. Huh, well, Entrepreneur appears to be considered reliable and notable--but that's only a brief description. It doesn't seem to succeed at "significant coverage." It's clear that there is a lot of non-US coverage, but a few of those pages are definitely unreliable, and they're hard to evaluate. Maybe consider AfC-ing on the Hindi Wikipedia and seeing if they've got any better non-English sources? (Also: This is my first AfD, so I'd be interested in feedback on my feedback if possible.) Jlevi (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would like to re-check the article as i have added some of the reliable source which are definitely Uk/Usa based and also i have removed the unreliable source like IBT. Bollymine (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: have enough coverage to pass wp:sigcov. Doesn't seem having unreliable sources as its been already removed!!Bollymine (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: based on the improvements of the cited articles Kakaey (talk) 06:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dexecure

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

Lack of evidence for notability according to WP:NCORP--the refsare notices of funding of self-serving interviews. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui ^雲 _水 11:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - yet another instance of spam about an unremarkable startup. I wouldn't be surprised if this was WP:UPE, and I've blocked the creator for advertising. MER-C 12:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and as stated by MER-C, seem to be a case of WP:COI Kakaey (talk) 06:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headstart School (Pakistan)

AfDs for this article:

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

A school which is registered as a company, fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 10:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced business directory type entry. Fails GNG. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bahadar Public High School

AfDs for this article:

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

A private school which fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:TNT - would need a complete rewrite due to its promotional tone (though possibly due to the culture of Asian English), and would need some proper sourcing. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Foundation High School

AfDs for this article:

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

Started by SPA User talk:Muhammadtsf10. A for-profit school which fails WP:NORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 10:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ostensibly written for promotional purposes and clearly fails WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lead makes unreferenced assertions, and the rest appears to be a staff directory. Fails GNG. How has this article survived for 6 years? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand'mere Eugene Because before 2017 RfC we had a policy that high school articles are notable regardless of what is written in them. Störm (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Störm, but even before 2017 wasn't the standard supposed to be proof of the school's existence? Today I found exactly one RS from 2009 that appears to be an official and independent source. There may have been offline sources, but nothing more online. Three other sources here, here and here appear to be commercial directories, the last more of a blog with a pop-up window advertising how "to be the top-listed school in Faisalabad", presumably by paying a fee to the host site. I understand the last AfD was a procedural keep based on the 2017 RfC, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised that the article has been tagged for lack of sources since 2013 (almost within half hour of its creation!), and also that no one has removed the promotional text/tone since then. Thanks for nominating it this time around... Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomstar School System

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

Started by SPA User talk:Saroshata. A for-profit group of schools which fails WP:NORG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ultimately lacks RS. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FEXCO

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

The references are not sufficient to support notability . I don't think they really would have been considered sufficient even back in 2009, when thef article was started. DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep The article does not make a claim of importance or significance for the subject. 2 of the sources are routine business announcements that do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH; 2 are primary. Looking on the Web I find loads more routine business announcements in reliable sources but that also do not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my opinion from delete to keep because of WP:SIGCOV that came to light during this AfD, namely: Irish Times, The Times and Independent. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To my read, WP:CORPDEPTH is met. While (at time of nom) there are only two sources in the article (and the article does need work, per the longstanding tags), the subject has been the primary topic in extensive coverage over the years in the two Irish newspapers of record. Namely the Irish Times and Irish Independent. In the latter for example there is coverage, across two decades, which includes examples of unfavourable coverage (1999), regulatory oversight (2000), "explanatory" coverage (2008), through to acquisition coverage (2018) and recent events (2019). There is similar levels of coverage in the Irish Times, as well as examples in the The Times (London), Irish Examiner, Financial Times, etc. Are there limited relevant links/refs in the article? Absolutely! Are there limited relevant links/coverage in the universe? Nope. (Does the article warrant improvement? Yes! Does the article warrant deleting? No! Not on CORPDEPTH/SIGCOV grounds at any rate. Not in my view.) Guliolopez (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Guliolopez: There is only 1 of all of the above sources that doesn't fall fowl of "Examples of trivial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH, this one. -Lopifalko (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Lopifalko. Of the multiple examples returned in the Irish Times search, this one (covering the subject's foundation, history, etc) stands out. Otherwise, this piece (in The Times (UK)) covers McCarthy and the history of his business in equal measure. Otherwise I would question the suggestion that this type of coverage doesn't contribute to SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH. Given that it is part of a "prolonged" series "regarding a corporate merger[/acquisition/sale]". (There are plenty of WP:CORPSPAM articles in the project. Involving relatively small or short-lived companies or web-properties that have garnered coverage only on the basis of the funding they have raised, or the product launch coverage they have garnered, or the controversy they may have briefly courted. This subject doesn't, to my read, fall into the same bracket.) My "keep" recommendation remains. There are sufficient examples of significant/in-depth coverage to demonstrate that NN is met. Guliolopez (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've cleaned up the article and added some more references. I am satisfied that there are sufficient references to meet the requirements for establishing notability, topic passes GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @HighKing: Which of the sources it now has is not covered by the list of "Examples of trivial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH? -Lopifalko (talk) 11:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response Hi Lopifalko, in my opinion, [this one which you've correctly pointed out above and this one from the Irish Times. There is also a mention in at pages 316-317 of this book named "Fodor's London Companion". While there is also a description in this book "The Iveragh Peninsula" also, I note the authors received "significant financial undertaking and generous support] from a number of parties which includes Fexco but nevertheless it contains a relatively "neutral" description of Fexco that is not attributed to the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The company passes SIGCOV and GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NBA.com Fantasy Insider

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

No longer on air and does not merit a standalone article. Merge to NBA TV. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 01:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nom acts as if notability is temporary to when something is prevalent. Notability is not temporary. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 03:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NBA TV Seems to have become an online-only program at this point. Nate • (chatter) 04:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG without multiple sources of significant coverage from independent sources. All I see are trivial mentions of the show, or a few people once having hosted it. I generally don't support merging unsourced material.—Bagumba (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

H. Y. Ranjith Perera

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

Fails to satisfy the criteria under WP:NACADEMIC. It has been identified as needing improvement since 2015 with no substantial changes made. When the article was PROD'd in 2017 it was deprod'd on the basis that it appeared to address criteria #6 however this relates to a person holding the highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution> The dean or head of department is not the highest position at the university that is the chancellor or vice-chancellor. The Arthur C. Clarke Institute is a research facility not a major academic institution or major academic society. Most of the other references/sources are dead links or mentions in passing. Dan arndt (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile infantry

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a proper disambiguation page, just examples. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am inclined to keep this as it sounds like a perfectly valid search term. I see nothing wrong with having this disambiguation page and I see no harm in keeping it. Govvy (talk) 11:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many years after its creation I still think it's a fine disambig. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any issue with the page. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here}^{What I've Done} 14:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starship Troopers per WP:PTM. Disambiguations are not supposted to be indexes of related topics. "A disambiguation page is not a search index." The only place where "mobile infantry" truly appears is Starship Troopers._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Incorrect on two counts. Firstly, these are not "related topics" but actual meanings of mobile infantry. Secondly, dead wrong that only Heinlein's fictional force takes this name; the Military Review uses the term, giving it some official credence; also in here,here and here. Much as I like Heinlein, he doesn't have a monopoly on the term. SpinningSpark 22:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DABCONCEPT, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it and not a disambiguation page." (bolding mine) Whether an article could be written about infantry that happens to be more mobile than "leg" infantry is a separate question, but what we have here is not "perfectly valid disambiguation". Clarityfiend (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can't have it both ways. If it is questionable whether a broad concept article could be written then DABCONCEPT doesn't apply, and if DABCONCEPT does apply then the page should be converted to a stub. Either way, deletion is not the answer. SpinningSpark 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, perfectly valid disambiguation. SpinningSpark 22:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 12:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per above. ...GELongstreet (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting after withdrawn close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a proper nomination as it states no policy-based reason to delete. Andrew D. (talk) 14:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page has been converted from a dab page since the nomination was made, thus completely invalidating the original nomination rationale (although personally, I'm still inclinded to think it was better off as a dab). SpinningSpark 14:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close The nominator has edited the article to make the nomination invalid. ~~Poor conduct.~~ Thincat (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: To be fair, that happened after the AfD was closed, but before relisting per the DRV result. SpinningSpark 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck and apologise. I hadn't realised that. Thincat (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The recent changes don't seem significant. What's more relevant is the more discursive version in the page's history. Re-establishing this as a broad topic would be the most sensible outcome as this is a significant strand of military history. For example, the German blitzkrieg doctrine started with its revolutionary infantry tactics of WW1, using Stosstruppen to restore mobility to the battlefield. Andrew D. (talk) 17:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: You should probably open a discussion before doing that. The history you are looking at is the article deleted in the previous AfD. It was restored by User:BD2412, very probably in error during a history merge. SpinningSpark 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple discussions currently – at least two AfDs and a DRV. Starting yet another discussion would be excessive per WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no recollection of the circumstances at issue here. bd2412 T 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current version seems a perfectly valid article, although additional source citations would not come amiss. The previous version seemed to me to be a perfectly valid DAB page,if an unusual one. Which is batter can be discussed on the talk page after this is closed. A straight list article on this topic could also be done. The original nom did not list any policy-based reason for deletion, and I see none now. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 02:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I stated before, it is not a valid dab page. Entries must be referred to as/synonymous with "mobile infantry", and none that are listed qualify. Examples are specifically excluded by WP:DABCONCEPT, as noted above. As for my reason for deletion, I question whether the term is officially recognized/defined, as opposed to something like "fast car", a term that crops all the time, but is just as unworthy of an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take such a narrow view of what can be a valid DAB page in exceptional circumstances, and I think an argument could be made that each of the linked terms is sufficiently synonymous with "mobile infantry" that an unusual DAB page could be permitted to exist, and helps readers. As for WP:DABCONCEPT you can't have it both ways. As I belive was suggested above, if there is a potentially valid article about the concept of "mobile infantry" in general (not just in the RAH novel) then the current version is a start on such an article and should not be deleted. If that is not a valid article topic, then DABCONCEPT does not apply. In neither case is deletion the proper answer, as per WP:ATD. Even if it is decided that neither a DAB nor an article is appropriate, a redirect to the articel about the concept in teh RAH novel seems useful, and that does not need an AfD. I still see no policy-based reason to delete, and certainly none was mentioend in the original nomination. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the entries is a subset of "mobile infantry", not a synonym. A tank is a motor vehicle. Does that make them synonyms? Again, where is there anything more than passing uses of the phrase. No mentions at all (or anything even remotely close) in Infantry Branch (United States) or Infantry of the British Army, for example. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A WP:BEFORE search as to whether this could be a valid article topic brought up only Starship Trooper articles, but a newspapers.com search shows the term "mobile infantry" was in use a lot during World War II. I could not find any articles in the immediate which would denote any sort of notability to a larger article, but I don't think it's impossible. I generally agree with the nominator this is not a valid disambiguation page, looking at both the current version and the page originally nominated for deletion, but I also think it's possible that it could be. SportingFlyer T·C 13:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator does not present a rationale for deletion. And this is a perfectly valid disambiguation page.Lightburst (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a valid disamb page to me. A valid search term would bring people here to see links to the various articles they could be looking for. Dream Focus 21:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Borderline case but certainly no consensus to delete, and since re-listing, a consensus to Keep by experienced editors (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Perry (musician)

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

I created this page ages ago because I remembered his rendition of "I'm Gonna Hurt Her on the Radio". However I'm struggling to find any information on him at all besides the brief AllMusic bio. Billboard published a review of his debut single but gave him no other attention. "Keith Perry" + "Curb Records" returns nothing whatsoever on Newspapers.com -- not even The Tennesseean, a newspaper based in Nashville, saw fit to cover an artist who was on a Nashville-based label for 5+ years. The only other hits on American Radio History are passing mentions such as release dates for his singles, mentioning that he is part of the label's roster, or other uninformative fluff.

While he does meet one criterion of WP:NMUSIC with two albums on a notable label (Curb Records), one of the two was merely a covers album that got no attention whatsoever. None of his singles or albums charted anywhere, and he doesn't seem to have gotten any sort of media attention. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll be curious to see how this AfD nomination is resolved. Many editors will cite the fact that he has an AllMusic bio plus two releases on a major label, thus an automatic "keep". Yet other's will point out that his efforts resulted in no measurable success or significant coverage and vote delete based on the "may be notable" qualifier regarding criteria. I find it a curious case study in how otherwise failed musicians are deemed encyclopedic-worthy by wiki standards, something that happens all too frequently here. I'll hold off for voting now on the possibility that significant coverage exists. After all, his career pre-dates (barely) the era of broad online coverage; sources may exist in 90's era print publications that are difficult to track down by googling. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are plenty of possible sources for musicians whose careers predate the Internet age. Americanradiohistory.com has thousands of issues of Billboard, Radio & Records, Gavin Report, and other trade publications. The Nashville newspaper is on Newspapers.com and in the past has proven helpful in expanding the articles of even 80s and 90s country artists (see Tracy Lawrence, Steve Wariner, Eddy Raven, etc.). Even Dale Daniel has gotten more coverage despite having only one non-charting album on a lesser label. See also cases like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Spurs where there seems to be a consensus that meeting at least one criterion of WP:NMUSIC is not always enough if reliable sources don't exist. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's a bio and two album reviews at Allmusic. One of his albums appears to have made the Billboard Hot Country Albums chart (can't see the details in the Google Books snippet). Brief Billboard single review is here. Less brief Billboard single review here. --Michig (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard.com does not have any chart listings for Keith Perry on Top Country Albums or otherwise. What is the snippet that you found on such? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard has a habit of messing up their chart archives so I wouldn't rely on their website. Google Books gives a search result here for ["Keith Perry" curb] in Joel Whitburn Presents Hot Country Albums: Billboard 1964 to 2007, p. 321. He gets a mention, but it's hard to tell what for exactly. --Michig (talk) 07:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig:, The reference appears to be to a multi-artist album on Curb, on which Keith Perry was but one participant, and likely chosen only because Curb likes to re-issue stuff 9 billion times. Back issues of Billboard confirm that Keith Perry indeed did not have a single or album chart anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I see "When I could fly" reviewed by Billboard here, and "All I give a damn about is you" reviewed by Billboard here, this looks like it just scrapes across the line for WP:MUSICBIO. FOARP (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Billboard reviews add balast to the Allmusic bio and two reviews so there is enough just about to pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources mentioned above. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thom Bresh

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. Sources in the article are either not independent or are passing mentions at best, and a quick WP:BEFORE check revealed only endorsements, press releases and a few more passing mentions. I also don't see any evidence that this person passes WP:NBAND. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TenPoundHammer has found some useful sources and Bresh does now seem to meet WP:NMUSIC. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He might pass WP:NMUSIC as the producer of a Grammy nominated album, he has a two paragraph independent bio on AllMusic but more coverage is needed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily passes WP:NMUSIC with a top 10 hit on a major singles chart, also has a pretty substantial bio on AllMusic. Also added a substantial news article from The Jackson Sun. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as additional reliable sources references with significant coverage have been added to the article so deletion is no longer necessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, per TenPoundHammer's expansion; nice work. Yunshui ^雲 _水 22:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zbyszek Zalinski

AfDs for this article:

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

5 years since the last no consensus AfD this hasn't improved and I see no new sources. Subject has no awards and coverage is limited to one interview and some mentions in passing. I don't think this is sufficient to merit an entry in an encyclopedia. Let's see if we can reach a consensus this time. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And, indeed, per the arguments made in the original AfD. Namely that the only coverage that seems to be available, of which the subject is the primary topic, is the article in the Irish Examiner. A single article of this type doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV. The other coverage, in which the subject is mentioned, is substantively about other topics, and the subject is largely just referred to in passing - together with other people working in media (like the Irish Independent piece, the CV style bios on rte.ie, etc.) The only mentions of the subject that I can find, since the original AfD, include this type of thing or this. Which is the type of general activity to be expected for someone working in media. But doesn't contribute to WP:SIGCOV or WP:FILMMAKER or similar. Guliolopez (talk) 10:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Disagree that WP:NOWORK is a good reason for deletion. However, in my WP:BEFORE I only see two sources giving significant coverage to the subject, both of which are interviews and as such of dubious independence from the subject (1 2). You'd think there'd be more, but absent that this fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The fact that the article hasn't been improved since the first discussion is not a deletion criterion in and of itself — but what is more determinative is that the reason it hasn't been improved is because there aren't any genuinely solid sources to improve it with. Two of the three sources here are a primary source and a glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is something else, neither of which are support for notability — and while there is one source that's both reliable and non-trivially about him, even just a basic GNG pass requires more than just one such source. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Halystina umberlee. Tone 11:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Umberlee

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

I don't see how this fictional character passes WP:GNG/WP:NFICTION. Extent of real world significance is having a snail named after her. Nice trivia, but that's about all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as non-notable and possibly redirect to Halystina umberlee._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 04:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. The nomination is lacking a vigorous rationale. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE is not a valid rationale. The onus is on you to show how this concept meets our policies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to halystina umberlee where she is mentioned. Not significant enough to have a full article. Not a very active user (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Olga T. Lomakin

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

I do not see anything in this article which would demonstrate the notability of this lady. She is only mentioned together with her husband, and, to be honest, the notability of the husband is at best at the edge. Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find very little coverage in accessible sources, at least from her time in the US. The report mentioned in this article is in a newspaper (the San Francisco Chronicle) which is not on Newspapers.com for the relevant years (maybe other editors have access through different databases, and can say how significant it is). But even if it is significant coverage, we would need more than just one article to meet WP:GNG, and I don't see it. There are some mentions, including a report of the ship launch, and when she and her husband were guests at an American-Russian Friendship banquet in 1944 (that tells us that she was an expert in silk manufacture, not mentioned in this article) - but other than that, there are just photos of her arriving to board the ship to leave the US in 1948. (Identified - not sure what the article means about correspondents failing to identify her.) From what the article says about her activities in the US and in Russia, she would not meet any WP:SNGs either. (There is significant coverage of her husband, so I don't think there would be a question of his notability.) (I'm glad to have seen the photo of her cat, gorgeous - but sadly no reason to keep it on Wikipedia.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThank you for your time and expertise. I agree that the picture of OTL doesn’t reflect her activity during WWII. The main reason why I submitted this article for Wiki is because there were literally thousands of wives of Russian-Soviet diplomats that are worth a blank page. The Wiki article on Lydia Gromyko is extremely poorly written and has questionable citations (mainly in Russian). Whereas OTL (1942-1944) in publications is remembered as a socially active person. She defied the stereotypes characteristic of Russian-Soviet diplomats wives. The photo of the “oversized woman in furs” leaving the car on the dock In 1948 and called “mommy Lomakin” is not OTL ! A lot of mistakes are made in when chasing for sensation. See the pictures on the family arrival in Sweden. Thank you for reminding me that she was expert in silk manufacture. Please give me a lead to the “American-Russian friendship banquet 1944”, I can’t find it. I regret if the article will be deleted, little is known of the people that worked together during the American Russian alliance. Write me if I can improve the article in any way. I still find that OTL and her time are worth remembering. Thanks again User:Ludaleib (talk) 13:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 07:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rajesh Kumawat

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — the notability test for politicians is holding a notable political office, not just running for one. But this literally doesn't even try to demonstrate that he had any preexisting notability for any other reason besides the candidacy, and the only reference is his own political party's self-published website about itself rather than a notability-conferring reliable or independent source, which means he's passed neither of the other two paths to making an unelected candidate more notable than other unelected candidates. And furthermore, I suspect some form of conflict of interest editing here, since the page creator has "Kumawat" in their username and their edit history has been devoted entirely to people whose surname was also Kumawat — I don't know whether these people are all one family or not, but there's certainly a singular focus on the name. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Bearcat says. A brief Web search corroborates the lack of WP:SIGCOV, only seeing him in lists of names, fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC. -Lopifalko (talk) 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one of thousands of local party officials and candidates. Bearian (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG.--Muhandes (talk) 09:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NPOL. Also, looks like madeup by someone who has COI.— Harshil ^{want to talk?} 01:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to La Voz (American TV series). (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 10:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

La Voz (American season 2)

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

Incomplete article without RS. Warm Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected to La Voz (American TV series) as there's just not enough to justify any article breakout at this point. This can be closed. Nate • (chatter) 09:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Killian

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

Clear failure of GNG with exactly zero reliable sources counting to GNG showing in the footnotes. This bio appears to have been kept under auspices of the now-deprecated Special Notability Guideline for pornographic actors. Carrite (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per revamped WP:PORNBIO. Also, obviously, no reliable sources.--Darwinek (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. We have far too many articles on such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did not know that PORNBIO had been deprecated in favour of judging porn actors directly against regular ENT criteria, but I'm pleased that it has — it's always been used to try to draw a circle of protection around porn actors who couldn't actually show any acceptable sourcing for their notability claims at all. And this is one of them: not a single footnote present in this entire article would have been acceptable in a BLP of a mainstream actor at all: directories, YouTube clips, blogs and primary sources all. If somebody wants to create their own separate WikiPorn for Wikipedia-style articles about porn actors, be my guest — but Wikipedia has to maintain encyclopedic standards of notability and referenceability. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. I looked for new sources and didn't find anything of BLP quality. Cheers, gnu 57 05:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cafrii

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

The prod was removed by a single-purpose anon IP after citing some press releases, but nothing substantive. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO in my opinion. GSS ^💬 04:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to have been a poor attempt at a WP:PROMO article, I removed the promotional links per WP:ELNO and the SPA just added them back. I also can't seem to find a reliable source tying Cafrii to Universal Music Group, although given the wording if he actually did it is likely a collaboration with a subsidiary and not him being signed by the record company. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seems to be WP:TOOSOON with only one official single and no sign that it charted, together with a lack of coverage, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Rogue (band)

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

Does not meet the WP:NMUSIC notability guidelines for a band. My pre-AfD searching yields no significant coverage from a reliable source besides a music review at [4], which isn't reliable. Utopes (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A significant number of sources have been found and cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apvktx (talk • contribs)
Delete. There does not appear to be enough to meet WP:GNG or any other notability guideline. Facebook and event listings do not count as WP:RS. Also, there appears to be obvious undisclosed conflict of interest, as the article's creator Apvktx is presumably the Andy VK mentioned in the article as one of the band's members. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all comments above. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant number of sources have been found and cited. apvktx
Keep Social media posts by businesses are not excluded as WP:RS, nor are documented events. There is no issue with a band updating or creating their own article, and sources other than social media have been listed. A quick search of the band from Houston shows plenty of activity, more than enough to warrant WP:GNG validity. Dissentingvoice (talk) 00:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC) — Dissentingvoice (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
While I am assuming good faith, it is intriguing that a newly-created account happened to find this article and discussion, and also claims to be well-versed in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Someone editing an article about their own band clearly contravenes the conflict of interest guideline, so your assertion that there is "no issue" is patently false. Also, please indicate which of the provided sources you feel are reliable sources and/or provide additional sources that are to show how WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost: per AfD guidelines please keep all conversation on the article, not the editors. Second, WP:COI says it CAN create a conflict of interest if there is any relationship between the editor and the subject of the article, not that it inherently DOES. Third, of the 8 references cited, only two are social media, neither of them are personal pages (therefore not excluded as WP:RS). The majority of the sources are not directly related to the band but present factual data of the band’s activities. Although I’m not familiar with the first website listed in the references section, it appears to be completely independent of both the band and any production agency the band has worked with. The third reference appears to display the band’s recorded work, which is a measure toward WP:NMUSIC notability, however it’s a very subjective view. There is no rubric by which to measure, so I can simply say that what looks like three studio releases and one live release are notable enough to me. Dissentingvoice (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:NMUSIC, and per WP:TOOSOON. The band is not even a year old (can't prove sustainable coverage), has no notable recordings (where are the reviews?), and not much coverage overall.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of honorary citizens of Templin

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

Topic is not notable per LISTN and GNG. To the extent that it should be covered at all it can be covered in the Lubbock article but is not currently part of that article - and in most cases would not belong in a city's article. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Templin is a town of 16K residents, so the honor is minimal, and there's only one entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Templin. Relevant content about the town, but not enough to merit a standalone article. —Kusma (t·c) 07:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of honorary citizens of Lubbock

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

Topic is not notable per LISTN and GNG. To the extent that it should be covered at all it can be covered in the Lubbock article but is not currently part of that article - and in most cases would not belong in a city's article. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Honorary citizenship awarded by cities is not an especially high honor. And there are a lot of other such articles that need to go as well. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable enough to merit coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Chicago Maroons football team

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

Unremarkable seasons for the Chicago Maroons, which is now a Division III college football team. No sources in articles to show that these seasons would pass WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search does not find such sources. Prior attempt to create article for a routine UChicago football season was deleted here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Chicago Maroons football team. Cbl62 (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Cbl62 (talk) 02:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very light on prose, not properly cited, fails WP:NOTSTATS as it stands and WP:GNG as well. SportingFlyer T·C 03:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSEASONS would be a better choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the final closure of this discussion will be one based on editing preference rather than deletion issues -- meaning, do we want to have a cluster of season articles, individual season articles, or what...--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only local coverage that almost amounts to WP:SPS for 2015. 2016 not much better really. Not much coverage outside of the school or league sources.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer.4meter4 (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fariborz Shamshiri

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

The subject requested deletion via OTRS citing privacy concerns and that he does not believe he is notable enough for a Wikipedia entry. I took a look and I don't think the article meets the notability guidelines. Most of the sources are about topics related to his writing. The few that are directly about him (currently [5] and [6]) are an interview and a blog co-written by his friends (see note at the bottom of the blog post). As such, they are not reliable sources. Killiondude (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Killiondude (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Killiondude (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Killiondude (talk) 01:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not so notable that we must have an article on him, so we should respect his privacy desires.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ender's Game series organizations

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As fancruft. Retain the Battle School redirect and point it to Ender's Game (novel series) or Ender's Game as a plausible search._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not cite a single source, making this original research from start to end. I couldn't find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources for it to surpass GNG (not surprising given the level of minutia we're dealing with). There's a wikia out there to cover this kind of content. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If these are notable, they can be discussed in the articles on the various books, nothing is gained from this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Olivet Comets football. No desire to keep; strongest consensus to Redirect, with Olivet Comets football as the most practical available option (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Olivet Comets football team

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

Unremarkable seasons for the Olivet Comets, a Division III college football team. Olivet College is a small college with only 1,040 students. Division III seasons should be limited to something extraordinary which these are not. No sources in articles to show that these season would pass WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE search does not find such sources. Cbl62 (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 29. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no comment on the DIII status but none of these seasons pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 01:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, see past Division III season article AfDs: 2017 Wisconsin-Whitewater (closed as merge); 2008 Buffalo (closed as delete); 2008 St. Norbert (closed as delete); 2012 Chicago (closed as delete). Cbl62 (talk) 02:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Olivet Comets football. Not notable as others have mentioned, but WP:NSEASONS suggests a redirect is appropriate in this case. Smartyllama (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Redirect per WP:NSEASONS would be a better choice.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might be inclined to support redirect if there were a meaningful place to redirect, but in this case the Olivet Comets football article is a one-sentence sub-stub which in its entirety reads: "The Olivet Comets football program represents Olivet College in college football at the NCAA Division III level." Cbl62 (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes we have to create the destination. I suggest that re-directing to a season article for the conference is one place. The aforementioned Olivet Comets football is another.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Olivet Comets football.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sources found were not considered to be independent significant coverage. RL0919 (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoorius

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

Non-notable company, balant advertising, lacks WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously made up by someone with COI. And this article looks like promoting one organisation. Wiki is not place for it. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this SIGCOV at Creative Review about the 2007 edition of its design awards (requires you create an account to read). -Lopifalko (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It appears that the major contributor @Bagabondo: didn't come here, and instead answered on their talkpage without following the instructions for replying. I'm unfamiliar with architecturaldigest but 'brandequity' is hosted on the indiatimes website, so might be closer to an WP:RS. I think given more time and more WP:RS this article could be ok. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since possible sources have been brought forward in the last day, giving this another round so they can be properly considered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The criteria for notability requires that there are multiple references which provide significant coverage with in-depth information on the company. These references must contain independent content which is defined as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. On analysis, most references fail as the content is not independent, relying on interviews/quotations from the CEO and company announcements or content created by connected sources. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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