Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 15

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 14 April	16 April >

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The result was Keep - Withdrawn. Good work everyone. I must try a few more of these. Black Kite (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peter H. Salus[edit]

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

Here's a BLP which may hold some sort of a record, having existed for 15 years without ever containing a single citation. It's clearly a guy who's written a whole load of books about UNIX and various other tech subjects, but I can't find anything about the actual person. Prove me wrong... Black Kite (talk) 22:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment actually important in the field, but I see your point ... hmmmm. I'm asking around [1][2] for sources - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - probably passes on WP:NAUTHOR(3) / WP:PROF(1) for his contributions to the niche field of UNIX history (h-index of 12, however citation metrics for software historians? tricky. A quarter century of UNIX and the co-written Salus, Peter H., and G. Vinton. Casting the Net: From ARPANET to Internet and Beyond have over 250 citations and probably quite a few reviews). Icewhiz (talk) 11:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a few citations - there actually may be a case for GNG (he got some coverage for 60s-70s work in linguistics - in the shadow/working-with W. H. Auden and even interacting a bit with Tolkien (on which he wrote, also recently, and is cited on).... He has even more coverage on FSF activities (in the shadow of Richard Stallman), and most of all as a UNIX/software historian) - though I am not asserting it in my !vote. His work passes the bar of AUTHOR(3) and SCHOLAR(1) in regards to his work on UNIX history (one of his books being the definitive work on the topic in the 90s). He also possibly passes SCHOLAR(8) for editing Computing Systems and possibly other journals (not sure of reputation - so just possibly). He probably does not pass SCHOLAR(4-6) - HOWEVER - he is not far from this. His tenure as dean at University of North Florida is noted as influential by a few sources on the university, and he was involved in the founded of the Department of Linguistics at University of Massachusetts.Icewhiz (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 12:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of citations, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to pass ~~WO:CRACY~~ WP:NAUTHOR ;) ——SerialNumber54129 14:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added eight published reviews of six of his books. I think he passes WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - those sources are great! Also, a couple of personal interviews with Salus in Vienna in November 2009: [3] [4] - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GreenCells[edit]

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

Local coverage only - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete My search didn't show that the GNG or WP:NCORP is met. Apparently there's a European company with the same name that's a major provider for solar photovoltaic power plants, but they're unrelated.Sandals1 (talk) 17:51, 22 April 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sky-mobi[edit]

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

Relies entirely on company profiles, self-published statistics and press releases with no indication of passing WP:CORPDEPTH. SITH (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Nyttend (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Rebecca Cooper[edit]

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

Promotional article about a subject that does not meet WP:GNG. I can't find any coverage that is better than a mere-mention or a quote of the subject. The article asserts that the subject has won two Emmy awards. However, these, Emmys were for films that Cooper produced, and Cooper is not credited in the award announcements, so I don't know that they're enough to meet WP:ANYBIO in the absence of any coverage. Finally, while deletion is not cleanup, it is worth noting that the article is written in a very promotional manner and primarily cites press releases–not quite enough to justify CSD G11 IMO, but not a good sign for the subject's notability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:MILL. We almost always delete articles for producers, who are run of the mill, unless they receive awards or significant notoriety. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Pitsilis[edit]

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

Non-notable Doctor. All sources are written by the subject. Notability issues since 2014. --DrSenonator (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She has had national coverage for a single season non-notable TV programme, but beyond this there is nothing particular that brings her up to the standard to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO that I can find NealeFamily (talk) 11:21, 19 April 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. Nominator has withdrawn. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oil down[edit]

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

Consists almost entirely of a recipe for the dish. Wikipedia is not a cookbook WP:NOTCOOKBOOK. Perhaps move the recipe to the cookbook in Wikibooks. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:09, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would want to say keep to this article, since a national dish seems like it could be noteworthy. That said, when I went looking for resources I found that this page (namely, the recipe and some text accompanying it) is almost entirely copy-pasted from the official web-page of the government of Grenada [5] by an unregistered user without any citation. In fact, you can tell they copy-pasted because a misspelling with the word turmeric and saffron was retained from the official government website that were later corrected by a different user. There is an entire NPR article [6] about this dish (which uses the same government recipe, albeit citing it) so I think the page could be salvaged but as it is there's a glaring issue. Userqio (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hello. First I want to say that this is not my page. I had never heard of oil down before yesterday. I was searching for recipes, and the term oil down came up in a search, so I had to click on the link since the name was so odd (IMO.) I have no connection to the country of Grenada, and I have never been there, but I am fascinated with history and also with food, so food that has historical significance is one of my favorite things to read about. I agree that a page that is merely a copy/paste of a recipe is not what Wikipedia is about, so I have made some changes, and linked to some articles that I found interesting. I would like to work on this page more this weekend, when I have more time. Perhaps the recipe should go - I'll let the majority make that decision. Please see my edits and let me know what you think.Widjididji (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is now much different than it was when nominated thanks to Widjididji's work. I'm leaning toward withdrawing the nomination and looking forward to further improvements as promised before making my final decision. I do still say that the recipe, though now properly attributed, does belong in the cookbook section of Wikibooks rather than in the article itself. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 16:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wait, ... what? There's a cookbook section of Wikibooks? I didn't know that. Yes, absolutely the recipe should be removed from this page, then. Another reason being that I just made a comment about how there is no one, set recipe, as each cook, family, and/or region has its own recipe. I will remove the recipe, but just want to have a chance to find the original poster so I can let him/her know why I'm removing it. Still have a lot of other clean-up to do. Widjididji (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, I've gone about as far as I'm going to go this weekend on this article. Next step (for me), find one of the many recipes I've come across this week, and make a batch of oil down to see how it tastes. And add Grenada to my travel bucket list. Please let me know if you see anything that needs revisited on this page. I truly think it deserves to be retained as a true (i.e., not stub) page on Wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration.Widjididji (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The one thing that I really think this page lacks is a photo. I've made several requests to websites asking if I can use their photos. I don't want to accidentally use one that is copyrighted without permission. I'll keep trying ... or maybe I'll add my own photo when I get around to making my own pot of oil down.Widjididji (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by nominator). I'm withdrawing my deletion nom in light of the changes to the article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 18:30, 22 April 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

UCLA-VA Multi-campus PM&R Residency Program[edit]

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

There are thousands of residency programs and there isn't anything particularly notable about this one, as evidenced by lack of significant coverage by RS. Natureium (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The World Factbook list of developed countries[edit]

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

The article subject is a book paragraph (!) that contains a list of countries based on artbitrary criteria not widely supported in economics, and unchanged since 2001. Therefore, of low informational value in 2019 (and potentially misleading). The entire topic of developed contries/economies has been described in more detail and nuance at Developed country and linked articles (e.g., List of countries by GNI (nominal) per capita). I suggest this article goes in order not to confuse the reader. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an odd article and the talk page shows quite a few problems with it. I can’t see any reason to have an article about a single take on what constitutes a developed country unless that take is notable in its own right for some reason, which this isn’t. Mccapra (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT. This is a mere restatement of what's in a publically available source, now long out of date. Bearian (talk) 18:29, 22 April 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aspire Music Group[edit]

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

This article appears to be about a nothing record label that had legal problems with its only client. Aspire is not even listed as a label that Drake has at Drake's article. The one source for the entire article, which was apparently a blog (it doesn't appear to exist anymore, at least not at the same place on the Internet), is a dead link. Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 15 April 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:11, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

URI Center for the Humanities[edit]

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

Not independently notable. The infobox and the article seem to be a stand-in for the organization's website. Individual academic departments and centers are not inherently notable, and this one doesn't seem to have anything going for it in terms of secondary sources. If I look over it one more time I might end up tagging it for speedy deletion, as spam/G7. Drmies (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with particular encouragement to Drmies to proceed with the CSD G7, as this is clearly just the brochure/web site dropped into Wikipedia. Bakazaka (talk) 18:56, 15 April 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. This seems to be a rather pointed AFD nomination. I strongly suggest that the nominator either step away from the conversation entirely or take a deep breath and actually participate in a consensus discussion on the talk page. The consensus in the last discussion is the same as the consensus in this discussion, it's notable, and as one of your peers said notability isn't temporary. Whatever issues or qualms you have with the article need to be discussed, not pushed bypassing procedures in place to work on articles with issues. AFD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lantern Entertainment[edit]

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

Lantern Entertainment is Weinstein Company (TWC), as it is Weisntein Company's assets and remaining staff despite a new business form. Under that line of thinking DreamWorks would have three different articles. In the prior deletion discussion, explaining the same issue to Lantern employees where taken as "edit warring", which their editing or tell us what to do is COI. Those opposing support a violation of WP:ORGSIG, ie. just because it exists it is notable. They would also claiming WP:INHERITORG based on its purchase of TWC. Additional since that deletion discussion further actions make it unlikely Lantern would met WP:COMPANY. Lantern Entertainment only became a transitory entity by its transfer of it assets to Spyglass Media Group then holding entity by holding Lantern Capital's holding in Spyglass. Spshu (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because this company is notable on its own. There are numerous articles about this company proceeding with Weinstein Co. assets. Los Angeles Times says, "The veteran South African-born executive has teamed with Lantern Entertainment, which bought the assets of the defunct Weinstein Co. last year... it acquired the remains of the Weinstein Co. out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy in July for $289 million." Weinstein Co. went bankrupt. That company's article should be historical. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. the article Erik cites is about the transfer of the Weinstein Co. asset to Spyglass Media Group, which has its own article being a reactivation of an existing company. Spshu (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article was recently kept at AfD, sourcing supports the AfD outcome, and notability is not temporary. As the closing admin said in the previous AfD, "separate editorial consensus can be decided as to whether the articles should be merged, changed, or moved". I understand that the nominator (of both AfDs) disagreed with the previous outcome, but the way to handle this going forward is at the article talk pages. Talk: Lantern Entertainment and Talk:Spyglass Media Group are thataway. Bakazaka (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sourcing did NOT support the AfD outcome nor notability. At best, at purchasing Weinstein Company is inheriting notability, which does NOT grant notability. Others consider this an appropriate forum. Thus you are going to make an issue out of having an official deletion discussion or informal ones on the the talk page. Spshu (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The more interesting diffs are [7] and [8], in which you blanked and redirected the page multiple times AFTER the previous AfD, against community consensus, without discussion, and after being reverted. That's disruptive editing, and I suggest you let this one go before your activities on this article draw scrutiny from someone with a block button. Bakazaka (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because as point out in the nomination and in the edit summary, Lantern Entertainment will have only three actions, purchase of Weinstein assets, purchase of full control of three Quentin Tarantino films then the transfer to Spyglass Media Group. You were disruptive at the last AfD for claiming that the only place these are articles can be discussion are the talk pages - in defiance of the vary exists of AfD as you do again here. The prior AfD is based on that it is an article fork, same article thus notability isn't addressed. Making false claim so as a new consensus can be formed and attempt to short circuit this discussion because I was bold in understanding Lantern Entertainment's notability status and that existing is not per WP:ORGSIG "No company or organization is considered inherently notable." for which the redirect reverter explain as the removal reason. Which a prior editor put forth for reverting making a redirect "rvt redirection - this is a separate company". You, Bakazaka, by your statements above is involved in WP:DAPE and disruptive tendency 2. Don't come cherry pick to make like you are for talk/concensus making when you are trying to suppress it. Spshu (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could double down on WP:IDHT, I guess. Bakazaka (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Company plainly exists and is distributing content; as with my last nom vote!, this is completely disruptive, you're tuning out any consensus that's being built for your own interpretations, and whatever is going on with Spyglass, we'll come to that road when we come to it. Bakazaka has the right interpretations of your actions again. I also see zero bytes of conversation on the Lantern and Spyglass talk pages, so you obviously have never considered posting anything to those pages, nor notifying interested users, when that's the first step well before deletion. Speaking of, archive your own user talk page already; someone on an average connection shouldn't have to wait 90 seconds to load and read it. Nate • (chatter) 04:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support The nomination is very difficult to understand. However, what I can decipher of it, I sort of agree with. Lantern Entertainment is for nearly all intents and purposes, the Weinstein Company under a different name and corporate structure. It is therefore notable, because the Weinstein Company is. But as a result of that, it is not an entirely distinct entity from the Weinstein Company. I think in cases like these, the Weinstein Company should be moved over Lantern Entertainment, and a single article which contains the entire history of the company should exist, because Wikipedia doesn't handle this consistently at the best of times -- e.g. Mondelez is actually the legal successor to the old Kraft Foods Inc., while the article for Sony Music, includes its history before it merged with (the old) BMG, the period where it was merged with BMG is then covered under Sony BMG, then for the current period, where BMG sold its stake and the BMG name was removed, Sony Music again becomes the article which covers that period in history. The current SME is clearly a renamed SBMG, but because the names matches that of the original Sony Music, they are covered in a single article. Getting back to my point, Wikipedia's general treatment of continuity in company historys is often arbitrary and inconsistent -- in this case I think Lantern and Weinstein are one entity, and should have one entry, at the newest incarnation. But I can't fully support this nomination because I'm not certain that's what's being proposed, since that should be a merge listing anyway. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize: You're actually proposing a keep for this AfD, and adding an editorial recommendation to merge the Weinstein article into this one. Bakazaka (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But my understanding of the proposal seems to read like that is what is being proposed, in the other direction (deleting this, and merging it's content into the Weinstein Company). But it's listed as a deletion, not a merge, hence partial support. Also because I'm not certain that's what the requester is proposing - Estoy Aquí (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI at the time of this RM there appeared to be a consensus against moving the TWC article to Lantern. I for one think the ouster of the Weinsteins gives Lantern a rather different identity, but either way we need a consensus at a broader level. Nardog (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Spyglass turns out to be handling all Weinstein titles in the future and hence Lantern indeed a transitory entity, it might make sense to merge this article with either TWC or Spyglass. But at this point it is premature (WP:CRYSTAL) to make either assumption. Nardog (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:53, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cludo[edit]

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

After the author put this up several times without any sources (and was reverted), I left them a message about sourcing requirements. My own search check didn't look promising, but I thought they might have access to better stuff. Guess not: every reference provided is either self-published or purely promotional. That includes the two most reasonable-looking ones [9][10], both of which are clearly identified as marketing features. - Currently lack of sufficient independent coverage, fails WP:NSOFT. - Admittedly the previous incumbent (misspelling redirect to Cluedo) is kind of dumb, but this is not the material to replace it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have removed the promotional and unencyclopedic material (previous version). I could not see that their use of "machine learning" was particularly notable. I can't find a single impartial source talking about them in depth, I couldn't even find an impartial mention of them on technical discussion forums. – Þjarkur (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd suggest people trying to improve and save the article and save this read WP:THREE. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking WP:SIGCOV to pass either WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 22 April 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harun Rashid (actor)[edit]

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

Almost no coverage at all. His name appears on some of the regular news coverage which is not enough to establish notability. The article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:ARTIST. ~ Nahid ^Talk 14:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

For entertainer, the rules are:

Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

He has acted in several notable films of Bangladesh. And in these films he has played a significant role. He is known as 'Bunty' for his awesome comic roles in Musafir (references addeed). His another notable film is Jaaz Multimedia's Dhat Teri Ki. In this film his charecter name was Bomb Squad. He is a notable charecter of the film. The comic actor has achieved much popularity (references added). In a film review written in Bengali, he was described as 'scene stealer' of Musafir (references added) . The article should be appeared on Wikipedia, I personally think that.Smnsbd1971 (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of 12 references you've added- SHOWTIMES (non notable review site), Bangla Movie Data Base (WP:UGC), blog.bdnews24 (blog), bioscopeblog (blog) and mukhomukhosh (non notable magazine) are not reliable sources to establish notability. The coverage of New Nation and kalerkantho are routine news, the review of daily star is about the film not the person which leaves priyo dot com, an online news portal with questionable reliability. ~ Nahid ^Talk 10:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the review of The Daily Star, Harun Rashid (actor) was called as the protagonist of the film Arefin Shuvo's sidekick. I think, that is enough for the entry of this article in Wikipedia.Smnsbd1971 (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom Hughesdarren (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with Nahid. Not notable yet. fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:43, 21 April 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) B dash (talk) 06:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Ali[edit]

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

This article along with the rest of the articles for Emirati soccer players for the Hatta team are useless. They have hardly any information and the creator of the article has been blocked for sock puppeting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proudpakistani11 (talk • contribs) .

Formatting AFD for nominator. Giant Snowman 13:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Soccerway (already present in the article) confirms many, many appearances in the UAE Pro-League, so he meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 13:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Arabic sources are notoriously hard to search for, but I do see some routine game coverage from the UAE Pro League in English. WP:USELESS isn't an argument to make at AfD, but he passes WP:NFOOTY and I would assume WP:NEXIST. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If one googles Abdullah Ali, virtually no results show up regarding him as a soccer player. As a challenge, I urge you to google Abdullah Ali, there is no credible information on Google. He is virtually unknown and there is hardly any images of him. Why should he be kept as an article. Proudpakistani11 (talk) 23:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination counts as a delete !vote, and a number of results come up, see [11] [12] [13], Abdulla Ali is also a valid English search term due to the transliteration, and googling his Arabic name along with the Arabic name of Hatta brings up results (I do not speak Arabic, but there were quite a few.) SportingFlyer T·C 00:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)][reply]

Comment:While those articles did indeed mention Abdullah's name. We wasn't primarily mentioned, he was briefly mentioned as a mid-fielder and some of the news articles named him "Abdulla" instead of "Abdullah". Secondly, the article "Abdullah Ali" should be deleted because there literally not enough sources. Where is the verifiable information or citation sources for his height and date of birth? There is literally one source only, therefore I propose deletion. Lastly, there are several other players on the Hatta soccer club who don't have articles. Proudpakistani11 (talk) 01:00, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff not existing is not a reason to delete, and as shown there are lots of potential Arabic sources. Soccerway is a quality reference for height/date of birth, Abdulla/Abdullah isn't a problem either as mentioned. 1/8th of your total edits to Wikipedia have been to this AfD, which also concerns me. SportingFlyer T·C 01:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We can verify this footballer exists with Soccerway and English-language coverage like this and this. He played in the AFC Champions League group stage as well. I’ll try to find Arabic-language sources that provide more in-depth coverage. Special:Contributions/Jogurney (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - footballer who has appeared in over 100 matches in a fully-pro league and is the subject of a decent amount of online coverage (e.g., [14] and [15] from Emarat Al Youm, plus the English-language coverage at Gulf News and Khaleej Times linked above). Passes NFOOTBALL and very likely passes GNG with some translation help. Jogurney (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets NFOOTY by a bit, barely makes GNG. 100+ games over five+ seasons in the UAE's top league (WP:FPL-listed) per Soccerway. There is probably Arabic-language coverage of him that is inaccessible to me. These two interviews with some reporting (barely) count as SIGCOV for me because it's sustained and in reliable sources: 2012 interview in Gulf News and 2017 interview in Emarat Al Youm. If it were a second- or third-division player, I'd probably be !voting delete, but I think a player who's played many games over multiple seasons in the top division in the UAE is likely notable, and the marginal SIGCOV I can find tends to reinforce that. Leviv ich 03:15, 23 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conchobar Mac Con Raoí[edit]

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

This is the stuff of legend. This character only deserves a line in Longevity myths#Modern extreme longevity claims. — JFG ^talk 12:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete almost no sources, and the page now is primarily one blockquote from someone. That about says it all (literally too!). If this is kept for some reason, the supercentenarians category needs to be removed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Move to a line in "Longevity myths" as above. Linking the book that is the apparent source in the article, so that can be preserved.

Delete Found the full-text online version of the indirectly cited source; couldn't find any mention of him in the late 1500s portion, probable WP:HOAX And it's been up for over 9 years, candidate for WP:HOAXLIST. RobDuch (talk) 04:14, 18 April 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Brough[edit]

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

Subject lacks notabiltiy. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBLP. Four of the seven references are articles written by the subject themselves and most of these journals themselves don't seem to scrape thru WP:N to have an article. AfD'ed it after a prod template was removed. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:14, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a working journalist. As the nominator indicates, references to the subject's own published articles/blog are insufficient. Any notability claim probably rests on the subject sharing an A. H. Boerma Award in 2003. However while I can see press releases announcing other recipients, I am not finding indication of this as a significant award which would demonstrate notability under WP:JOURNALIST criterion 1 or 4(c). AllyD (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Norm and AllyD . Lapablo (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find sources to show that he passes WP:GNG. Not independent enough or varied enough. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 18:21, 18 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karabo Sampson[edit]

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

Non notable national beauty pageant winner (see WP:1EVENT), no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 11:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG from secondary sources. Just blog posts could be found. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total lack of sources that would allow for passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - won the national title and competed at an international level at one of the "big 4" international beauty pageants. As in sports, participating in the premier international competition indicates notability. MurielMary (talk) 12:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not at all true. We had a long lasting RfC discussion on beauty pageants, and an attempts to create a list of competitions that entering made people default notable was rejected. MurialMary's proposal is against community consensus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to this discussion? TIA. MurielMary (talk) 21:49, 21 April 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 Interactive urinal. Anything worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Captive Media[edit]

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

shameless promotion by COI. non notable company. a small amount of press coverage due to a once novel concept. the entire article just reads like a press release Rayman60 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Basically all the sources for this article are about the companys video game urinal product rather then the company itself, and it appears an article about the product already exists at Interactive urinal. Any relevant content in this article should just be merged into that article since the sources are all about the urinal really rather than the product. This company is also already mentioned on the Interactive urinal article but also has a bit of a promotional tone so could be rewritten. Meszzy² (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Interactive urinal as a WP:ATD alternative mentioned by Meszzy2. References in the article and in my searches do not show significant coverage of the company itself (but of the product), making it fail WP:NCORP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern (country subdivision)[edit]

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

Also nominated:

These pages have an odd disambiguator but do not explain their subjects. Instead they are formatted as disambiguation pages (with format errors) but in reality perform no useful function (e.g. no-one is going to come to Eastern (country subdivision) if they're actually looking for Eastern Thailand). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all unless someone us able to come up with a good justification for keeping that hasn't occurred to me. Mccapra (talk) 10:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:PTM. Definitely not dab pages. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My original Keep comment ran, "How are these not dab pages? The OP says, "No one will get here". Yet, if I search for "Eastern", it's offered at the end. If I search for "Eastern Pro..." And that's when I realized that, no, in fact this is different. It links to the articles linked in Eastern, but is itself an orphan. This is long obsolete, as the rest of the dab infrastructure for these types of articles has evolved but it's stayed static. As creator of the articles in question, I say Delete. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read PTM. For example, nobody refers to eastern Thailand (or anything else I can think of off the top of my head) as simply Eastern. Maybe a college? Clarityfiend (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to convince me that I'm wrong? :P --Golbez (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the delete lvote at the end. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the parent DABs and redirect as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Since these mainly just link to other DAB pages, and none of the parent dab page (e.g. Northern (disambiguation), Eastern (disambiguation), etc.) are that long, there no length concern about merging them there. On the whole, these are valid dab pages since most of the entries meet WP:PTM, though admittedly some entries should be in the "See also" and not in the main body. Overall though, it's easier for navigation to merge them back up to the parent dabs. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:44, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I would have no objection to including e.g. Eastern District (disambiguation) in the 'See also' section of Eastern. I think that these four titles should be deleted, however, as they don't constitute disambiguation pages on their own, and there is no reasonable place for them to redirect to. That is to say, it is no more reasonable in principle for Eastern (country subdivision) to redirect to Eastern than to Eastern District or Eastern Region, etc. Cnilep (talk) 08:27, 22 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dimbylow[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:NOLYMPICS as only medal winning Paralympians are presumed notable and WP:GNG. His English Football Hall of Fame induction is irrelevant as he has only been included for having cerebral palsy. Dougal18 (talk) 07:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 08:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing here to confer notability, I'm afraid. Giant Snowman 10:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG with the sourcing in the article, and I don't see much more in my searches. Doesn't seem to pass any relevant SNG. Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good job guys on doing your research, there is plenty enough to pass WP:GNG. Have updated the article, could add a lot more than what I've already done. He has won Silver and bronze Paralympic medals. [16] Govvy (talk) 10:41, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He hasn't won medals in an actual Paralympic Games. His medals are from events containing 4 teams making it almost impossible to avoid winning a medal. Dougal18 (talk) 17:03, 16 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jane P. Gray[edit]

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

Fails WP:JUDGE, the only sources used in the article are a newspaper endorsement, election results, and Gray's biography from her campaign website GPL93 (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:JUDGE does allow for state level judges, which the subject is/was (unclear on current tenure). I feel that the article needs to be worked on further, maybe to the level similar to Loretta Copeland Biggs, who is a current state district judge in N. Carolina as well. robertsky (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertsky: WP:JUDGE applies to statewide judges, such as state supreme courts, and not state district courts or county court judges. There Loretta Copeland Biggs is an appointed Federal district court judge and therefore automatically qualifies as notable, so they are not particularly similar cases either. While Gray could possibly qualify as notable under WP:GNG, I didn't find any coverage that indicated that she met notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 00:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Delete local level judges are not default notable and the coverage does not show notability otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JUDGE....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Robertsky - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A WP:JUDGE pass requires a state-level judgeship, not a district court at the county level, so there's no automatic free pass of our notability standards for judges in the absence of enough reliable source coverage to get her over WP:GNG in lieu. Bearcat (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Appears to pass WP:GNG (let me know if I'm making a technical error here) Lightning321 (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the evidence that she passes GNG? To be clear, GNG is not just "count the footnotes and keep anything that meets or exceeds two" — GNG also tests for the depth of how much a source is or isn't about her, the geographic range that the sourcing represents, and the context of what the person is getting coverage for. So no, if a person didn't hold a public office that constitutes an automatic pass of our inclusion criteria for public figures, then they don't automatically clear GNG just because they can show two or three hits from their own hometown local media — a county court judge could still clear GNG if you can write a really substantial article that cites dozens of distinct sources instead of just two or three, or if you can show evidence that they receive coverage that nationalizes significantly beyond where they would just be routinely expected to have some, but a person at that level of significance does not automatically pass GNG just because the article has three footnotes in it. Bearcat (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:JUDGE refers to state-level judges. There is very little evidence of any national or international RS coverage of the subject, and most of the local coverage about the subject is either WP:ROUTINE, of her rulings as a judge, or coverage about her 2010 run for the North Carolina Court of Appeals. --Enos733 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 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. SK1 (nom withdrawal). (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pravit Rojanaphruk[edit]

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

Subject does not meet criteria for notability under WP:JOURNALIST, WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Most of the sources referenced on this article are WP:PRIMARY - (see penultimate version that was trimmed – [17]). At most, they have received coverage over a single event. Analysis of sources: Bangkok Post (2015) (valid); Prachatai (2015) (primary source); Khaosod (2017) (primary source); Human Rights Watch (2017) (advocacy piece that makes demands). — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. High-profile journalist whose activism (along with the silencing attempts against him) has been subject of WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond WP:1E. Recipient of the CPJ International Press Freedom Award [18]. In-depth profile in the Columbia Journalism Review[19]. News coverage ranging from 2015 (AFP[20], BBC[21]) to 2016 (ABC (Australia)[22]) to 2017 (Bangkok Post[23], AFP[24], AP[25]). The condemnations of government actions against him by the Committee to Protect Journalists [26], International Federation of Journalists [27] and PEN America [28], in addition to Human Rights Watch linked above, together contribute to the subject's notability. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comment and bringing new references to light, User:Paul_012. The fact that he won a prestigious award such as CPJ International Press Freedom Award certainly weighs heavily in favour of notability (something I had missed earlier whilst analyzing the BLP). In light of the production of above sources and facts, I would like to withdraw this nomination for deletion. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 10:22, 15 April 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Mono[edit]

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

Sources do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV for notability to be established under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 06:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article has no content and doesn't indicate any reason why someone should care to read it.Jacqke (talk) 01:31, 16 April 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. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Ahmed Chowdhury[edit]

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

Vanity piece on a non-notable individual. The sources used on the article are either WP:PRIMARY and/or non-WP:RS. Subject of the biography does not satisfy the criteria listed under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost the whole thing is cited to himself, except for one puffy review of his restaurant which I suppose establishes that he's technically a restaurateur, but certainly not that he's a notable one. 199.247.43.170 (talk) 08:39, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - (speedy or snow) fails GNG, poorly sourced (including wikilinks in Refs) with links to his own work. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of puffery. Ostensibly has plenty of refs - but when actually checking them they end up being non-reliable and/or not mentioning our subject. Not much in my WP:BEFORE in English. Icewhiz (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NPOV/NOR. Not clearly encyclopedic, as it isn't clear what an NPOV version of an article would look like. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could have been a speedy delete. Edwardx (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is entirely promotional, without an acceptable source to be found in the references or in an online search. The article is vacuous enough that it probably would have been a slam dunk g11. SWL36 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to all the reasons cited above, this article was almost surely a creation of undisclosed paid editing by SPA Plaban.0 (talk · contribs), who linked to their digital marketing firm but didn't make the required disclosure. And can whoever closes this AFD also delete File:Signature of Imran Ahmed Chowdhury.png, which is falsely said to be in public-domain and is an additional indicator of COI/UPE? Abecedare (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COM:INUSE on d:Q30070192, but once the latter is cleared… –84.46.53.188 (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources lack depth, independence and the type which shows notability. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ostensibly has plenty of refs, Fails NPOV/NOR/GNG. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:: Apart from the obvious {{tone}} issues (plural), Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts is a "thing" (=has an enwiki page), and the other award is also no nonsense. –84.46.53.188 (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While there have been prestigious Fellows of the RSA, fellowship per se is not particularly selective or prestigious, and is essentially open to anyone who files an application and coughs up a monthly fee of £14.83. As the organisation's FAQ says, "How likely is it that my application will be accepted? Our ethos is inclusive and we value all who positively impact society. Providing there is demonstrable evidence from either your professional or civic life that you share the values outlined in the Fellowship Charter we will be pleased to welcome you into the Fellowship." Abecedare (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other listed award, Freedom of the City, is also given to anyone on the electoral rolls for the City or London (for free), or to those who file an application and pay a "fine" of £100. These "awards" are mere fund-raising mechanisms relying on the aura created by "Fellow", "Royal", "City of London" and not reliable signs of noteworthiness. Abecedare (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for info, I only knew IEEE Fellows in WP:PROF for notability. If the awards don't help the rest of the page is hopeless, I even doubt that it is, broadly construed, English. –84.46.53.188 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I too had to check. The organisations are frankly counting on such presumption of prestige and selectivity to generate funds/membership. See also Who's Who scam. Abecedare (talk) 21:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally NN. A Bangladeshi army officer, who opened a UK restaurant. The material on his charitable works is cited from the subject's own blog: not a reliable source. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is promotional, without any reliable sources.-MA Javadi (talk) 17:10, 20 April 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. I have withdrawn this proposal. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

W. H. Pugmire[edit]

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

The only reliable source is not independent of the subject. The previous deletion proposal failed because it attracted his fans. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 12:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per meeting WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. Sources include the numerous sources listed in the article, along with publications including Locus [29], Publishers Weekly [30] [31] [32], The Monarch Review, Fantasy Magazine [33], Asimov's Science Fiction [34], and New York Journal of Books. Various other mentions and references can be found with a Google search or two, here are a few random mentions: [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. Other sources listed in the article include The Lovecraft eZine, The New York Review of Science Fiction, Famous Monsters of Filmland, and The Seattle Times. I am quite confused on how the nominator came to the conclusion that "The only reliable source is not independent of the subject". MarkZusab (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes I was similarly confused. Could the nominator expand on this please? Mccapra (talk) 10:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per MarkZusab. Mosaicberry (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep MarkZusab has already pointed out the relevant parts for how this article meets the guidelines for notability. It is also worth pointing out that the previous attempt at deletion did not fail due to canvassing, but because people pointed out sufficient evidence of the author's notability per WP:NAUTHOR. Iarann (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm not sure what it is about Pugmire that attracts rubbish delete requests, but if we're now assuming Locus and Publisher's Weekly (to list just two) are not independent and mere "fans" then something has gone very wrong with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Palindromedairy (talk) 06:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizarre nomination. Clearly notable author. And no, I'm not one of his fans. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:27, 17 April 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 Partition and secession in California#21st century. Any content worth merging is available from the article history. Randykitty (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

California National Party[edit]

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

Organization has only received coverage in two outlets as cited here: a small piece in the Sacramento Bee and an article in Vice. Organization has no elected officers, does not have many members at all. Coverage appears to be trivial or incidental in every source I have seen. This political party just doesn't seem to be notable. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The CNP has hundreds of members, has ran multiple candidates at the state level, and articles can be easily found about it if you search at the California level instead of the national level. Jon698 21:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To Partition and secession in California, sources cover people wanting to secede, not the party itself. Reywas92^Talk 22:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To Partition and secession in California#21st century. Fails WP:SIGCOV but ther eis enougo to put a couple of sentences on the merge target page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:49, 17 April 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kampala Boyz[edit]

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

Duo/Group that doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND as almost all sources are simply announcements or are not in-depth. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has reliable sources coverage in national press and have won three notable awards so should be included in the encyclopedia Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has enough coverage to pass WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rhino Africa[edit]

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

Company fails WP:NCORP. There is coverage but it is all general announcements and brief mentions, nothing in-depth. The current version, if kept, would also need a substantial rewrite to remove the promotional tone. CNMall41 (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, tell me how I can improve providing in-depth content on this article, as I am still new to Wikipedia and still learning. Concerning the promotional content I tried to take only the information provided in the references. GauthierPerreux (talk) 8:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep It needs work, but I think the Entrepreneur Magazine article, the NewsWatch show, and the World Travel Awards received support keeping it. Schazjmd (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to a press release which is never viable for notability. The Entrepreneur piece is not Entrepreneur Magazine. It licenses the name from Entrepreneur but it is unknown what their editorial standards are. I am not sure what you mean by the awards publication so I cannot opine on the relevance. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely promotional. Not WP:NCORP Lubbad85 (☎) 17:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the necessary in-depth, independent, significant coverage to meet WP:NCORP (and thus WP:CORPDEPTH). Per the aforementioned policy, sources based on primary information and trivial mentions do not confer undue notability on the topic. In addition, off-wiki evidence (the creating editor's username crossed with the company's name) indicates the article has been created contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING.--SamHolt6 (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the UDE, SamHolt6. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND and WP:NCORP. Promotional. scope_creep^Talk 22:02, 21 April 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Ebersman[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria. His hiring as CFO at Facebook was picked up by several outlets, but there is no significant coverage of him. atdt (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!Strong Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. In addition, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE states "Presidents, chief executive officers and chairpersons of the boards of directors of companies listed in the Fortune 500 (US) or the FTSE 100 Index (UK) are generally kept as notable". This article is about a man who has been the CFO of one of the very biggest and most discussed, and oversaw its IPO. He's been featured in the Wall Street Journal more than once. Mentions in business publications, newspapers and other sources numerous times for his work at Facebook, Genentech, Lyra, and other companies. Accountants may be boring, but they still get coverage. Here's just a few. We confer a football player who subbed into one NFL game automatic notability. CFO of one of the largest and most talked about companies of all time may be less popular here, but we've got a guy who's been that, CEO of a start-up that has gotten plenty of coverage (Lyra), sat on the boards of many other large corps, an exec at Genentech.... Anyway, here's some more references, there are literally thousands. [40] [41] [42] [43].Jacona (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article should be devloped. At this time some of the sources have broken links. However subject easily meets WP:GNG. and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE Lubbad85 (☎) 17:19, 16 April 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) CoolSkittle (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christophe Aubanel[edit]

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

Found no sources. Fails WP:V. BLP PROD declined as an article created before 2010. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannyniu (talk • contribs) 02:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom.TH1980 (talk) 02:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NFOOTY, WP:GNG. Sources include [44], [45], [46], and the unfortunate [47]. SportingFlyer T·C 05:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - player comfortably meets WP:NFOOTY having played over 150 times in Ligue 2, a fully professional league. [48] Kosack (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:NFOOTBALL there are sources out there, has played way enough professional football to qualify for an article regardless of its poor quality. Also the nominator should of had a look at the French wikipedia page and would of seen the difference to know this player passes the guideline instead of wasting peoples time with this AfD. Govvy (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above, clearly passes WP:NFOOTBALL and likely passes GNG even with a quick search. Giant Snowman 09:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - footballer who appeared in 178 league matches over 8 seasons in the fully-pro Ligue 2. There is online coverage of him in Le Parisien: [49], [50]; and Le Télégramme: [51], [52]. I think the article can pass WP:GNG with some translation help. Jogurney (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:FOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pro footballer plus the drug conviction (not that the latter puts him over the top) show this should be retained. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:NFOOTY. -- Dane ^talk 02:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavika Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CoolSkittle (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails to meet WP:NACTOR with just a handful of minor roles. The existing source is not a good one and there's just not much out there. Ravensfire (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Close, and rePROD, with special obligation for anyone de-PRODding to open a new AFD for and explain why they think the article should be kept. Sheldybett's deprod rationale is invalid, and shows the same poor understanding of policy that recently got him banned from a variety of procedures that, under a broad interpretation, might include this. Ideally any admin closing this discussion should also issue a warning to the nom. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom. Does not pass WP:NACTOR. That said, I don't see anything wrong with the deprod. At the time the BLPPROD was placed there were no sources of any kind. But one source, admittedly trashy, was added that seems to verify most of the article's content so deprodding is probably OK. Besides which, letting this discussion run to a delete consensus will be quicker than closing it, re-prodding, and then waiting a whole week. Reyk _YO! 20:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The deprod was wrong because the unreliable source was only added after the blpprod notice so the article should have been deleted under WP:BLPPROD Atlantic306 (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the BLP deletion template may be removed only after the biography contains a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article. If the biography remains unsourced after seven days, the biography may be deleted. That sure sounds to me like adding a source makes deprodding OK. Might help if you actually read WP:BLPPROD. Also, if you'd read the article you would know it's about a woman. Reyk _YO! 14:56, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the doubt here is over whether this source is reliable. If there is any doubt then surely the best thing to do is to hold a discussion here, where that and other potential reasons for deletion can be discussed to form a consensus, rather than use a procedure that takes just as long as a deletion discussion anyway? Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON at this stage of his career, but she has made a good start to her profession and may become notable in the not too distant future Atlantic306 (talk) corrected to actress Atlantic306 (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 12:54, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can come up with better sourcing. It doesn't really matter quite how reliable IWMBuzz might be, because the coverage in the source provided is very trivial rather than significant, and I can't find any better sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:32, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galbraith (property consultancy)[edit]

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

I don't see that this estate agent is any more notable than hundreds of others. It carries on its routine business of selling property (and related products), and sometimes the properties are of interest to the press. The coverage of the company itself seems very sparse, and I don't believe that it meets our revised notability guidelines for companies. The page was created by an SPA/COI editor without any proper disclosure. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. Business listings and mentions. scope_creep^Talk 10:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In fairness, the original article went through AfC and a couple of subsequent edits have been proposed via the Talk page, following the processes recommended for connected contributors. However, as to notability, the references are a mix of routine takeover/renaming announcements, market surveys by the company, and coverage of particular transactions in which the firm has been involved, and from which notability is not inherited. These are sufficient to confirm that this as a firm going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 15:00, 21 April 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.