Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 30 June	2 July >

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 speedy delete. WP:G11 - this is spam in its purest form! Just Chilling (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Park Enclave, Islamabad

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

One of many housing projects, created for sole purpose of advert. Delete per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete clearly an attempt to use WP as a means to advertise, this could have been speedy deleted but at least this way there will be a discussion to refeence to if it ios ever recreated. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of independent coverage for housing development. Reywas92^Talk 04:51, 8 July 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 Veeam. A couple of people have effectively said "merge and delete", which is not possible due to our content licences. The page history will be preserved and any relevant information can be merged into the Veeam article from it. The article should not be recreated from the redirect without a DRV, if this happens the redirect can be protected. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N2WS (Veeam)

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

I initially attempted to redirect this however it's since been contested. I see no evidence this is notable as a standalone article and am proposing deletion and redirection to Veeam as everything available in the sources here and what I can find are basic acquisition announcements or funding announcements Praxidicae (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence the subject is notable and should not be redirected

Here is some info from the article that establishes this is not a run-of-the-mill acquisition. N2WS is a market disruptor which was acquired, but remains an independent company, and was declared by analysts to be a strategic acquisition for Veeam:

"The acquisition gives N2WS access to Veeam’s 55,000 resellers and 18,000 cloud service providers. According to an IDC Research Impact Analysis the Veeam N2WS acquisition is potentially strategic. IDC says the majority of new application deployments within the next two years will be in the cloud, and so the cloud-related backup will be among the fastest-growing IaaS sectors in coming years."

Establishing notability for the company itself: "N2WS has 1,000 enterprise customers. The technology is used by Coca-Cola, Southwest Airlines, Cisco, Dyson, Time Inc., Harvard University, and Oracle." The product has also won several awards.

All the information is taken from over 20 reputable sources including The Register, SDX Central, IDC, EWeek, SiliconAngle, CRN, etc.

Finally, according to WP:RDELETE, a redirect can be deleted if it "could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" - it is proposed to redirect to [Veeam] but the target article has only 1 line about N2WS. Gilad.maayan (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gilad.maayan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Redirect to Veeam - the information above are passing mentions and act as a coatrack. I do not see there being sufficient material to warrant expanding this to what could already be placed in the main article as a separate section (removing the promo, NPOV format sentences with the merge as well). – The Grid (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect all the sources treat the acquisition of this single product by Veeam. Also this is almost certainly undeclared paid editing by a digital marketing agency. I shall be checking the other creations by this editor. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- But I declared on my user page before writing the article that I represent N2WS. I disclosed that I have a COI. I did not get paid to specifically write this article, we are doing a wide range of content and marketing activities for this company.

Feel free to check all my contributions to Wikipedia, you will find they are all spotless and of very high quality. You are clearly biased against me or the company I am representing and I intend to report this to higher Wikipedia authorities. Gilad.maayan (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gilad.maayan (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Domdeparis Did you mean "Delete and merge" or "Merge and Redirect"? HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and eventually merge if there is anything to merge and create a redirect. If we don't delete and leave the history then you can be sure that someone will just copy from the history and replace the redirect and then the circle will start again.Dom from Paris (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. All of the references are based on company announcements or are primary sources. If there is anything worthwhile in the article it can be merged to Veeam. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IDC Published an "Impact Analysis" of this acquisition explaining the strategic importance of N2WS technology. Many other media outlets covered the acquisition in depth. How can you say "not a single reference establishes notability"? Gilad.maayan (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can you make that outrageous accusation!!?? Is it because I'm Irish? Could this be yet more anti-Irish attitudes forced on Wikipedia! You clearly hate everything Irish. (edit: for clarity, that last comment is my sarcastic attempt at highlighting the idiotic nature of the comment by Gilad.maayan and that clearly this type of identity-politics-led nonsense is just that). HighKing⁺⁺ 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilad.maayan: That is an outrageous accusation. Accusing someone of being antisemitic without any proof is the kind of personal attack that could be considered a blockable action. Please read WP:WIAPA and I would advise you to redact or strike your comments. Dom from Paris (talk) 18:38, 8 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

QRG Health City

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

A non-notable mid-size hospital, since the article doesn't credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. While searches did turn up about a dozen articles which mention the hospital, none were of the in-depth type needed to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NBUILD. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AmericanAir88^(talk) 15:58, 8 July 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) 04:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Phillips (voice actor)

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

No lead roles in any lead productions. Article is merely a credits dump of minor and supporting roles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.--Nahal^(T) 11:38, 02 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not every actor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable actor. Barca (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Richard Aldana is the main character in Lastman. Shigure Ninomiya is listed as a main character in Mikagura School Suite. Pete Armstrong in Murder Princess may be a notable character as well, not entirely certain. WP:ENTERTAINER is thus passed. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Dream Focus 17:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are again minor productions that go to direct-to-video / streaming status when it comes to English dubs. If the person was the Japanese voice actor then it would be notable. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that as a rule anywhere. Sounds like total nonsense you just made up. These aren't just random people chosen for dubs, these are professional voice actors. And whether something is made for television or internet broadcast is not relevant. Millions of people use Crunchroll to watch anime on. Dream Focus 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchyroll plays English subtitled not dub anime for the titles above mentioned. The dub ones are only on some of the more popular titles, of which the titles pertaining to Ben Phillips are not. Show me again which news articles feature Ben with significant coverage, even critiques on his work in those titles would help. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikagura School Suite reads: "The series is licensed in North America by Funimation, who simulcast the subtitled version as it aired and began streaming a broadcast dub version from June 9, 2015.[20][21]" Funimation's website list it as "Available Languages: English and Japanese". Murder Princess is also listed as being available in both languages. Dream Focus 10:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources do not show he meets WP:ENTERTAINER. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Deferring to experts here. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinchas HaKohen Lintup

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

DePRODed by an SPA -- created this page in May and had no edits since, except to contest the PROD. Sourcing is flimsy and based on digital, potentially self-published books and offline sources, and also see potential COI from authors cited in text and sources provided. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 23:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The man did exist, but the sourcing is very weak. I removed one non-RS blog and am tempted to remove another (The Seforim Blog). Here is a Hebrew-language source that also just mentions him in passing as a contemporary of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. There is no corresponding article about him on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Yoninah (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether as a religious figure or as an author, the claim of notability is strong. Better sourcing is needed, though the systemic bias and lack of sourcing for individuals living in his era make finding English-language sources more challenging. Alansohn (talk) 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slightly obscure but illustrious 19th-century WP:AUTHOR and philosopher nonetheless whose teachings are still resonating in study halls far beyond his native Lithuania. If someone will take the time to systematically uncover the bits and pieces about this subject that are scattered about, this article will have a nice future. StonyBrook (talk) 07:05, 3 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T. H. Subash Chandran

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

WP:NN music teacher, fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Unable to find any in-depth sources about this person. Only claim to fame is that he had students who became notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see that he meets any notability criteria. Notability is not inherited from having notable students. Papaursa (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources, and no evidence of touring or other proof of notability as an artist. Bearian (talk) 15:57, 8 July 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 per WP:SNOW: Despite a well-argued nomination,

If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process

clearly applies here. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 10:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Burton (actor)

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

The bit of independent coverage of this actor is this writeup, which is fine as far as it goes; but it seems to be the only such in existence. There's also a nomination for Best Actor in Supporting Role / Musical. Otherwise, it's passing mentions. - Overall I'd assess this as not meeting WP:NARTIST yet, although it may not be far off the mark. (NB, also written by the subject himself - not a big issue in this case as it's not overtly promotional IMO.) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Ssilver has added a number of further references that certainly show that Burton has repeatedly been singled out for positive commentary (e.g. [1]). While not necessarily making me want to withdraw this (not that I could at this stage, with mixed !votes), it's now even further into the maybe-fine area. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The correct standard for this type of person is WP:ENT, not WP:NARTIST. It is disappointing that you didn't do a Google search before starting an AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is sloppily written, but this actor has had numerous roles in major musicals in the West End and in UK national tours, and favorable coverage in both London and New York papers, including The New York Times and The Telegraph, as well as The Stage, Playbill, The Hollywood Reporter and numerous theatre-specialist websites. He is currently starring in the West End in The Mousetrap and has been cast in a starring role in the upcoming West End run of White Christmas for 2019–2020. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is written clearly to advertise himself, as it is written by himself. Please see WP:N, WP:SOAP and WP:BIAS. Wikipeida is not a biography page you'd see on an 'About Page'. In the major publications he has cited, he is only mentioned very berifly (maybe one, at most two, lines). — Preceding unsigned comment added by JavaPythonLutz (talk • contribs) 23:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Vote struck: user blocked. - SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Ssilvers. Meets GNG. - SchroCat (talk) 04:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability clearly established. Has had high profile roles backed by relevant sources. Jack1956 (talk) 05:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decently sourced article, establishing notability. Will be of use to readers (and already has been, to judge from page view stats). Tim riley talk 06:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep establishing notability. meet criteria of WP:GNG. --Nahal^(T) 09:37, 02 July 2019 (UTC) 12:03, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I declined the speedy noting that deletion isn't for cleanup. It meets the GNG and artist specific ones. It needs cleanup rather than deletion. Woody (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability clearly establishedMark E (talk) 09:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per sources added to the article, meets GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 13:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sources added, meets WP:GNG. William2001^(talk) 22:01, 6 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Konrad de la Fuente

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

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS77 ^✉ 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 08:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - no, does not pass NFOOTBALL (@Rbradeyb1: you are wrong there) but likely does pass GNG. Giant Snowman 08:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Segunda Division B is a fully professional league. The only thing against it is the reserve teams in the League, however, they are still generally on professional contracts Rbradeyb1 Rbradeyb1 17:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG, the WP:THREE are The Guardian, ESPN and The Miami Herald. – Levivich 04:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - regardless of whether a single appearance in Barcelona-B counts for NFOOTY - our subject passes GNG. The amount of media hits in google-news is quite high, and per sourcing demonstrated by Levivich - some of these are in-depth. Icewhiz (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GNG with the quality and depth of the sources listed. Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that this list fails our notability guidelines. This close is without prejudice to the creation of a new redirect if thought appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police

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

Not enough content to merit a standalone list; the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia already mentions equipment used by the department. There isn't anything of value here that isn't already covered sufficiently on that article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is not only a content fork for the content in Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia, neither this, nor the list of vehicles in this article contains a source validating the content. This fails WP:NOR and also, in my opinion as it deals with vehicle fleets specific to makes and models, WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Presently lacking sources in the article ≠ OR. I believe that you've been told this before, and you should actually take the time to read WP:V and WP:OR carefully before you post the same misinterpretation in another AFD where you just comment on the current state of the article rather than its potential. If you mean instead to say no sources exist to be found, then say so plainly and explain why you think that. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see any potential with this current article. Even if the original research issue is able to be addressed, it's still listcruft and no different to the wafts of bus fleet roster articles or subsections scattered across Wikipedia.Ajf773 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I hope you're not implying that it doesn't matter what you say at AFD so long as the page is deleted in the end. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the LISTCRUFT assessment; there doesn't appear to be enough here to validate a content fork on this subject. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia#Equipment and Vehicles per WP:ATD; not maintaining this WP:SPLIT is reasonable, but so is keeping a redirect for a possible search term to where that subtopic is actually covered. postdlf (talk) 17:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with AJ this is all but LISTCRUFT, I'd favour deleting over redirecting as the pageviews are extremely low (generally 2-5 hits a day) so as such I personally think it's a useless redirect. –Davey2010^Talk 17:51, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Those 2-5 people each day wouldn't think so. Really if a redirect's use is >0 and not harmful, we should keep it. postdlf (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and Hugsyrup has indicated below why it may be harmful, due to ambiguity. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and lacks sources Alex-h (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Postdlf. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And I oppose redirection on the basis that there are numerous other 'Metropolitan polices' and DC is probably not the best known of them, so it's by no means an obvious redirect and could even be confusing. For example, why not redirect it to Metropolitan Police Service#Fleet instead? Hugsyrup (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that's an argument for "Keep and change to disambiguation page?" Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I suppose it is, when you put it like that! The trouble is, I find it a little hard to argue strongly for what would become a marginally-useful and rather overly-specific disambiguation page. Might it be a better solution to just redirect this to Metropolitan police? Hugsyrup (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, Hugsyrup. We could rename first to Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and then redirect, but I'm indifferent at this point. postdlf (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient coverage of what is run of the mill information. Bearian (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that the SIGCOV requirement of GNG is not met. Just for anyone reading who is trying to learn how to get an article "kept", the lone "keep" !vote here is the wrong way to do it. Be specific. Point to specific reliable sources that meet the requirements of GNG, and why those sources suffice. Stating that "There's Google results" is a very weak argument that will be mostly ignored by AfD closers in most circumstances. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ResourceSpace

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

Promotional article for non-notable software; there are unsourced claims to it being used by major companies, but thousands of non notable products of all sorts have been at one time or another used in some minor way by notable companies--they're the market for everything that's business-related--we're not a directory of enterprise software. Almost all the features are pure routine. There are unsourced claims for being "among the first" for some of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not technically innovative, not commercially a big player, distinct lack of 3rd party attention paid to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep object, on the grounds that, on reading the notability guidelines, the software clearly has had "significant coverage" (a Google search verifies this). If there were issues with notability the process "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines" should have been followed first giving authors the chance to respond via the notability tag. Going straight to deletion proposal is very heavy handed for an article that has existed for over 12 years and has had contributions from many authors ensuring neutrality and appropriateness. Dan Huby (talk) 07:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Dan Huby has COI here. DMacks (talk) 09:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Andy Dingley.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cannot find any material WP:RS on this that would support a GNG or NSOFT case; certainly no WP:SIGCOV by any RS on ResourceSpace. Britishfinance (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've found a few sources in books, but none are in-depth per SIGCOV. There are some Google scholar sources, but again, not in depth. The nominator was an academic librarian at a major university, so he should know. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Closed as Speedy Keep as the nominator and only delete !voter have withdrawn/struck their nomination/!vote. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Hornor Jacobs

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

Put simply, this author does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While his works appear to be well reviewed, from what I have seen, none of his works appear to have ever actually made it to any bestseller's list. Similarly, only one of his ten published works actually appears to have been nominated for an award, which it did not win. Posing this to AfD since there is a June 2015 tag questioning the notability of this author, so I know I am not alone. Firstclass306 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ User:Firstclass306 should take a look at WP:AUTHOR, which does not require awards or bestseller status. That said, we do require sources. I took a swing at sourcing this, adding reviews of two of his books. It was all I cold find and it's not enough. That said, if anyone manages to source it, feel free to ping me. I am always willing to revisit when sources are found.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i see that nominator states that books are well reviewed, and E.M.Gregory above has added some reviews in the article, now if only one of his books had enough reviews (two or more) to meet WP:NBOOK (no a book does not have to be a bestseller as well) than there would be a potential redirect target ..... wait, heres one: The Twelve-Fingered Boy. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but what would happen if there was a 2nd notable book, which one would be chosen for the target? but that is a moot point as there is only one book article....isn't there? ummmmm, The Shibboleth. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kudos to Coolabahapple. With one clearly notable book, and other books that have garnered respectful attention of reviewers, we can keep this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks E.M.Gregory, oh, and heres a 3rd, The Incorruptibles ("oh really coola, behave!"), will stop now as snoozles are needed:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW User:Firstclass306, man, you and I both missed a lot of sources. You might want to withdraw this,cause the snow is really piling up and there no way this one's gonna get deleted. Cheers.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to formally withdraw a deletion, so please consider this message to be my withdrawal. To all of you who participated in this discussion, E.M.Gregory, Coolabahapple, I apologize. I noticed there seemed to be a back and forth in the page's history on whether the subject was notable, so I did some basic research and did not really find anything, so I just assumed. I would like to apologize for wasting everyone's time. I would also like to thank all of you for baking me a delicious humble pie. I have learned a valuable lesson today, cheers. Firstclass306 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes WP:GNG The article should be developed. Lightburst (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zulhaj Zubair

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

Article about an actor whose only film does not released yet. Article has references but they are about "Zilhaj Zubair acting in the film" or "going to act". Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Article says he a regular program presenter at Jamuna Television. But have no significant achievement as presenter. Didn't received any significant award/honor. A promotional article. Fails WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I also suspect WP:COI involved here. The user who created this worked for Jamuna Television. (from user's profile see his facebook post) --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Each Source of this article is taken from different actors and actresses. i did not find any source about these article. all of source not related with article. not enough to establish notability. Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG--Nahal^(T) 09:37, 02 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; this is far too soon. He's a run of the mill actor - many actors are featured in a single film and are still not notable. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 8 July 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)} 18:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical Data, Inc

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

This is a highly promotional article about a non-notable company. The references currently in the article are non-independent / useless. A websearch doesn't turn up any significant coverage (just some routine press-release-like news articles). The generic nature of the company name, however, makes searching for sources difficult. Peacock (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Virtually the entire article is about generic problems and solutions of the industry, rather than being about this specific company. bd2412 T 14:43, 4 July 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 Troyeville#Education. RL0919 (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laerskool Johann Rissik

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

Article on a primary school has only one reference. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES generally only affords inherent notability to secondary schools and higher. Chetsford (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Troyeville#Education. Agree with the nomination. I have already carried out the merge so, if this finds favour with the nominator, this can be redirected and speedily closed. Just Chilling (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition from nom to a redirect. I neither support nor oppose a merge. Chetsford (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 1 July 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruva College of Management

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

No indications of meeting WP:GNG. Article is promotional and entirely self-sourced. Recommend redirection to Education in Hyderabad. Orville^talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Orville^talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as an accredited post-graduate institute. It certainly needs cleaning up and sourcing but it is not as irredeemable as the over-tagging would imply. Indian institutions put far less on the Internet than western schools so we should avoid systemic bias by giving time for expansion and for local sources to be found and added. Experience shows that with proper research WP:ORG can be met. Just Chilling (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP but some of the issues have already been addressed since nomination. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Clearly there are issues with the article, however, this is a tertiary institution of instruction which we have, through previous consensus, determined are almost always inherently notable subject only to verification it isn't a WP:HOAX. Despite how poorly referenced this article is, I feel safe in saying this isn't a hoax. Chetsford (talk) 22:50, 7 July 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. Even if the nomination is inaccurate, editors have presented valid arguments for deletion later. The request to keep the talk page discussion as a record of a page move discussion that also applied to other pages is reasonable so I'll leave it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Gary

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN as almost all of these buildings are not notable and none of them are notable for height. Also, relies on a single source which is WP:UGC and therefore not reliable. Rusf10 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. LISTN is about whether the group or set has been the subject or coverage, not whether any or all of the individual members of that group or set are notable. So you have not yet presented a valid deletion argument. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Show me a reliable source that covers the building as a group.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to present a claim on that issue? postdlf (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just did.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want to nominate something for deletion, it's up to you to plainly state what your argument is, and to make sure your argument is actually valid. Your nomination claimed a guideline was not satisfied "because" of observations that had nothing to do with that guideline, which is what my comment pointed out to you. You're welcome. Now try harder. postdlf (talk) 21:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 48 m is fairly short by modern standards, and Gary, Indiana is a fairly small city. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Save the talk page. There is a 2016 multi-move request on the talk page that is linked from numerous similar talk pages. It should be preserved somewhere. Station1 (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When your tallest building is only 12 stories, you don't deserve a list of tall buildings. No sources discussing the topic of tall of buildings in Gary because there aren't any... Reywas92^Talk 18:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:LISTN, no sources provided that discuss this group, or part of it, any notable buildings here can be included at Gary, Indiana. And what is it about this obsession with tallest buildings, why not "Buildings in ...."? buildings don't have to be tall to be notable, and groups of buildings arent necessarily precluded from sources just because they are not tall. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:03, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- This AfD was added to the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron – Rescue list by user:Andrew Davidson.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search failed to return any RS coverage of tall buildings in Gary, therefore the list fails WP:LISTN. Article contains no reliably-sourced content that could be merged. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Twins

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

Fails WP:BAND. The article does not have multiple secondary sources and has no demonstration of notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability via secondary sources is concerned with the sources that exist, not the sources that are cited in the article. A Google search will find further coverage from Clash, NME, Music Week, etc. --Michig (talk) 07:57, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability seems to be met based on Wikipedia:Notability_(music) --XPatchx (talk) 14:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the band has multiple reliable sources coverage in The Guardian, Clash, Music Week and NME so they pass WP:GNG as well as criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) and therefore deserve a place in the encyclopedia, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether or not the band meets NMUSIC, it appears to pass the GNG, though the article could use improved referencing. Dedicated profiles in The Guardian [2], Vibe [3], and one paragraph mentions in Rolling Stone [4] and The Independent [5] are, I think, sufficient.

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 19:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crywank

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

I am unable to find significant discussion of this band in multiple reliable sources. Google search brings up fewer than 100 results, mainly entries in social media, music streaming sites, and event announcements. Some blog posts. There is one article in VICE, a short notice about their new video, but I don't think that's sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. ... discospinster _talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The artist was featured on Noisey/Vice as mentioned, they also have an Allmusic biography. I've added an article on the AV Club about the Simpsons referencing side project EP, as well as an article from the website of a Polish newspaper highlighting their recent gig in Poznań. Vice, The AV Club and Allmusic in particular are all considered notable. Lewishhh (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough notable articles now cited to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND Yealdgate (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as additional references to significant reliable sources coverage have been added to the article since nomination so that it now passes WP:GNG thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Minimal, mixed feedback after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph DeFelice

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a regional deputy secretary of HUD. His other coverage, all but one source is local news, comes from his time as Chair of the Philadelphia GOP, a NN political position. GPL93 (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coverage in reliable sources seems to be enough to pass WP:GNG. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Eastmain, and go further to say it's worth keeping. - Mainly 16:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Minimal, mixed feedback after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 17:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PrisXtra

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

Small retail chain, 5 stores, no indication of significant impact or coverage, all I see with GTranslate to help are few mentions in passing and rewritten press releases about business as usual. Fails WP:NORG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a well known store brand in Sweden. the article needs some expansion and work of course but clearly meets WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSFAMOUS is right there on the Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Axfood. I don't think there are any stores left in this chain at this pont, and it did not have a long history before being absorbed into Axfood's other brands. --Hegvald (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and put any relevant information into the Axfood article. This topic fails to meet the criteria for notability so a redirect isn't particularly relevant. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a store brand. The sources confirms it is a store brand. I have seen no rationale for deletion except POV.BabbaQ (talk) 07:56, 7 July 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) 17:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Cassignard

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

BLP PROD removed on the basis of the four sources now in place. However, most of these amount to very basic, passing references that do little but confirm that this individual appeared in some works. My further WP:BEFORE has uncovered a few other sources (including a Figaro one that I suspect others will find) but these are simply announcements of theatre and films in the culture section - they don't cover Cassignard in any depth as an individual. Net result is that there isn't the substantial, independent coverage by reliable sources required for WP:GNG.

Whether he meets WP:NACTOR probably comes down to your interpretation of 'significant roles', 'multiple' and 'notable' but I'd argue that his work does not meet this criteria and that, in any case, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" given the lack of coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I removed the BLP PROD, as it simply required reliable sources. Yes, I do believe that he meets WP:NACTOR, on the basis of having had significant roles in multiple notable productions, and having won a Moliere award once and been nominated twice. I am sure there are more sources - I can see snippets of some in Google Books, though not enough of them to cite title of the article, volume, etc, and I do not currently have access to digitised French language newspaper sources for the 1980s - ca 2010. But an actor who has won a significant award and had a career of over 30 years will definitely have coverage, so should not be deleted just because finding it takes effort. As an alternative to deletion, it would have been useful to request help searching for French language sources instead of PRODding and then bringing it to AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Moliere Award win and nomination should easily pass NACTOR. It's the French equivalent of the Tony Award. matt91486 (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO with a very notable award, also passes WP:NACTOR with prominent roles as confirmed by The Figaro and other sources, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:00, 7 July 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. Lots of passing mentions and non-independent items, but not enough independent, significant coverage to meet WP:BIO standards. RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loubna Bouarfa

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

Delete Sources are all weak, passing mentions, does not qualify for notability under WP:BIO Sliu.3110 (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Source 1 is a Forbes profile listing nothing more than a funding announcement for Bouarfa's company, her degree of education, and how her company can be useful. Not in-depth, nor is there any analysis.

Source 2 is a list of alumni at her university, not really a source at all.

Source 3 links to her research in University, which is not notable press coverage

Source 4 is a scientific paper she co-authored, again no notable press coverage

Source 5 is her own company's website

Source 6 is simply regurgitating Bouarfa's own quotes, there is no significant input on the part of the author

Source 7 is the same Forbes profile listing again

Source 8 is a passing mention about Bouarfa's decision to not have her company in London

Source 9 only lists Bouarfa as one of many members of an AI 'group'

Source 10 doesn't even immediately lead to a page with any reference to Bouarfa, though a bit of digging shows this page is simply an awards list page with no serious mention of any one candidate

Source 11 just leads to the same initial Forbes profile, which is again nothing notable in terms of coverage

No source confers notable, independent coverage. Sliu.3110 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some news related to the article topic [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Charmk (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every business person who gets a short profile in Forbes is notable. Nothing less than that extreme level of barrel scrapping would make Bouarfa notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article now contains references to multiple awards that could support relevance (being among Top 50 Women in Technology worldwide may qualify):
- MIT Technology as an Innovator under 35.
- Forbes Top 50 Women in Technology.
So these may indicate noteability. --hroest 01:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response In the basic criteria of WP:BIO, it is stated that "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources... independent of the subject." Taking a look at the new sources added (I will look at the ones accessed in July 2019):

new electronics is a very long article, but there is no original analysis by the news source/author. Much of the content is quotes from Bouarfa herself.

contract pharma has a whole article written mostly about AI, and a little bit about Bouarfa's company okra. The extent of coverage of Bouarfa is a profile at the bottom of the page, which merely lists a few accomplishments and provides no insight about Bouarfa.

medical advice network is again sourced directly from Bouarfa, with practically no independent insight/analysis

sifted is also very uninformative about Bouarfa herself and covers much of the same content as we have seen before, which is very basic and essentially "regurgitates" information about her funding, her company, and some awards

business weekly article doesn't speak much about Bouarfa either, and mentions her company more

startup europe awards is written by the team/company itself, so it doesn't qualify for any notability. It can still be used for supporting information, however.

In summation, the sources provided either don't cover her significantly (eg top 50 awards, etc.), are not sufficiently independent (with most of the content being direct quotes of her), or focus on other topics such as her company Okra, with Bouarfa being only mentioned in passing. To address the point of awards, firstly the MIT innovators award is published by MIT Technology Review magazine, which is independent of the university, so it is wholly dishonest to link to MIT alongside the awards page. The award itself could be significant, but is clearly not enough on its own to establish notability. The Forbes awards only very briefly discuss the winners, and it appears to be user submitted content as well. Sliu.3110 (talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Sources too weak for GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There seems to be clear consensus that sufficient sources have been found to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

James Gayle (American football)

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as he has neither competed in a professional game nor garnered national, well-known collegiate awards. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Did a thorough search and while there's some coverage, all of it is brief/routine (such as transactional, or him injuring his shoulder). Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I'm not sure what kind of "thorough search" SportingFlyer did, but there's tons of significant coverage (i.e., neither "brief" nor WP:ROUTINE) to easily pass the WP:GNG bar. Examples of significant national coverage include: (1) this feature story from the Los Angeles Times in 2013; (2) this two-part feature story from the Daily Press, Aug 2013; (3) this from the Daily Press in Jan 2013; (4) this from the Daily Press in No. 2010; (5) another two-parter from the Daily Press in Feb 2014; (6) this from the Daily Press in May 2014; (7) this and (8) this from The Roanoke Times; (9) this from The Virginian-Pilot; (10) "Gayle's a Bear on Hokies' defense", Charleston (WV) Gazette, 9/20/14 (651 words, available at Newslibrary.com); (11) this from the Richmond Times-Dispatch; (12) this from The News and Advance; and (13) this from ESPN.com. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the ESPN one, that's simple coverage of a player going to the combine. All of his college football stories are from the state he played in, so not national, apart from the LA Times one. I don't know why specifically that was a LA Times article, since it was written by a local Daily Press reporter. Still fails WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH as a locally notable amateur athlete. SportingFlyer T·C 00:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I frankly do not understand your approach here, which appears to be driven by a perennial hostility to articles on college football players. In this case, we have extensive coverage throughout the State of ~~Mississippi~~ Virginia (not just local coverage in ~~Starkville~~ Blacksburg) and on top of that there's significant coverage in major national publications like the Los Angeles Times (other side of the country) and ESPN.com. Cbl62 (talk) 01:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He's a locally notable amateur athlete. I'm not sure what else to tell you, other sports wouldn't keep this article. The LA Times picked up a few Daily Press articles for online content it seems, I'm not exactly sure why. The ESPN article isn't about him as a college athlete, it's about his prospects in the NFL Draft, where he wasn't selected, making it routine draft coverage. I also don't see any articles from Mississippi here? SportingFlyer T·C 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree. The fact that you are "not exactly sure why" the Los Angeles Times (a national publication) published a feature story on him is irrelevant to the WP:GNG analysis. What is relevant under GNG is that the coverage exists and that it constitutes significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We do not "discount" stories simply because we are "not exactly sure" why editors chose to significantly cover the topic. And BTW, the soccer inclusion standards are quite low in comparison to those for American football. Less then 1% of American football players receive this type of regional and national coverage, as reflected in my "delete" votes on three other pending college football AfDs where such coverage could not be found. Cbl62 (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection, both the LA Times and the Daily Press were Tribune papers at the time of publication, and the LA Times article is actually a [15] Daily Press article, the author is a Daily Press writer, which is local to Gayle's school. And association footy notability standards have nothing to do with this – I know American college players get articles written about them, but it would take quite a bit to get an amateur football player over the WP:GNG line, not just local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 01:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of where the story originated, the fact that the Los Angeles Times ran it is highly significant in a GNG analysis. It is rare indeed for the LA Times to pick up a story about a college athlete on the other side of the country. And I mentioned the very lax soccer standards only in response to your assertion that "other sports wouldn't keep this article". Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources discovered by CBL show a pass of WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. subject passes WP:GNG per significant non trivial secondary coverage. A subject must only pass one measure of notability to be notable, and this one passes GNG. Lightburst (talk) 21:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep Passes WP:GNG per above. James-the-Charizard (talk) 02:49, 8 July 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) 17:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kate Bush tribute albums

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

Bare details of three albums, all of which seem to be non-notable in their own right and which have been grouped into one article only on the basis that they are all tributes to Kate Bush. I can see no reason for this article to exist - maybe it could have legs if Kate Bush was particularly noted for the sheer number/range/quality/whatever of albums recorded in tribute to her but she isn't. I see little value in merging or redirecting to her own article, as the title is a very unlikely search term and it would be inappropriate to give space in her article to the fact that a bunch of almost exclusively NN artists have put out covers of her songs.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to support notability per WP:LISTN, so fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Titled wrong (Kate Bush is still well and breathing at this moment, so these aren't tribute albums) and the entire list is filled with non-notable covers by non-notable artists. Nate • (chatter) 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The tribute album is a well-known concept in music and there is no requirement for the artist whose songs are being covered to be dead e.g. this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Oh, I understood; the tone of the article made it seem like she had passed away though. Nate • (chatter) 21:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost an A9 for lack of articles on the artists involved, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:LISTN there are not enough items to justify a list article, the albums themselves were non-notable vanity releases, and most of the acts involved are also non-notable. Kate Bush's article can briefly mention the fact that she has been the inspiration for a few tribute albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:32, 2 July 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) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Danczuk

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

A former local councillor who tittilated the tabloids by sharing selfies on line. No personal notability, could all be covered adequately in the article on her former husband from whom any notability is inherited anyway Bledwith (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment There are WP:RS sources in the article which refer to her, but only in the context of her relationship to her former husband and a brief period of tabloid fame. I don't think she is GNG Bledwith (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is from the nominator - Bledwith I originally read this as from a different editor, it would be worth you making this really explicit, or merging it with your nomination. Boleyn (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not qualify for articles just for being borough councillors, or even because their name gets mentioned in coverage of their more notable spouse — but the only sourcing here which is about her, for the purposes of establishing that she might be significantly more notable than most other borough councillors, is just a brief blip of tabloid coverage that just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a subject of enduring public interest. Bearcat (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She meets WP:BASIC. I'm not sure if other rs were looked for WP:BEFORE, but they are there and I will add some. She is not notable as a local councillor, as an MP's ex-wife, a general celebrity, reality TV contestant or child abuse campaigner, but for all of them combined. There are numerous reliable sources in this - BBC News, the Guardian, Telegraph etc., all the sources I'd go to for rs on living British people have full articles on her. They mention her ex-husband but he isn't the main point of those articles.

She meets BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. WIll she be of enduring public interest, who knows? But she meets our minimum criteria based on the coverage. This also shouldn't be at AFD as there are clear WP:ATDs. Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these RS articles that have significant coverage of her as the main point? Everything I've seen its in the context of her as Simon Danczuk's wifeBledwith (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just look at the sources in the article - there are lots of reliable sources and the majority have her as the main focus, not her ex-husband. Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of significant coverage in secondary sources. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad nomination. There are many RS's out there not only in connection with her partner. Meets WP:BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yes, Karen Danzcuk is a a tabloid personality, but is she only, a tabloid personality? No, as described in multiple RS's, she also had a political career as well as being involved in support groups for child abuse victims. See the following: 1 2 3 4. As such she passes WP:BASIC. FOARP (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep once a subject is notable it is always notable. WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfied with Boleyn (talk) points. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:16, 6 July 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) 17:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashish Merkhed

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Maybe WP:TOOSOON at the moment. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a political party's social media director is not an automatic free pass over WP:NPOL, but one short blurb announcing his resignation from the position is not enough coverage to pass WP:GNG all by itself either. Also a near-certain conflict of interest if you check the creator's username — but Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Bearcat (talk) 13:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : No sources and only being head of BJP Maharashtra won't help cross the line I believe. Exploreandwrite (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, maybe WP:TOOSOON at this moment. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:05, 3 July 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 Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Those advocating for keeping the article haven't made their argument effectively. Merge content selectively, as needed to the target page. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corbin Carroll

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

Only one statement in the article which might be notable, his .540 batting average in high school. The article doesn't even say he signed with MLB, only that he was drafted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks WP:TOOSOON. Can be covered via inclusion at Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players if and when warranted by minor league accomplishments. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. First round picks are notable and he should have an article. Malmmf (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one is a bit early to be included here.. i wish you would stop posting all these articles when they can be merged. ~~If he signs with the Diamondbacks he should be~~ merged to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players ~~and if he doesn't sign he should be redirected to List of Arizona Diamondbacks first-round draft picks. The results should be known soon.~~ Spanneraol (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2019 (UTC) He signed today so should be merged. Spanneraol (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only noticed them because their birthdates were added to the appropriate year article, which I have on watch. If headers on these articles were added so that people wouldn't do that, I would appreciate it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable player. He passes WP:GNG for being a MLB first round draft pick and for receiving a multi-million dollar contract. Also has notable achievements as a HS player. The sourcing is there to improve this rather stubby article. An editor needs to put the references in correct format and develop the articleTonereport (☎)(My Work) 00:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just being a 1st round pick and signing doesnt pass GNG.. baseball draft picks often flame out without making the majors. Spanneraol (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge He doesn't meet any criteria of WP:NBASEBALL and his coverage is exactly what you'd expect for a player drafted by Arizona and playing in the Arizona Rookie League. Fails to meet WP:GNG but redirects are cheap. WP:TOOSOON to claim he merits an individual article at this time. Papaursa (talk) 21:15, 6 July 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. Per everybody except a socker and his socks. Sandstein 07:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fadetheblackk

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

Rapper with coverage consisting of blog posts, promo sound-bites, and three times the same rehashed press release. His "ranking on the artist music charts" seems to be at - 1349? (but I'm possibly reading that site wrong...). Probably TOOSOON, at this point pretty much an exercise in raking together shreds of notability that don't add up to WP:NARTIST. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hell no. Pure spam. Someone is working hard to make him look important. Putting out lot's of PR pretending to be press coverage. Looking at the articles they say f all. Saying Fadetheblackk hasn't actually done anything and hasn't been noticed but is still important for nothing. Strange. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is not spam . The artist is actually well known in the Hip Hop Community. how can you pretend press coverage that's a joke GuruNYC (User talk:GuruNYC) 18:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)Striking confirmed sock of David Arriela per SPI. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For any Artist and performers, it's usually necessary to search for both stage name and birth name, also this artist has 13 approved google news references https://g.co/kgs/ixyQxN maybe some editors can help elaborate on this topic but should not be removed BigGuyFly (User talk:BigGuyFly) 19:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC) — BigGuyFly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking confirmed sock of David Arriela per SPI. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good day to all, I have been working daily to improve the article which I made many corrections to get the article from being deleted, and for all who are not familiar with music or any other entertainment business *it's called a publicist* which all artist and celebrities have and use. I posted articles from editors not just blogs. Once again all are welcome to help improve rather than being harsh. David Arriela(User talk:David Arriela) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's clarify this - are you the subject's publicist? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not a publicist nor have any relationship with the artist I do like his music and had an opportunity to see him perform at power105:1, I'm a blogger for the Times Of India and a social media consultant David Arriela(User talk:David Arriela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.239.132.134 (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance, do you have any COI? Is this article somehow related to your job as a blogger? Thank you. William2001^(talk) 01:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. I find it slightly suspicious that there are two users with nearly no experience, GuruNYC and BigGuyFly, who support keeping this article. Am I claiming that the opinions of inexperienced users do not matter? Of course not, but the fact that two people created an account (solely) to make an opinion on this discussion as their very first edit seems odd to me. Possible Wikipedia:Sock puppetry? William2001^(talk) 01:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- SPI pending. ST47 (talk) 01:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are a lot of sources, but on review, they appear to be the result of a PR blitz. There simply aren't the kind of high-quality, independent, reliable sources offering deep coverage that are required to pass WP:GNG. Hugsyrup (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'll add that a good number of those sources are also user-submitted. Sock-puppet "keep" arguments by SPA editor who created the article is also noted. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:31, 1 July 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 Virginia Theological Seminary. And/or to Historical Society of the Episcopal Church, as editorial consensus may determine. Sandstein 09:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

African American Episcopal Historical Collection

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

Fails NORG as all significant coverage is from the organizations running it. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Virginia Theological Seminary. While independent citations to the archives can be found, I am not finding coverage of the collection itself that is independent of VTS or the Historical Society of the Episcopal Church. As the collection is physically located at VTS, it seems the better merge target. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virginia Theological Seminary. I am finding very little sourcing. A proquest news search turned up this: "Speakers during the ceremony will include the Rev. Canon Lloyd Alexander Lewis Jr.; Christopher Pote, archivist for the Bishop Library, Virginia Theological Seminary and the African American Episcopal Historical Collection; the Rev. Pegram Johnson III, who led the effort to secure the historical marker; and..." from the newspaper in Petersburg, VA where the new historical marker was being installed; plus 8 press releases - but no other articles. It is mentioned in this more recent article on an Anglican website Episcopal Seminaries Struggle to Survive. The library is also home to the African American Episcopal Historical Collection. . Searching gBooks gets hits, clearly historians use this archive. So I think a merge to the library where this archive is held is appropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but my preferred target would be Historical Society of the Episcopal Church, where it would become a new section. A brief mention should also be added to the section on the library of VTS. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is headed toward a merge at this point, but two merge targets have been suggested. Relisting to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Peterkingiron's suggestion is my preferred one also, as the page says it is a joint venture, so there should be something on both articles.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Virginia Theological Seminary. Will go with the decision made by everyone else. Scholar911 (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The subject wasn't considered notable last time round and the consensus is that he is still not notable. Since this is a recreation I am protecting the page. Just Chilling (talk) 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hemachandra Wijeratne

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

This article was previously deleted (via AfD) and then recreated by a different editor however it still fails to address the previous concerns, namely WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT.

Simply being an consul for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also being the brother of a politician/military officer does not confer notability either (WP:NOTINHERITED). The references relate to him either just being the Consul-General for Turkey, not details of any achievements he made in this position, the other references relate to him being the brother of Ranjan Wijeratne or are related to him being a schoolboy cricketer. Hardly sufficient to establish notability. Dan arndt (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not all diplomats are notable, nothing suggests he is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Numerous articles have been deleted at Afd because ambassadors don't any have any inherent notability. This guy wasn't even an ambassador. He was merely on honorary consul.--Obi2canibe (talk) 11:13, 6 July 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 due to lack of WP:SIGCOV about the company itself. RL0919 (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prosoft Engineering

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

Sources are mainly primary or promotional, and a lot are the company's own website. My own research finds little but PR, passing mentions of products on software review websites, etc. Thre's a lack of substantial independent coverage of the organisation itself, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per NCORP. Non-notable company with no significant coverage, the only time they are covered are passing mentions when their products are reviewed, in non-notable reviews and often only one site. --qedk (t 桜 c) 11:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lots of possibly notable products, but no WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as passes WP:NPOL. Non-admin closure. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot Rohith Reddy

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

Non-notable local politician. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Hugsyrup (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is member for Tandur in the Telangana [State] Legislative Assembly, and thus meets NPOL. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

East Orlando Chamber of Commerce

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

Fails WP:NORG John from Idegon (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going for 75 years. It would be very surprising if there were not plenty of stuff about it in print. The question is not what is on Google. Rathfelder (talk) 09:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whilst there is a bit of coverage in local newspapers, none of this rises to the level of significant coverage of the chamber of commerce itself. Moreover WP:AUD applies here (though I personally don't think it's a good rule) meaning the coverage has to include at least regional/state-level sources to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete East Orlando rd's to Orlando, and this is as generic a CofC as you can get. Also, 2019-1954=65, not 75. Nate • (chatter) 22:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The arguments that this is so poorly sourced as not to warrant a merger are convincing. Sandstein 07:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Peoria

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

Does not meet WP:LISTN. Almost none of these buildings are notable. The two that are notable are for historical reasons, not their height. Rusf10 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge Buildings are not very tall at all and largely not notable either individually or as a group. The tallest can be mentioned at Peoria,_Illinois#Cityscape but having a few 10- to 20-story office buildings does not warrant a Tall Buildings list. Reywas92^Talk 05:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Peoria, Illinois. Only 2 of 11 buildings have articles. Sources are sparse. WP:Preserve 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH, there are lots of similar lists for lots of cities that have smaller buildings. See e.g., List of tallest buildings in Gary and Talk:List of tallest buildings in Gary. In that sense, there is just a need to improve the sourcing. Cf. List of tallest buildings in Rockford, Illinois, which implicitly shows sources exist to improve this article in like manner. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note, as I discussed on the talk page of this article, that the list is apparently incomplete. 3 churches and 14 high rise buildings per Emporis. This should be subject to expansion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Mary's Cathedral 230 ft - church 1889

2 Northwoods Community Church 2 church 1997
3 Sacred Heart Catholic Church - church 1906>=<br<

The high rises are: 1 Twin Towers I 3 308 ft 29 high-rise building 1984
2 Twin Towers II 3 308 ft 29 high-rise building 1984
3 Commerce Bank Building 2 256 ft 17 high-rise building 1920
4 Associated Bank Plaza 3 243 ft 20 high-rise building 196
5 Becker Building 4 211 ft 16 high-rise building 1993
6 Hotel Père Marquette 8 187 ft 14 high-rise building 1927
7 Glen Oak Towers 1 168 ft 15 high-rise building 1953
8 Lehmann Building 161 ft 12 high-rise building 1916
9 Chase Bank Building 135 ft 9 high-rise building 1904
10 Caterpillar Administration Building 1 134 ft 8 high-rise building 1967
11 Central Building 1 128 ft 10 high-rise building 1914
12 PNC Bank Building 5 13 high-rise building 1926
13 River Valley Plaza 2 12 high-rise building 1910
14 401 Water Street 1 8 high-rise building 1905

If we are DISCUSSING deleting this article, we should consider WP:NEXIST 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the existence of articles for other cities means nothing, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second Emporis is not a reliable source, it is WP:UGC--Rusf10 (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prve your claim that Emporis is what you claim it is. Djflem (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Djflem:I started a discussion on this, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Emporis.com. I am certain it is not reliable, but if you think you can prove otherwise go ahead.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tallest buildings lists should not be made for every small town that happens to have a few buildings that are barely outside the definition of a skyscraper (Emporis sets the bar at 100m, CTBUH at 150m). Not to mention the lack of coverage that can be found from a non-database, non-local newspaper source. Sounder Bruce 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I since the nominator doesn't believe Emporis is invalid, he would agree that this ivote would also be invalid since it bases it argument on it, right?

Djflem (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rusf10 WP:NEXIST has nothing to do with the existence of other articles. You mischaracterized what I and that guideline state.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

user:7&6=thirteen So, what sources have you found (other than Emporis.com)? You cannot just declare there are sources without proof. Furthermore, do the sources meet WP:LISTN discussing the buildings as a group?--Rusf10 (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Peoria, Illinois.Djflem (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entire article is constructed from this page on Emporis, which is a site that publishes user-generated content. Additionally, the data in the list doesn't even match either of the cited sources, which calls into question where this information is coming from. Since the entire list is improperly sourced and does not meet WP:LISTN, it should be deleted. — Newslinger talk 04:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Abed

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

I can see why a previous editor nominated this for G11: the sources cited in the article are completely unusable, due to either independence concerns or a lack of depth. I was able to find interviews in mainstream Caribbean sources [16], [17], but these are light on independent coverage. There's also tons of sketchy coverage in crypto publications, but none of them appear to be reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the G11'ing editor. From past AFD experience, consensus seems to be that interviews shouldn't be used to establish notability. Barring that, this guy doesn't pass. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 17:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an interview is not an indepdent source and so can not get someone passed GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Toranj Kayvon

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

Two minor roles in movies does not meet WP:NACTOR. It's just WP:TOOSOON for this actress. Draft article already exists, only option is AFD. Ravensfire (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Twitter is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is WP:TOOSOON with only two minor roles in notable productions, needs more prominent roles to meet WP:NACTOR and generate more coverage, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mail1Click

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

Not a notable product (does not meet either WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT), 100 hits on Google outside of Wikipedia mirrors, sources listed appear to be purely promotional articles. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete [18][19][20][21][22] Charmk (talk) 05:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources you linked meet WP:RS, one of them explicitly mentions that it is sponsored and most of the others are blogs, neither are those already listed in the article reliable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 06:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Charmk (talk) 07:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In addition to weak sources, the article makes un-established WP:PUFFERY claims about the product's security. -- intgr [talk] 14:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Ferry

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

The subject is notable only for one insignificant event, when his sons placed his portrait and phone number on a billboard as a birthday prank. Outside of this event, Ferry is a low-profile individual. — Newslinger talk 02:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 05:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per [BLP1E]] & WP:NOTNEWS as the nominator mentioned. Also seems to be promotional.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP1E, briefly going viral for a funny event is not notability. Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough as per WP:GNG. AuthorWiki99 (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the website fails WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources. Just Chilling (talk) 02:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FUMBBL

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

Non-notable website. Google search results in just fewer than 100 hits, none of which are significant discussions of the site in reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable online video game website failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Only reliable source I can find is this short article. There is no reliably secondarily sourced content in the article to merge to Blood Bowl, as it's fully based on primary sources. A redirect would be fine. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically nothing I'm seeing that's really usable for sourcing. Couple passing mentions from Kotaku type stuff, and then everything else is pretty much social media. GMG ^talk 14:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically all references in the current article are links to the FUMBBL website and I was unable to find significant third-party coverage online. Pichpich (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of passing GNG/NWEB. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources that establish notability for this website are sorely lacking.TH1980 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 08:54, 4 July 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 Pokémon#Fan community. Merge selectively avoiding WP:UNDUE. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serebii (website)

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

Non-notable website; it may have been around since 1999, but if the reliable coverage is restricted to one magazine writeup [23], then that's not enough. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The website is popular but this reference is not enough for notability. Also the other resources that I can find are just trivial mentions [24][25] or from blogs [26]Charmk (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokémon#Fan community. I think the USGamer article is enough to warrant inclusion there. Reach Out to the Truth 15:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokémon#Fan community. - While there are plenty of hits that cite Serebii as the source of some piece of information, only the USGamer article is substantial coverage about the website itself. Not enough to sustain a stand alone article, but as mentioned above, it is enough to be included in fan community section of the main Pokemon article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs more sources, I agree. But considering how frequently it's referenced by reliable news sources, I think it'd be unusual for it to not meet the notability threshold. I tried to dig up some sources that go into more detail about the website itself: [27] [28]. A briefer bit of background here: [29]. Ahiijny (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Pokémon#Fan community. Being familiar with Serebii, I don’t think this will hit the threshold for notability in reliable sources. But, we clearly do have at least one, and it’s worth at least a brief mention in the merge target, and a redirect there. Makes it a good alternative to deletion, and if more reliable sources are written about it, the old material is there. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per Reach Out to the Truth, Rorshacma, and Red Phoenix. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:54, 5 July 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.