Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 December 13 December >

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 delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:28, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stisen[edit]

Daniel Stisen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Extremely puffy promotional article with a dearth of sourcing. The sources given in the article are not reliable / independent, and on a search I'm not finding enough in-depth sources to pass WP:NACTOR, WP:NSPORT, or WP:GNG. The No.wiki article is similarly undersourced.

On a search, I found an article that described him as "relatively unknown" and stated that he appears in a "small role called 'Russian bodyguard'". The rest of it is mostly fluffy interview - "how was it on set?" etc. There's also two pieces in the (regional) Sorlandet edition of NPK that are basically the same kind of "Local boy wants to make it big in Hollywood" pieces - [1] and [2].

I don't believe it's sufficient to pass any of the notability criteria mentioned above. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to contest this deletion, we could improve the proof of Daniel Stisen for Wikipedia. I read that you do not find the articles relative, then we can provide more proof. Stisen has been in the limelight for more then 15 years, included two documentary about his life, he has done celebrity reality shows in Norway, at least two of the articles at NRK was the most read of the week in the whole country. He has more then 40 film credits over the last 5 years and he was among the top three most famous bodybuilders in Norway an decade ago. He is one of the leading roles in a new Netflix film. All this can proof thought links from major media pages I would like to provide asap and IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMuscle007 (talk • contribs)
  • Preserve - My name is James Keating and I am an Oxford-based author and 24-year veteran screenwriter. I've known Daniel Stisen for five-years and in that time, we've worked together on nine different films. I am very surprised that there is any question of his eligibility for a Wikipedia entry. Like I say, Daniel and I have collaborated many times, with him as the lead actor and in projects of considerable note. I would be happy to update his Wiki entry myself, accrediting and corroborating his latest achievements and also to reflect his current standing in the industry. I must start by drawing attention to a prominent article published only three-months ago, announcing him as the joint third lead in a Netflix film, by Oscar-winning producer Alain Depardieu, https://www.filmneweurope.com/news/romania-news/item/118660-production-original-netflix-production-back-2-back-shoots-in-Romania makeajesting (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
James, you may want to read our conflict-of-interest guideline, which discourages the editing of articles where one has an off-wiki relationship with the subject. The article you linked is merely a production announcement that mentions the subject's name. It is not substantially about the subject and does not count as a reliable source for the purpose of showing notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning the COI. I'd like to add that, if we find sources that establish the subject's notability, it would be acceptable for User:Makeajesting to suggest additional sources on the article's talk page. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agnel Roman[edit]

Agnel Roman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)


No indication of notability. None of the reliable sources is more than a trivial passing mention. Key claims beyond mere credits are not based on reliable sources. I couldn't find any better sources, so the page cannot be improved. Huon (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Huon , pls save the article from deleteing, this artile is about Agnel Roman. he is a one of the well-known music Directors in india. you can check other wikipedia articles like Ragini MMS, Panithuli, Maazii, Mickey Virus, Jigariyaa that mantion his name so that he has notability. and The Times of India is the reliable source. you can see the article in the same. what else do you want Huon ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annki777 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Annki777 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Huon (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rushing Rivers Institute[edit]

Rushing Rivers Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not established and unlikely it is going to be. This low-quality article has kicked around, unnoticed, for over a decade but it probably warranted deleting on sight. Reads like a copy-paste job from the organisation's website. AGK ■ 21:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Huh. LIVE in Amherst. Never heard of this purported outfit. (Granted, that may well be because the outfit's website now says it's based in Delaware.) The first page of Google hits include this site, the Wikipedia article, its Facebook page, its Yelp page ... the classic hallmark of non-notability. ZERO news hits, no indication this comes within a country mile of meeting the GNG. Ravenswing 05:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, All the sources I can find are primary, I can't find anything independent that would meet WP:GNG; the only news hit that comes up is in Ukrainian, but this is (as far as I can tell) an interview and so is a primary source and adds nothing towards WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we do not publish original research. Bearian (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent sources to support WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sssniperwolf[edit]

Sssniperwolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Youtube personality. One brief description by Forbes on a top internet influencers list, but the article is totally unsourced and doesn't demonstrate notability. The Forbes reference isn't enough to demonstrate notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON. Hog Farm (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- Non-notable and fails WP:GNG. Andrew Base (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've done a quick Google News search and come up with the following: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. That seems like significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to me, unless there's something I'm missing. The article definitely needs a rewrite and maybe moving to her real name (I don't know what the convention here is) but I'm not seeing any reasons to delete. WJ94 (talk) 16:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is in bad shape but there are reliable sources covering it. I think there's enough here to qualify as notable. Michepman (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I added some sources as per WJ94, the article still needs a rewrite but at least it has a reference list now, there are enough sources out there that it passes WP:GNG. Ym2X (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elias De León[edit]

Elias De León (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article appears to be an attempted promotion for this producer and label head, especially because his LinkedIn has been posted in the infobox. All sources available are actually about his company or the various artists he produced, in which he is typically only listed in the credits. Can find no support for some of the statements in the article, especially how he "discovered" various successful musicians. Can find little to no evidence of independent notability, and all the awards and sales and chart positions listed in the article were achieved by other people, not himself. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article creator has since removed the LinkedIn address. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Korey[edit]

Stephanie Korey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the page is not notable, while there is normally a presumption under WP:NOTABLE that Significant Coverage presumes the source should have an article, it is worth noting that a lot of the content in here relates to the company Away, rather than this person. Propose moving most content to a page on the company and deleting this BLP. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ethanmayersweet (talk) 21:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even before the recent kerfuffle, she was the founder of a widely-covered unicorn, received significant coverage in that role, and ended up on multiple notable-people lists. Now, as a poster child for the unicorn excesses and bad management, she's even more clearly notable. One of Wikipedia's most important functions is helping people learn about something or someone in the news, so at the very least any decision about notability should wait until we see how things settle after this current wave of press attention. William Pietri (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:19, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She co-founded a highly-valued start up and then became subject to intense media coverage due to the workplace culture. She has quite a bit of notable news coverage and will likely continue to remain a public figure in some capacity. Seems like an easy keep. Bwabwa7 (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for reasons cited above. --JumpLike23 (talk)
  • Weak Keep Keep for posterity because of her current and previous positions at notable companies but the state of the article atm needs much expansion if she is as widely covered as people say she is. Right now it just reads like condensed PR. -- BriefEdits (talk) 00:01, 16 December 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 Tim Robbins. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gob Roberts[edit]

Gob Roberts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable cover band active for only one tour. Tagged as unsourced since 2009. Can't find significant coverage in RS for this band, and most of the Google results for this band appear to have the exact same text as this article, suggesting that the information came from those pages. Hog Farm (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Tim Robbins.. There's nothing to create a sourced stub. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above as there is no sourced content to merge but if references can be found it can be written about there, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Tim Robbins. Agree with above comments - Jay (talk) 17:18, 20 December 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 owing to a lack of sourcing to suggest notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Distributech International[edit]

Distributech International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is promotional for this trade show which doesn't appear to be notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies in advance if this is improperly formatted, as I am brand new to Wiki editing. When creating this page I tried to follow the same format as CES, which I understand is a more notable event, but nonetheless an event. Distributech International has been around for 30 years and my intent is to use the Wiki as a historical record for the event and add more information as I am able to uncover it and not as a promotional item. If there is any promotional language I need to remove or anything I can edit in order to make this Wiki less promotional in order to prevent its deletion, I will gladly do so. ClarionSEO 04:54, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete G14 (dab page with only one target) after the article on the EP was draftified. As 3.14 already redirects to pi, replacing the disambiguation page with a redirect is not necessary. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:04, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3.14 (disambiguation)[edit]

3.14 (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a slightly complicated situation, so please bear with me. This is a new dab page, but it's not needed. 3.14 (EP) is the only article that could reasonably be titled 3.14, so it should be moved to 3.14, which is currently a redirect to Pi (the number). Then a hatnote at the EP article could point to the number if that's what a reader was looking for. I removed a third term to 3.1415 (album) from the dab already since it's merely a PTM. Currently, 3.1415 also redirects to Pi, but this should also be updated similarly. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Telecom Grid Pakistan[edit]

Telecom Grid Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced and I can find no sources. -- Whpq (talk) 23:16, 18 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See'n'Report[edit]

See'n'Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Weak coverage fails WP:NCORP. Störm (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. mistake AfD - clearly a speedy candidate. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bản mẫu:WPX last updated[edit]

Bản mẫu:WPX last updated (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's just Template:WPX last updated, Bản mẫu is Vietnamese for Template so I'm assuming that the creator meant for this to be on the Vietnamese Wikipedia. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lena Paul[edit]

Lena Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the current references are porn/adult product vendor websites, interviews and database entries. I looked for additional sources and didn't find any in-depth, reliable and independent biographical coverage. Her anti-Trump social media postings received a bit of news attention[8]; she's also quoted in one Jezebel article on pornography[9] and mentioned in passing in two others[10][11]. She also gets a number of passing mentions because Kanye West used a picture of her in his pornography-inspired fashion collection, as well as assorted other namedrops and tabloid coverage. She won a Pornhub Award in 2018[12], which doesn't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. She was also ranked #99 in a 2017 Complex listicle, "The Top 100 Hottest Porn Stars (Right Now)"[13]. Cheers, gnu57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. gnu57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. gnu57 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable pornographic entertainer. This is one profession where we are still plagued with over coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable secondary source coverage. The references are junk sources like XRentDVD, interviews and press releases. An independent search for reliable sources yielded only more porn trade press releases. Sources are of too poor a quality to claim notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've looked at this about five times, trying to decide if she is notable. I think insufficient depth of coverage satisfies a delete. scope_creepTalk 15:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Mae McDonald[edit]

Lucy Mae McDonald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability concerns. No references in the article, and no claims of importance or significance. An elementary school in Texas is named after her, and the school district's biography is probably where the information comes from. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete exceptional claims require exceptional sourcing, and so we cannot claim first African-American superintendent in the US without actual sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Jet has a mention of McDonald here but more is needed. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No effective references. scope_creepTalk 15:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Searching using her married name, Lucy McDonald Davis, reveals some additional sources such as New Ellis County black Hall of Fame capturing attention and an index entry in Black Texas Women: 150 Years of Trial and Triumph. Google Books preview doesn't show me the actual text at page 294 of the University of Texas Press book, so I am unable to evaluate how significant this particular coverage is. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unfortunately. Both Halls of Fame are strictly local - one for Ellis County, and one for Dallas County. The Jet article has a bit of info about her, but is mostly "no comment, no photo" from her. She was superintendent of one school district, which seems to have covered one town, with (according to the Jet article), 1,100 students. It seems to be the Dallas County Hall of Fame which says she was the first African-American school district superintendent in Texas - contemporary sources, like Jet and a Californian paper (which has a one para report of her appointment [14]), don't say that. Her obituary [15] was published in the Dallas Morning News, so is again very local, and has info from friends, colleagues and family. I can find scraps of info in other digitised newspapers - she was a member of the Alpha Xi Omega chapter of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority [16]; she had a master's degree, and was principal of Dunbar High School before being acting superintendent [17]; she was president of the Ellis County unit of the Texas State Teachers Association [18]; she started at Ferris Colored High School in 1934, and got its name changed to Dunbar School in 1935 [19]; she was also involved in church choirs. I've searched under "Lucy Mae McDonald", "Lucy McDonald Davis", "Mrs Tony Davis" and "Mrs Anthony Davis", and I don't find enough coverage or recognition for her to meet WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:BASIC, or any other notability guidelines. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Men in Black equipment[edit]

List of Men in Black equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of trivial in-universe minutia. This does not establish notability on its own. This is not a justified article split. This is too in-depth for the general reader. It's a specialty article for fans by fans. TTN (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:13, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 13:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and salt. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Madison Ivy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted twice at AfD and salted. The new version got moved in from draft space. May not be strict G4 candidate, but lack of notability was established even when WP:PORNBIO was in effect. Citations are full of junk sources like The Daily Sport, self-published blogs and celebrity net worth sites. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I did some quick cleanup of unreliable sources, leaving basically nothing but interviews. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article failed even when we had the now destroyed notability guidelines giving special preference to pornographic performers. Now when we do not have those, we can see that such publicity driving internal industry promotionalism does not rise to the level of 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Creator of the page here. Thank you for the citation cleanup. As for the remaining references, note that not all of them are interviews. Now, I understand the effort to maintain credible journalistic practices but I am appalled by the number of articles written on other porn actresses that do not follow the same standards. Many are based heavily on interviews and poor sources. I urge all to exercise this same diligence in those cases as well.StreetSodatalk 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:WHATABOUTX is listed under articles to avoid in AfD debates. Articles stand or fall based on their own merits. As for poorly written porn articles, the PORNBIO secondary notability guideline, which protected many of these articles is no more. These articles are being culled. Madison Ivy has been deleted twice per editor consensus. The latest iteration does not solve the notability problems discussed previously. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Johnpacklambert: Did you just assume I am an industry insider? Before making such statements, peer into my history log to see if there's any validity to your assumptions. Cheers!StreetSodatalk 00:20, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Streetsoda: I read John's comment as referring to the porn industry's promotion machine (porn trade press, award ceremonies, and Internet flooding) and the article's low quality references, not to you personally. The problem with sources for porn have been discussed extensively since 2006. It finally came down to the consensus that WP:PORNBIO should be retired. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I must've misread. I didn't know any better. Apologies.StreetSodatalk 05:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence to support an article. Fails WP:BIO. It is a pestilence on Wikipedia. scope_creepTalk 15:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem here comes down to the ever moving goal post for PORNBIO. Madison Ivy is indeed a successful pornographic actress for the past decade, yet according to Wikipedia even with multiple awards it wouldn’t be enough. I don’t know what SFW sources people expect to find for these people unless they magically (albeit rarely) cross over into the mainstream. Trillfendi (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails GNG. She didn't even meet the standards of PORNBIO when it was in effect.Wikiuser20102011 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are 21 other language versions of this page. It seems highly unlikely that the English language version is the only version that cannot pass notability guidelines when all the others appear to. I'm sure other sources could be pulled from the other language version of this page to be used on the English version. Helper201 (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That rationale is circular. Other language versions of Wikipedia copy from one another, especially from en.Wikipedia, which as nearly 6 million articles, more than all the others. Interwiki efforts for completeness don't establish notability. Have you looked at the other wiki pages? I did, many are stubs with an external link to IMDb or IAFD as their source. Others have the exact same sources as the en wiki page. As I asked you on the talk page, if you can find a non-trivial WP:RELIABLE reference in those other wiki pages, please share it here. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: This article appears to have been translated back from another wiki after it was deleted twice and salted here. en.Wikipedia has tightened its standards for notability and quality of sources. The most recent deprecation of WP:PORNBIO was part of that evolution. Other wikis are free to accept or reject that change. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the issue of using sources from or relating to the porn industry. Of course that is where virtually all the information about pornographic film actors is likely to come from. The industry - while popular - is not a mainstream or open phenomenon, so is reliant on sources largely or entirely devoted to the industry. You question the reliability of sources such as Brazzers, but do you have anything to suggest such a source is unreliable? At the end of the day its a business, and one that from what I have seen from the sources has signed a contract agreement with this person. I would imagine a professional business would be likely to provide accurate information about someone it is in contract with. Helper201 (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and salt fails everything and the keep votes have no basis in policy. Spartaz Humbug! 23:15, 19 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tetra JSC[edit]

Tetra JSC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 18:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Agent J. It's up to the editors what, if anything, should be merged. – sgeureka t•c 08:57, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Noisy Cricket[edit]

Noisy Cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The entire basis of this article hinges on two trivial Top X listicles. I don't believe they sufficiently demonstrate notability. Pretty much every other mention is a trivial mention or one other listicle not included in this article. TTN (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Big O. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big O (mecha)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Big O (mecha) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails to establish notability. The only real world info is minor primary production info. TTN (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Big O. It doesn't appear to be individually notable, and a lot of the article is more fitting to Wikia, though it has some merge-able design information.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 20:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Not much to merge as it's all plot but I guess it is possible to add a few sentences if someone cares. Soft delete perhaps if nobody feels like merging. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Big O as useful for that show. Material is already detailed in that article so there's nothing to further merge. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Big O This article is another in a long line of articles that should become redirect pages. ―Susmuffin Talk 21:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Books[edit]

Russell Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Small local book store (with one current location in Victoria, BC?). Routine local coverage in Victoria. There was one publicity event (stacking books) that gathered some local coverage but I don't think this is sufficient for notability. MB 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MB 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. MB 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. MB 17:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not exactly prevalent, but there's coverage from national sources out there, such as this CBC story. There is also a claim in this Colonist story that Russell has the largest stock of books of any store in Canada, at over 1 million volumes. Some of the local coverage provides decent depth, too, once you wade through all the book stacking stuff. I think the article sells the subject short, and would benefit from a more potent claim to notability than the book stacking event, but Russell Books appears to be a major independent bookseller on a national scale. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That CBC story is from the CBC's local bureau in Vancouver/Victoria, not from the national news division, so it's not really a "national" source. That's not to say it's worth nothing, but it isn't a "national coverage = CORPDEPTH pass booyah!" mic drop all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although I pointed out that the CBC source isn't a notability-clincher all by itself, as it's local coverage from the CBC's local news bureau rather than nationalized coverage, I did a ProQuest search and was able to find a decent volume of other coverage. The problem here wasn't really that coverage doesn't exist — it's just the usual story, that Wikipedians tend to be lazy and just source stuff to Google hits instead of making an effort to find older coverage in news archiving databases. But I get 339 hits dating all the way back to 1985, and for a store that's existed since 1962 I'm certain that I'd have found even more if the database I was able to search actually went any further back than 1982. They won't all be useful hits, some of them are just event calendars — but I've already pulled over a dozen useful hits, covering it in the context of considerably more than just the book stack. Bearcat (talk) 15:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And after having used "Russell Books Victoria" to filter out hits on the Russell Books in Montreal, then I actually read the damn article more carefully and let out a Homer Simpson d'oh. There you go: the coverage expands to Montreal too. And a journalist-written obituary of Reg Russell in The Globe and Mail, to boot, containing more than enough information about the history of the store to count as a notability-assisting source even though the store isn't its primary subject per se. I've bumped up the referencing accordingly, and I think we're clearly over the bar now. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y. No.objection to sourced material being merged. Spartaz Humbug! 19:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Yinsen[edit]

Ho Yinsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non-notable fictional character. Zero real-world notability. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This isn't even a marginal case. Ho Yinsen is one of the most important characters in the Iron Man mythos, and absolutely crucial to Iron Man's origin, hence why Ho Yinsen has appeared not just in the comic books, but in so many other adaptations of the character, from TV series to multiple theatrical films. —Lowellian (reply) 01:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response: There isn't a single source cited in that article that isn't a marvel comic book. If this character is so notable, there should some be some coverage of the character from outside fictional marvel comics. Otherwise that article (A) lacks notability and (B) is just WP:Fancruft. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's worth noting that if the character is so important to iron man, then that can just be mentioned on the iron man wikipedia articles. That doesnt mean that Ho Yinsen needs his own article. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of coverage of Ho Yinsen in secondary sources: ComicBookDB, ComicVine, and MarvUnApp. Here is an article on Ho Yinsen from a non-comic-books website. Actor George Takei, who has no relationship with Ho Yinsen (has never played the character), has an essay about Ho Yinsen posted on his website. —Lowellian (reply) 02:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to editors: the above comment from Lowellian was only recently added, after much discussion had happened later on this article. Lowellian would not allow me to move his comment to a more appropriate place in the discussion. Lowellian adding that comment to this part of the discussion is poor form because it makes it seem like i was ignoring his comment when i was talking about how no one was able to show any secondary sources later on this page. My comments about that came first, and he/she has simply added this new comment to the wrong part of this discussion - which for bizarre reasons lowellian would not allow me to move. I have responded to these sources at the bottom of this article so as to preserve the natural flow of discussion and to retain a logical chronology of events. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your comment about lack of sources, so the appropriate place for the natural flow of the discussion is to place the comment here, directly below the comment to which it is replying. Trying to move my comment away is poor form because not only is it editing my comment without my permission, but it hides my reply to your comment and wrongly makes it seem like I did not reply to the request for sources. My comment is in the right part of this discussion, below the comment to which it is responding, since Wikipedia uses threaded discussion. Furthermore, it is logical to keep all my arguments together under the umbrella of my main bullet point instead of scattering part of my argument down to the bottom of the page as if I were multiple different editors. No one would have thought you were ignoring any comments; not only do comments have timestamps in the signature, but Wikipedia editors understand that in a threaded discussion, replies get added to earlier comments over time that may change the situation. Plus, I even put an extra note at the bottom that "I added examples in an addendum to my keep comment above" as a courtesy to make the situation clear. This was a complete non-issue, and posting this boldfaced "note to editors" attacking me needlessly injects incivility into this discussion. —Lowellian (reply) 04:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree with everything you've just said, but I won't elaborate on this because it's irrelevant to the discussion and i don't want to derail the discussion, and thus I agree to move on. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is because Ho Yinsen is so pivotal to Iron Man's origin story that the character appears in adaptations of Iron Man across many different forms of media, not just comic books: Ho Yinsen saved Tony Stark's life, helped him build the original Iron Man suit, and then sacrificed himself to save Tony Stark again. Batman becomes Batman because Joe Chill kills Thomas Wayne and Martha Wayne. Those characters all have Wikipedia articles. Spider-Man becomes Spider-Man because of the death of Uncle Ben. Uncle Ben also has a Wikipedia article. There is thus plenty of precedent for having articles for supporting characters whose primary role is in the origin stories of the most notable superheroes. —Lowellian (reply) 02:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Ignoring the "otherstuffexists" argument for the moment, literally every page you linked to contains a reference from the real world outside of a fictional comic book universe, something that this article doesn't have. Those examples don't help prove your case. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean by saying the glossary "won't survive the next decade or two here anyway." Can you explain that? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's referring to an effort to remove comic character articles from Wikipedia. There are currently 72 AfDs for comic characters, 65 of which were started by the same nominator here. That editor has expressed a dislike of the proposed target and would prefer to see it reduced to a bulleted list of blue links. The list's original (and current) purpose is to provide information on characters that are only notable within the fiction. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: Y. BOZ (talk) 12:50, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let this page stay. He played a part in the creation of Iron Man. Plus, @Lowellian: is right about the claim that user mentioned. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the redirect. Note to closing admin or whatever: disregard any votes that may fail WP:ATAIDD, especially the WP:PPOV ones. ミラP 01:01, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can people who want to keep this page respond to the fact that there isn't a single source used that isn't a marvel comic book? Like, this character doesn't even have an article written about him on IGN or anything like that. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can. This is an allplot GNG fail and should always be a redirect to the most relevant list. ミラP 01:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of sources outside Marvel comic books. I added examples in an addendum to my keep comment above. —Lowellian (reply) 02:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: These are not reliable sources. "Goat" does not appear to be a mainstream news outlet with editorial standards and just seems like a random website. The comicsvine wiki appears to be something anyone to contribute to. Thecomicbook database thing is not a published article in anyway shape or form, and is just a random bit of information on the internet. Marvunapp is not a reliable source. George Takei did not write that article, some random person called dennis livesey wrote that article on his website. Georgetakei's website is not a credible news outlet with editorial standards. I wish you added these sources to the bottom of the article, adding your comment up there makes it look like we were ignoring your comment when we were saying no secondary sources have been presented because people read articles top to bottom. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with the above source assessments. Maaaaybe we could be a bit more charitable with the post on Takei's blog, but even then we'd only have one solid source, which still falls short of notability guidelines. signed, Rosguill talk 03:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If George Takei actually wrote that piece on his blog, I would agree. A random fanboy writing something on George Takei's blog? Nope, not notable. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not George Takei's blog. It's his culture/society website with articles by many writers, and the author of the article under discussion is not some "random fanboy", but a hired writer for the website. —Lowellian (reply) 07:05, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Livesey (an unknown writer) wrote an very short article on George Takei's website about how a marvel fan made some tweets about an Iron Man character. I don't think this is notable enough to justify an article for Ho Yinsen. It's highly dubious whether this counts under WP:Reliable sources, it's totally WP:Fancruft, and even at best, that content from the article on Takei's website is totally insignificant failing the "significant coverage" test of WP:Notability. Surely the only options are to delete, redirect, or small partial merge. Even if we were to imagine that georgetakei's website was the new york times (which it isnt), I fail to see how one meaningless footnote is enough to justify the existence of an entire wikipedia article. Are we going to create a new wikipedia article every time a new article appears on George Takei's website? lol. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:55, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Usual-variety fancruft. Fails GNG/NFICTION.Kacper IV (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the List of Marvel characters. The character's repeated adaptation to other media shows his importance to the fiction and a minimal amount of information should be retained. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - No sources available to establish notability. TTN (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No real consensus to outright Delete; relist to get clarity on Keep vs. Merge vs. ReDirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Considering the only proposed target has the character's name and a "Main" template pointing at his article, I think all the "redirect" votes should be counted as "merges". Argento Surfer (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Agree with the above comment. Also, all the delete votes should obviously be counted towards merge/redirect rather than keep. To be honest there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that the article should not be kept - none of the votes to keep the article were made along policy lines. There seems to be a clear consensus on the fact that this character lacks significant coverage by reliable secondary sources (so far only one article has been produced that could potentially count). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apples&Manzanas, you have voted "Redirect" earlier. If you have changed your mind, please strike your earlier vote - Jay (talk) 18:45, 20 December 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. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Howard[edit]

Jamie Howard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for any WP:SIGCOV turns up empty. Fails WP:NCOLLATH as he has not been the recipient of any notable awards. Fails WP:NBASEBALL as he never made it to the majors. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment we generally find that starting quarterbacks at top tier programs like LSU tend to generate way more than enough coverage to surpass WP:GNG. The name of this individual may make simple google searches more challenging.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject is notable. Thousands of search results for "'Jamie Howard' lsu" on Newspapers.com for the relevant years including many feature pieces like this one: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/40467301/the_times/. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jweiss11 and PaulMcDonald. Starting quarterbacks at elite programs like LSU get abundant coverage and Howard is no exception. In addition to the piece linked above, here are a couple more pieces on him: this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article was undersourced, but easily passes WP:GNG, lots of significant coverage in a newspapers.com search. SportingFlyer T·C 17:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW KEEP based on research found. I suggest we close it now and incorporate the sources into the article (which is nothing more than editing).--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources provided by Jweiss11 and Cbl62. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by Cb162 signed, Rosguill talk 02:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE reveals WP:NEXIST. Lightburst (talk) 05:00, 14 December 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LCR (dice game)[edit]

LCR (dice game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability whatsoever. Violates WP:NOTGUIDE. ubiquity (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ubiquity (talk) 15:02, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Virtually no coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, There are a few books coming up on google books that mention the game [1] [2], there are also a few articles [3] [4] [5] - the articles are not massively detailed but along with the books I'm leaning towards keep. Ym2X (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Of Ym2X's sources, none of the three internet articles establish notability. One is just a mention in a list article of popular dice games, so not sufficient coverage; another is a slightly longer but still brief mention in a list of gambling games to play during the Super Bowl and so not significant; the third seems to be a blog, so not reliable, and LCR is not really the focus of the piece, so not significant. Of the books, the second looks to be a single page from a book containing "over 100" games so that does not strike me as significant coverage - and, as far as I can see (although I can only see a small preview), it looks mostly a description of how to play the game without much that could support encyclopedic content. The first book source is a few pages in a book written about game design and discusses the game in a more analytical way (the features of the game which do/do not make it fun and how these might be used to design better games). This is still pretty short but I think just counts as significant coverage. Another source like this and I think the article would just squeeze past GNG; however, it is not enough on its own. The sources cites in the article are all primary. If someone could dig up another source (or ideally a couple more) like Ym2X's first source I'd be happy to !vote keep; as it stands, I'm delete. WJ94 (talk) 11:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was no consensus. An explanation of the close is on the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Kulinski[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kyle Kulinski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is very simply no RS coverage of this person. We cannot write a Wikipedia article about a subject if all the sources are non-RS and primary sources. There are currently three RS in the article[20][21][22]... none of them even mentions Kulinski once. In previous AfD discussions in 2017 (which concluded as 'no consensus', there was a sense among some 'keep' votes that this individual was 'about to hit it big'. However, there is no RS coverage either before or after 2017 to substantiate that this individual is notable. His main claim to fame appears to be that he runs a YouTube channel and co-founded Justice Democrats, but even RS who cover the Justice Democrats don't mention Kulinski. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update (16 Dec): The subject of the article is directing his followers to this AfD page, and is literally instructing them on how to object to the deletion.[23] Fringe-left subreddits are also directing people here.[24][25] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before Reddit and the subject directed people here, the tally was 6 delete votes, 1 keep votes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Above Comment @Snooganssnoogans: It's not clear why this is relevant. The subject of the article is under no obligation to not report on the fact that his Wikipedia page is being considered for deletion. Furthermore, supporters of said subject have every right to make their opinion heard in this discussion, especially if they are established Wikipedia editors who did not make their accounts today. If your concern is "bias", well, to be frank, everyone here is "biased". We all have an opinion. You seem to have an opinion too, by referring to him as "Fringe-left". In actuality, the policy positions he supports are supported by the majority of Americans, unlike centrist corporate Dems and Republicans who are bought and paid for corporate shills. In any case, the point is whose opinion is backed by the most sound argument, and in this case it's obviously the Keep side. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Snooganssnoogans: The last vote in the "before" category came after this page was linked on Social Media (Kulinski was not the first to post this on Twitter). I do believe that categorizing people for coming afterwards is very unproductive. It seems to divide the opinions from "legitimate" to "not legitimate". I also want to clarify that your use of "Fringe Left" is not only biased, but incorrect. If you watch his channel (With a notable >700,000 subscribers) you would also understand why your use of the term is reaching at best. Fringe-left would describe ideologies on the left that are akin to authoritarianism and communism. Kyle's show is what would be considered "Socially Democrat" or "Leftist" to the politically savvy. Which is far from "Fringe". The original vote was 4 Delete 1 Keep. I watched in real-time.
Comment @Snooganssnoogans: This comes across as a bad faith attempt to poison the well against keep votes. And while we are poisoning wells, I suggest people check out Snooganssnoogans's comments/behavior in this discussion to judge their good faith for themselves. GlaedrH (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've followed your advice and checked out that discussion. Snooganssnoogans did not act in bad faith. You appear to be leveling that accusation because he adopted a position that you dislike. Lepricavark (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the comments where he(?) takes any positions, but the ones (of which there are several) where he attempts to discredit other users' comments by pointing at their posting history rather than the contents of their comments. I do not consider that civil or good faith; though you may, of course, disagree. GlaedrH (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. It's perfectly reasonable to point it out when a bunch of individuals crawl out of the woodwork to interfere with an AfD. Lepricavark (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Crawl out of the woodwork", "interfere". I sincerely hope your article edits are more carefully worded. GlaedrH (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should play it safe and only make a few edits a year like you. I'm sure that would qualify me to nitpick the posts made by people who actually devote a substantial amount of their time to improving this project. Anyone can act like an authority on Twitter, but here you are actually expected to prove yourself before you can do any pearl clutching. Lepricavark (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I must have missed the policy pages describing the number of edits required to be taken seriously or "prove" oneself. I would apppreciate if you could link me to them. GlaedrH (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect you have missed many, if not all, of our policy pages. I've no interest in helping you figure out why veterans editors like myself would be annoyed when an individual who almost never edits suddenly turns up and starts slinging mud in the midst of a contentious discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this has now devolved to the level of the navy seal copypasta. I think you have now given us enough of a sample to understand what level of discourse we should expect from "veteran editors". I thank you for your service and wish you all the best in the future. GlaedrH (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3 years and 5 months makes you a veteran these days? Even when I started 14 years ago, you'd have needed at least 4 years to call yourself that non-ironically. Orderinchaos 04:30, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why the extra 7 months would be so significant, but my main point was never to promote my own credentials. What bothers me is that numerous editors have suddenly reappeared after lengthy absences to !vote keep at an AfD in which the article subject canvassed voters on Twitter. And some of these individuals are aghast that anyone would have the temerity to say anything about it. I'm sure that you, as a sysop, can understand the irregularity of this discussion. Lepricavark (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was intended half-seriously. But running around biting the newbies and assuming bad faith isn't the way to do this. I know that you mean well, but optics matter. Orderinchaos 09:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should expect that other editors will respond in a similar fashion if you pull a similar stunt in the future. I'm sure you'll fancy yourself the victim in those cases as well. Lepricavark (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The edit count or any accomplishment of an editor does not affect the validity of a substantiated claim. There's a well-known humor page about obsession over edit counts titled Wikipedia:Editcountitis. However, unsubstantiated claims at this point in the discussion only recycle old arguments without the evidence and add nothing to the discussion. UnnamedUser (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question has not made any substantiated claims. Also, I'm well aware of the level of importance attached to edit counts. My argument is that someone who almost never contributes should not expect a favorable response when they randomly show up and start casting aspersions. Lepricavark (talk) 21:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: If deleted this would be a red link on a draft talk page, some Super Progressives merchandise featured this journalist together with Jimmy Dore, Iversen, Gabbard, Williamson, Sanders, AOC, et al. (clearly no RS). –84.46.52.75 (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable political commentator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and flush. There must be substantial, independent, RS coverage. There is not. Notability is not established. End of story. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The linking of that video is unprofessional and rude. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I've added 1.5 RS. –84.46.53.86 (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect either to Justice Democrats or to The Young Turks#TYT_Network (and cite a primary or secondary source next to the sentence on said article which mentions Kulinski) if notability cannot be established. Otherwise, if and only if reliable, secondary sources are added to establish notability, then obviously I'd switch to keep.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 13:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When there are too few secondary sources to write an informative article, it is a disservice to both readers and the subject to have one. TFD (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course keep he literately spoke to Bernie Sanders and had multiple interviews on fox news. He is also one of the founders of Justice Democrats. User:11S117 (talk) 7:30, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Speaking to one presidential candidate and appearing on Fox News does not make someone notable. Or at least not in the eyes of any RS who have not deemed him worthy of any coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Snooganssnoogans: There's a number of issues here. First, what is an RS? You seem to have this idea that only corporate, for-profit, billionaire-owned media is "reliable". Naturally, the corporate media does not report on anti-corporate, anti-establishment folks who fight for the people, like Kyle. That's by design, and to be expected. Second, Kyle has been reported on by RS media, even using your own definition of "RS". For instance, see this or this or this. As you mentioned, he's also been on Fox News. Lastly, if appearing on Fox doesn't make one notable, nor does having a major presidential candidate do an interview on your show and having the press secretary of said candidate call you 'the most popular YouTube host on the left', what does? What standard do you have? Is Fox News also not a reliable source? Well, I'm not the biggest fan of Fox News, certainly, but I would love to see the official Wikipedia edict that Fox is unreliable. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG due to lack of independent coverage. We do not judge notability by number of YouTube followers or organizations founded. –dlthewave ☎ 03:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as Kulinski is the co-founder of the Justice Democrats, has appeared often on The Young Turks so he's well known. PS - DO NOT place relocate my vote. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being the co-founder of Justice Democrats should be enough to secure WP:NN, especially with the current political reality in the U.S. with a substantiated Justice Democrats candidates already in the U.S. Congress. Solinothe Wolf 07:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really, now. He's notable by association because of some other person that you couldn't even bother to name? Good luck with that argument. Lepricavark (talk) 14:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Justice Democrats article; none of the sources indicate any sort of independent notability; there's very little about him, nearly everything is about the organization itself. --Jayron32 13:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Founder of the Justice Democrats, significant interviewer, and has been in the news this week over his rebuttal of the New York Times. He is not hugely notable but does pass our notability guideline. The fact this has ended twice before with no consensus suggests to me that reasonable people can indeed disagree - I'm also a "veteran editor" like the combatant above but have come to a different conclusion. Orderinchaos 04:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Post-Tweet Votes[edit]

  • This editor had not edited in 6 years before making this edit^ shortly after Reddit directed people here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the above comment, I will remind users that deletion decisions are made on the basis of sound arguments, not the number of consecutive years a user has been editing. Please remember WP:GOODFAITH. CompactSpacez (talk) 23:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snoog this was a "Keep" before Kyle posted on Twitter... You're not doing your job correctly. Keep, he has nearly 1 million subscribers to his channel, defeats major news networks in key demographics, founded the political group that helped get one of the most influential Congress people in America elected

  • Delete. Kulinsky is not covered in significant detail by reliable sources. The closest he comes is getting mentioned in passing by sources talking about the founding of Justice Democrats. If a redirect is chosen instead of deletion, the redirect should point to Justice Democrats. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that deletion is even considered is weird and oddly suspicious with respect to the current news involving his reveal of a dishonest #nytimes article. Kyle Kulinski is a political figure on social media. He is regularly invited for his analyses in various media outlets and online channels. His YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/SecularTalk has 766k subscribers.

  • Keep. When you consider how many trivial actors/actresses, vapid models, third-rate rappers, silly wrestlers etc. have long, detailed articles, it seems rather odd that this one should be nominated for deletion. WQUlrich (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Kyle has over half a billion views on youtube, over 700K subscribers and is the co-founder of Justice Democrats the progressive group that helped to get many influential members of congress elected such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Talib, and Ilhan Omar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.Esco (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm curious as to what the standards of notability are for a Wikipedia article to be kept up. He is a rather large component of left-wing new media with a large following through his Youtube channel with over 750,000 subscribers, has been a commentator on various mainstream news outlets such as Fox News, CNN and The Hill, and as has been mentioned before, founded Justice Democrats along with Cenk Uygur. If Kulinski, arguably the most popular left-wing commentator on new media, isn't notable, then by the same token, are similar commentators such as Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder and David Pakman not of notability? Or if they are of the notability requisite of a wikipedia article, what facets of their careers make them notable enough? It seems a bit off to me that a pundit of Kulinski's notoriety would not be of enough notability to have a wikipedia article. Additionally, I find the criticism of the lack of RS moreso a result of figures in New Media often having a lack of RS and Kulinski's lack of history on traditional news outlets resulting in a lack of RS rather than a supporting claim for the article's deletion through the aforementioned argument for a lack of notability.
I don't intend this as a polemic, but I find that the arguments for deletion are overly pedantic (specifically in regards to the "lack of notability" arguments) and come from a lack of understanding of New Media, especially in regards to pundits that don't have previous employment in more traditional media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theogonybyamillionstrokes (talk • contribs) 22:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all: Kulinski even has articles in other languages. Deleting it here, while it is still up in other languages (where he arguably has much less influence) would be strange at the very least. Furthermore as others mentioned he is a founder of the Justice Democrats, interviewed Bernie Sanders, had several appearences on the Joe Rogan show, was a speaker during Politicon for multiple years and has one of the largest youtube channels amongst the (progressive) political commentators in the US. The channel is large enough so someone like me who is not from the US, with english as a second language and until recently not too much interest in US politics at some point found the channel. While you could argue, that these things by themselves don't have too much weight, I would say their combination certainly make up for it. I'm not really familiar with Wikipedia's deletion guidelines and precendences, but to me it doesn't look like he is "irrelevant" enough to be deleted. Tobias Xy (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an obvious attempt to delegitimize independent media. Many YouTubers have their own Wikipedia pages. Cenk Uygur, for instance, had his own Wikipedia page at a time when his YouTube channel had far fewer subscribers than Kyle currently does. There is no "notability" issue here. I can scour through Wikipedia and find hundreds of articles on people far less notable than Kyle. Here's a simple example: Malabika Pramanik, a mathematics professor at my University. She has no "reliable" (TM) sources reporting on her, beyond one broken link and a single mention on an awards list on the Association for Women in Mathematics website. She doesn't have glowing NYT or WPost articles written about her. Yet she was still deemed (in my view, rightly) as deserving of a Wikipedia page. You can find many such articles throughout Wikipedia. Kyle's YouTube channel is huge, and he's personally had on numerous guests who no one would dispute are notable. Frankly, I think many editors here are likely older in age (40+) and have an antiquated view of "notability". These are not the 90s anymore. You do not need to be Wolf Blitzer for your political commentary to be relevant. This is 2019. People under 30 listen to men like Kyle, or Cenk, or Joe Rogan, or (on the other side of the spectrum) folks like Ben Shapiro or Nick Fuentes. The so-called "notable" corporate media shills (Rachel Maddows, Jack Tapper et al.) are irrelevant to them. CompactSpacez (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, notability on Wikipedia is measured differently depending on the category of the page. Kulinski may be evaluated using WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENTERTAINER. Academics are evaluated using different metrics (WP:ACADEMIC), so the argument that a seemingly-non-notable academic (Malabika Pramanik) has a page when Kulinski doesn't is moot. KidAd (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not hard to find examples of folks on roughly the same level as Kulinski in terms of notability, also in a creative profession. I mentioned Cenk. David Pakman is another example. For WP:Creative, the basic criterion is that the person is regarded as "important". In Kulinski's case, this basic criterion is absolutely met. He has been on FOX news, he has interviewed at Politicon, he has had numerous high-profile people on his platform, he co-founded Justice Democrats, a now fairly mainstream political group in the United States, and lastly he has a massive YouTube channel, described by a major presidential campaign as being the largest left-leaning YouTube host. If your standard of "importance" is so high that Kulinski is excluded, then that's simply setting a new and frankly ridiculous precedent. In other words, if Kulinski's not good enough, we might as well delete like 1/5th of all bios on Wikipedia. Lastly, note the Wikipedia page on notability makes clear that "failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". If you've been in any AfD discussions, you would understand that in general editors don't religiously adhere to the listed criteria and often a case-by-case analysis is required. In brief, we are living in new times. These aren't the 90s anymore. YouTube popularity is in and of itself a form of substantial notability. You do not need a MSM gig to be a notable journalist. CompactSpacez (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyle has 750k subscribers and is pretty important so he does deserve an article of his own. He has co founded the Justice Democrats PAC which has helped get Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and many other congresspeople elected. He has also been on many legitimate news outlets and is quite influential on YouTube and Twitter, and for that reason, I vote to keep this article, it is absolutely ridiculous someone would say that this article should be deleted. Arthurcurrie (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Youtube personality inciting his fanboys to advocate for his wiki page to be saved warrant an immediate deletion. KeisezrG (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyle Kulinski is a brilliant and influential political commentator and innovator in New Media. His analyses are always backed up by rigorous analyses and fact checking. There is no objective reason to delete this article. FairGirl 10 June 2024,10:16, 10 June 2024 UTC [refresh]
  • Discussion @Snooganssnoogans: @KidAd: It seems as though you have an issue with supposed "brigading" and you are deleting edits. I think we need some clear guidelines here. I hope we can agree that edit-warring is not a productive solution to this. On what basis exactly are you differentiating between trolls and good faith editors? CompactSpacez (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be easy to categorize any comment made after Kulinski tweeted a link to the page as...unproductive. While I understand that Kulinski has many fans/followers on Twitter and Youtube, they are obviously unclear on Wikipedia policy and conduct. Newcomers should at least skim WP:AFDEQ before typing out a diatribe about Kulinski's brilliance or popularity. It will get them nowhere. Also, editors who alter the page's formatting are fighting a losing battle. KidAd (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were 7 votes during the course of four days, with 6 out of 7 votes going for 'Delete'. Within hours of being advertised on Reddit and Twitter, there were a trillion votes, nearly all of them were 'Keep' and they cited no policy-based arguments. In amongst the brigading, there was one legitimate vote by Binksternet. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snoog is correct. I would like to note, for Kulinski fans who are editing the page, Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments KidAd (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were there 7 delete votes during the course of 4 days? There is an ongoing political smear campaign against Kyle Kulinski and other progressives democrats. FairGirl (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC) — FairGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Funny you mention "reasonable, logical arguments" when almost all keep votes bring up legitimate arguments and the single argument the delete advocates are bringing up is "you came from twitter, so it doesn't count". In reality, it does not matter whether someone came from twitter or from any other website, what matters is "sound logical arguments", and just one of the many arguments for keep (let's say Justice Democrats for instance) is enough for WP:NN. Please WP:WAR WP:AGF.Solinothe Wolf 07:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't play the AGF card right after blatantly misrepresenting the arguments for deletion. Lepricavark (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Snooganssnoogans: @KidAd: I will remind both of you that the two previous AfD's have failed. It seems that many editors are on the "Keep" side. This is not something that is an "obvious delete". There is a debate to be had. You mention Wikipedia policy, but the gist of your argument is based on a non-policy: that fans of someone or something cannot edit pages on that someone or something. This is...not true. Another point you seem to be making is that the fact that Kulinski made a tweet regarding this invalidates all of the keep votes. This is again not true. It's not a Wikipedia policy. Good-faith Wikipedia editors might have seen Kulinski's tweet, which spurred them into action on this matter. That said, I agree with you in part. There have undoubtedly been some trolls on the "Keep" side. At the same time, others are not trolls. I see a variety of well-thought out opinions on the keep side. Deletion of individual comments should be considered carefully on a case-by-case, keeping in mind WP:GOODFAITH. CompactSpacez (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyle Kulinski's channel is projected to have more than a million subscribers by next year (source: Social Blade, 12/16/2019), which is notable in itself. As a cofounder of Justice Democrats, he played an instrumental role in the historic election of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and is a key figure in political commentary, significantly and tangibly influencing public discourse. He has been a guest on Fox News, The Hill (newspaper) TV, The Joe Rogan Experience, and on many popular independent-media shows, including The David Pakman Show, The Jimmy Dore Show, The Humanist Report, and The Young Turks (his show is part of the TYT Network). Kulinski also is a top draw at Politicon, attracting more fans than some Democratic presidential candidates. --Houdinimuseum (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Houdinimuseum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, Bearian summarises it up quite well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kyle Kulinski is one of the most widely viewed progressive political "anchors" on YouTube. I see a lot of discussion here seemingly ignoring that entirely. A lot of "Delete" votes are writing off his connections to significant politicians and presidential candidates. While factually correct, he is not those people and did not create the "news", that is not his purpose or why he is notable. He is notable for giving ordinary people the news. Such as any TV anchor that has their own Wiki page. The only difference is that he appears on YouTube (independent) and not TV (corporate). Seeing as more and more people are getting their news online, it seems silly to discuss deleting this wiki page at all. Just as in the attempt before this, we know he will only get more popular. This is trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.242.241 (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — 65.5.242.241 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep/Merge with existing relevant pages Another page going down... No, I was not canvassed and I do support either keeping or merging this page with relevant pages. It's clear that the page does not use enough secondary sources (his own videos are NOT sources!) - this just needs better sourcing for each reference and each source if it is to stay up. It's quite clear that he has made a name for himself in politics; a co-founder of Justice Democrats and a prominent political commentator, going to politicon and what have you. It may not seem that way to an outsider, but Kyle has become more prolific in the past few years - all the articles, interviews, segments that he has either been mentioned on or personally appeared in. I've seen worse articles with barely skeletal information on barely "notable" people, I think it's incorrect to call him a 'run of the mill' YTer who is not notable. If appropriate changes cannot/won't be made, merge it.Letmejustcorrectthatforyou (talk) 00:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to being a founder of Justice Democrats, the foundation that got Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez elected, Kyle receives approximately 30,000-40,000 views per video within an hour of the video being uploaded and has over 766,000 subscribers on YouTube alone. His unique perspective on many issues makes his work incredibly valuable to many people, and deleting his Wikipedia page serves no purpose. The page does not seem to be violating any rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.218.18 (talk) 01:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — 97.92.218.18 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – after a Google News search, there appears to be lots of non-significant coverage / significant coverage in unreliable sources. None of the sources I found make this subject pass WP:GNG, although I can see that some of the Keep voters are using reasoning that coincidentally matches WP:ANYBIO: The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field. Just saying that GNG is not the only notability guideline to discuss. UnnamedUser (talk) 01:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OK, I've made up my mind. I've looked at the way reliable sources look at him, and the bond is too weak to say that he satisfies criterion 2 of WP:ANYBIO (see also the footnote): (widely recognized contribution... enduring historical record. He's widely recognized for founding that organization, but the passing mentions we've all cited don't adequately explain his significance to politics in the grand scheme of things. The two The Hill articles IP 2601:5C0:E:9DA4:FDD2:465D:F5B1:9E05 brought up are just a single sentence linking to a YouTube video, so they do not contribute to satisfying WP:GNG. UnnamedUser (talk) 01:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking at the sources in the article, he doesn't pass WP:GNG. He ultimately might be notable, but I don't think there's a single qualifying source in the article (hard to tell if good.is is reliable, and the RCP isn't secondary coverage.) Potentially promotional. SportingFlyer T·C 02:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: co-founder of Justice Democrats and thought leaders on alternative media on the progressive side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commentator1 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC) — Commentator1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Hasan Piker is also up for deletion. Who's next, David Pakman? If we're not careful WP is going to end up covering only conservative figures who have the same right to be on here as Kulinski and Piker. NDACFan (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one has a right to a Wikipedia page. KidAd (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable individual incites people to interfere with our processes. Non-notable individual remains non-notable. Lepricavark (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - maybe the best solution would be to merge the article with Justice Democrats article for now, and separate it again if the person will progress into 'notable'. This would keep relevant information, and keep with policy. 130.102.10.83 (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most if not all of the arguments for inclusion are that Kulinski has a large youtube following, is a founder of Justice Democrats and has published articles and appeared on news shows. While true, none of those factors affect notability in Wikipedia, which is substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. It is actually in Kulinski's best interests not to have an article, since he would have no control over what was put in it and it could become a hit piece. See his Rationalwiki article for the types of negative information Kulinski's opponents might add to the article. TFD (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has almost a million subscribers to his channel. he co-founded Justice Democrats. The subject passes our general notability guideline. We keep subjects that pass GNG with WP:RSs. Lightburst (talk) 03:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as noted multiple times: Kulinski is the co-founder of the Justice Democrats, appeared often on The Young Turks as well as several appearances or is quoted on other networks and popular shows like Fox News including recently in an article and The_Joe_Rogan_Experience, and often appears or is featured at political conferences like Politicon (where he is listed on the Wikipedia page). At a minimum, he qualifies as an entertainer "opinion makers" having a large online following. Nbx909 (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ Note that this editor has not edited in over 1.5 years. KidAd (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ^ Inactivity should not affect the validity of my comments or vote. Unless you have another reason to think I that I have not been acting in WP:GOODFAITH. Nbx909 (talk) 20:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Justice Democrats (seeing no need to delete the history and a redirect is inevitable since it's a notable organization he co-founded) - saw this at ANI. Decided to ignore all of the mess above and just do a search for sources. I see a few mentions, a few quotes, and lots of primary sources, but not enough in-depth coverage about this person to satisfy WP:GNG (for the small amount of coverage there is, WP:NOPAGE applies given the very logical alternative page). Any keep argument at this point really needs to surface some additional sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (I feel so bad for whoever is tasked with closing this mess of a discussion now that the subject has tweeted a link to it) To every editor that wants this article kept, instead of bringing up how many subscribers he has, find non-primary sources to add to the article. The deletion banner at the top of the article has a Find sources section with a number of useful buttons to press. I'm seeing a lot of off-wiki accusations that we're only considering deleting, moving, or redirecting the article because we're "conservative trolls." I can assure everyone who came here because they were told to that this is not the case. It's a matter of notability and verity - in other words, if this biographical article about the subject was stripped of the sentences that only link back to the subject's own content, and left only the secondary sources, how much would be left? As of right now, not much. If you believe there are sufficient secondary sources out there, expand the article. Cheers,  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 11:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have found this stating that he is a co-founder of Justice Democrats, a speaker of Politicon, and an affiliate of the Young Turks with his own channel. All three groups are, to a good extent, notorious. His name appears in four books written in 2019, of which three are partisan works but one of them is actually an academic work. My guess is that deleting the article appears to be an unnecessary drastic solution.Barjimoa (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The correct link is to the Politicon page is this. Kulinski's a speaker, it says so in the URL, it's not independent. Also, the four books only give passing mentions, so none of the sources you cited help the article pass GNG. UnnamedUser (talk) 18:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Justice Democrats – simply no coverage in reliable sources beyond passing mentions. Notability has a special meaning on Wikipedia that is not synonymous with importance or fame. So: we don't care how many YouTube subscribers he has. We don't care about his political leanings or the quality of his commentary. We don't care that he interviewed such-and-such person or appeared at such-and-such event. We don't care that he co-founded a notable organisation – he does not inherit its notability. We don't care what "trivial" articles exist that someone believes are clearly not as important. All we care about is whether he has received significant coverage in reliable sources – and despite dozens of meatpuppets having been canvassed to this discussion, not one has been able to provide evidence to show this is the case. – Teratix ₵ 13:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article survived 2 previous deletion nominations, notability seems clear. He has been covered in reliable sources like The Hill, and he is certainly more notable than other people in the category that have articles.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Justice Democrats. WP:SALT, or I'm betting we'll all be back again next month; no prejudice against recreation if he ever does get WP:RS coverage.
I found this discussion from the notification at WP:ANI. (I read ANI from time to time to reinforce my conviction that I have no desire whatsoever to apply for WP:ADMINship.) As I read through it, I began to play WP:ATADD bingo. I ticked off WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:INHERIT, WP:ITSNOTABLE, and WP:ASSERTN, mainly from among the !keep votes, and may have missed some. I feel for whoever wades through and closes this discussion.
I subscribe to a YouTube channel on a niche subject which has over 500k subscribers, and on which the most popular video has had over 3.5M views. That doesn't make it notable. The WP article about the host gets 150-200 views/day. That doesn't make him notable either. What does make him notable is the couple of independent in-depth articles from reputable sources specifically about him which are cited in the article.
I haven't conducted any searches of my own; if it hasn't been found already by a contributor to this thread, I reckon it ain't there. I looked at all the sources in the article. Precisely one could be said to be specifically about Kulinski - the realclearpolitics one - and that's a report of a podcast which for me does not come anywhere near WP:RS. I also looked at the RationalWiki article (I am a very inactive editor there, though I do have an account; anyone who thinks I might be a conservative, troll or otherwise, is very wide of the mark). It contains nothing RS in our terms.
Conclusion: the article fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO for lack of anything WP:RS to support it. Narky Blert (talk) 18:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Oops, I did miss one off my bingo card - WP:OTHERLANGS. Narky Blert (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
(Also WP:NOTAGAIN. Narky Blert (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Subject has not received signficant coverage from reliable sources to warrant having his own article (WP:GNG).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:06, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Justice Democrats. No evidence that the subject is notable independent of the organization. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to find sources that are independent AND reliable. The Banner talk 19:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This page (and ensuing drama) has been so captivating the past few days that I haven't had time to contribute my opinion. As editors have said more eloquently above, this individual – despite having a LOYAL fanbase and appearing at Politicon (?) and Rogan's podcast – is not supported by enough reliable sources to warrant an article. Nor do I believe that Wikipedia notability should be measured in YouTube subscribers, twitter likes, or reddit comments. It should be measured in daylights, sunsets, midnights, and cups of coffee. KidAd (talk) 04:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was not summoned to this article. I don't have any connection to the subject, don't watch his show and I do not do social media. Instead, I have a long history of saving content from irresponsible AfDs, including run-ins with several of the thoughtless serial delete voters above. This has all the signs of other AfDs where deletionists are determined to delete despite mounting evidence. We have 21 sources at this point; a lot more than at the time of the NOM or even when the supposed cut off happened. So why haven't they reversed their votes? We have also had WP:Wikilawyering, nit-pickingly removing additional content. In other words, bad faith editing because they want to achieve the result rather than a just decision. With a popular youtube based show growing to a half million subscribers over 7 years, Kulinski is a leading progressive commentator. That, by nature, means he is not establishment or a part of conventional "corporate" media, he is usually at odds with them. So you want to limit his coverage to appearances in conventional media and exclude the base of his viewership? He has made several appearances representing his point of view on stage at Politicon. You don't get that and get invited back if you are a nobody or can't represent your views. And being named as a co-creator of the Justice Democrats meant he was respected enough amongst that community to be in the room (or on the call) when those ideas were formulated. I'd guess there were other people involved but they did not carry enough sway to merit being credited. Simply put we have WP:GNG, we have multiple claims to notability. He generates content and resulting cross comments daily, so this is an ever growing subject if rational standards were applied, that than the artificial standards used attempting to remove this person from wikipedia's public explanation of who this pundit is. Trackinfo (talk) 07:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:ATADD bingo, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Narky Blert (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of significant coverage, especially from reliable secondary sources about the person. Here are the main issues:
  • Early life, education and career: three out of four sources are not independent, and the fourth source simply quotes from a podcast. Not everyone who appears on a notable podcast inherits notability from that.
  • The Kyle Kulinski Show: The "In 2012" paragraph about the show is unsourced; the one source only mentions the person and none of the show details. The "adpocalypse" sentence mentions him in passing, and HuffDuffer and Reclaim the Net appear unreliable.
  • Justice Democrats: The Mother Jones source is reliable but does not mean a biographical article is warranted since this is already covered in Justice Democrats. Rolling Stone only mentions Kulinski briefly, and it is a particularly garbage move to quote The New York Times (that never mentions Kulinski) to pad on descriptive text. Regarding Cenk Uyghur's resignation, the source doesn't even mention Kulinski. To combine this with Kulinski's solidarity tweet is disingenuous conflation. Appearing on The Jimmy Dore Show is okay but does not contribute to a biography. The Huffington Post about Cenk Uyghur does not even mention Kulinski. As for the last paragraph related to Duke, even the text of this is inappropriate padding-on. And again, for this, Kulinski is briefly mentioned.
If these are the best sources for Kulinski, then a biography is definitely not warranted. I've performed a search engine test and have only found brief mentions of the person. No issue with redirecting this person's name elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What amazes is how even after this article has survived two deletion attempts and was able to pass requirements of notability before, some people think he can't pass them now, even though Kyle has only gotten more influential in subscribers and public appearances since then. The opponents of this article are also complaining about "Reliable sources" when nobody even knows what a reliable source is anymore. Are these sources like CNN, which lied The U.S into two wars at the behest of their advertisers and never apologized or MSNBC which lies about Russiam interference to this day reliable sources, I am doubtful. Yet these sources are used to verify other articles and have anchors who have articles that never get nominated for deletion. The truth is that a reliable source is a euphemism for corporate-funded source and Kyle's show continues to grow in popularity as does the influence of the Justice Democrats he co-founded. J.rodz01 20:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I will probably come to regret this, as WP is unlikely to be able to maintain any sort of NPOV on an article on such a contentious subject. However, as to whether we should have this article, I think they pass our tests for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearian's reasoning, missing WP:SIGCOV. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:14, 19 December 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. – sgeureka t•c 13:16, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carter family (EastEnders)[edit]

Carter family (EastEnders) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. The single niche award does not cut it on its own. TTN (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:17, 12 December 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. Yunshui 雲水 14:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nwokolo[edit]

Michael Nwokolo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article is about a supposed police officer who is also “the first ever professor” in Nigerian law enforcement but even the references provided in article (of which only two non notable blogs discuss him) this claim is said to be spurious. Article is also very gossipy. Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think this article should be deleted as i had to gather some of these information through independent sourced. The article is not gossipy and other notable sources will be added ASAP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saxfreak01 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1]

Saxfreak01 (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)saxfreak01[2][reply]

References

  1. ^ https://newsdigest.ng/metro/2018/05/23/nigerian-policeman-phd/
  2. ^ https://www.sunnewsonline.com/ex-police-officer-threatens-to-sue-icir-over-false-allegations/
  • Delete Article fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:RS. The sources found are mostly passing mentions and articles about how he's suing a group of people for challenging his certificate or degree. 14:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)Lapablo (talk)
  • Delete I toned down a few flowery prose sections, but the brief notoriety he had was for a viral social media thing, and that's about it. Some of the citations to the local newspapers only list "Correspondents" as the author, which is curiously vague. ValarianB (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't verify that the supposed United Nations Humanitarian Ambassador Peace Award Ghana actually exists or has anything to do with the UN. And the only other claim to fame here, that he was "the first Nigerian Police officer to attain or appointed as a Professor", doesn't sound particularly notable (how many retired police officers have become academics? probably many) and is cast into doubt by reference 12 of the article [26] which points out that the "Green Hills University Denmark, Africa Campus" to which he was supposedly appointed is a fly-by-night unaccredited "dubious university". —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 12 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

101 MiniGolf World[edit]

101 MiniGolf World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG because of the lack of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources, besides the cited IGN review (which is also small for their standards). My WP:BEFORE brought up these sources:

  • 1.[27], a press release
  • 2.[28], while WP:SIGCOV, it wasn't reviewed by the staff (which have stars next to their names) [29] and per WP:VG/RS, author reliability is needed for this site
  • 3.[30] and [31] Just a copy and paste description of the game from the press release [32], same structure in both articles
  • 4. [33] A press release
  • 5.[34] WP:ROUTINE announcement of the game, not WP:SIGCOV with 2 sentences taken again from the above press release
  • 6.[35] WP:ROUTINE announcement and not a WP:SIGCOV, doesn't even talk much about the game itself
  • 7. [36] Just pictures, nothing else besides a verification of the release date and DS.Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:40, 12 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn. (non-admin closure) — Chevvin 13:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill protests[edit]

Citizenship (Amendment) Bill protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page is an unnecessary fork and has no inherent notability. A page just for the protests is not justified because there is a lot of media coverage supporting the Bill as well (f)or just giving neutral criticism. So can I create a page for all this too? DTM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

EDIT: Protests happen for all sorts of things in India. Sign of a vibrant democracy. But a separate page for each one like this?DTM (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to WITHDRAW this. Article meets basic requirements. Can I close it myself? DTM (talk) 13:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. DTM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DTM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DTM (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While protests are a regular occurrence, this protest in itself is relevant as (a) It has been covered by numerous international sources, including Al-Jazeera, The New York Times, and BBC News, (b) It has been covered by all of India's major news sources, and (c) It has resulted in 1000+ arrests, 20+ injuries, and a complete curfew in the region, and (d) Soldiers from the army have been called to quell disturbances.
Your other argument (of creating a page for support of the bill) is pointless, because there are no protests supporting the bill which are notable enough. This article is about the protests, and not about opposition to the bill in general (for example, Shashi Tharoor opposes the bill, but he did not come out onto the streets and is therefore not included in the article) --I am not a Seahorse (talk) 12:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a Seahorse, curfew is already being relaxed in places such as Dibrugarh. (India Today/PTI) "Curfew relaxed in Meghalaya and Assam" (Business Standard) It hasn't even been 30 hours I guess since the President gave to go ahead, that protests are cooling down already rather than becoming larger. And just the fact that the bill passed easily in both houses is one clear indication that shows there is support.... "Soldiers from the army have been called to quell disturbances" - don't blow this out of proportion (please). DTM (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see why a separate article for protests should exist. There are no WP:PAGESIZE issues in the main article and there needs to be some context about why the protests are happening. WP:OVERLAP is applicable here.— Vaibhavafro 💬 12:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I couldn't agree more! This should have been a Wikinews report rather than an article here! Citing sources from various journals just because it is covered, doesn't make it worthy of an article. The correct thing to do is to add this piece of info. to the article on CAB, and purge this page. AnjanBorah (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much like the way we have a separate article for the 2019 Hong Kong extradition bill and the 2019 Hong Kong protests following it, these protests are notable enough to have a standalone article. 39.50.164.237 (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Hong Kong protests are sustained and cover a lot of ground and have been going on for ages. The protests as of now in India for the Bill/Act are sporadic incidents involving very few people. Also Hong Kong to India population ratio.... the protest is minimal in India. DTM (talk) 06:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the comparison of the two laws here is a terrible comparison. DTM (talk) 06:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • REPLY for a KEEP : For all sort of protests , I dont think the France, Israel, U.S., U.K governments issue travel advisory . Commons sibi 06:22, 14 December 2019
Commons sibi, Advisories are issued for all sorts of things... even pollution in Delhi which kills many many more people. But that's another matter. DTM (talk) 06:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commons sibi And for that matter statements have been made long back too for this... the (USCIRF) made a statement long back, which the MEA gave a reply to. It is on the main page for the article if you would take the time to shift your focus from the protests back to the actual Bill/Act. We are not reporting every protest. Is that what you want to do? Regards. DTM (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DTM , ///the (USCIRF) made a statement long back, which the MEA gave a reply to// on the protests or on the bill ? While you are trying to explain about / shift my focus to reaction , I still stand by why the article has been written - "protests" and not reactions.--Commons sibi (talk) 11:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These protests have caused deaths and deployment of army as well. This has now became a notable international event. hence based on WP:GNG an article is merited. I strongly oppose a delete here. If folks have concerns on the size and would like it to be merged to CAA article, then remember that there is enough content that a WP:CFORK is merited and if merged, eventually it will again need to be forked off to an independent article. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DBigXray: Your argument goes against the very spirit of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL; please don’t presume that the protests will become so big that they will need to be forked out IN FUTURE. Firstly, the protests are not by any means an “international event”. Secondly, there are no WP:PAGESIZE issues right now; WP:OVERLAP fully applies here.— Vaibhavafro 💬 14:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On Saturday, in violent protests in West Bengal, the protestors attacked railway stations and public buses. Five trains were set on fire by the protestors in Lalgola and Krishnapur railway stations in Murshidabad district[1] In Suti railway tracks were damaged.

Let me put this again, if it is not clear by my keep vote, "The refs in the article and my own searches leads me to think that they already are notable enough to merit a separate article."--DBigXrayᗙ 17:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Anti-Citizenship Act protests turn violent in West Bengal, Assam situation eases". The Hindu. 14 December 2019. Retrieved 14 December 2019.
  • Qulified support keep - I agree that the protests in the northeast have other dimensions, though targeted at the Citizenship Amendment as the immediate trigger. They should be dealt with on their own. But the other general country-wide protests regarding the Amendment themselves, should go in the main article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 requesting you to rephrase your comment. what do you mean by "qualified" ? do you mean others are unqualified ? And remember you are voting on an AfD nomination and not an RfC. By voting as support, you give an impression that you are supporting the deletion nomination of this article. Is this what you intend to say ? if not please choose from among these. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes--DBigXrayᗙ 21:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded now. I am supporting a separate article for the protests in the northeast, but not for all general protests on the Bill. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do agree that protests in the North Eastern part of India have been going on in a big way. Glad to know that you agree that a seperate protest article is merited. Discussion on the scope and contents must be made on the talk page and not on AfD, where we focus on the notability. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article can be merged into the Citizenship Bill. It doesn't have its own merit.- Harshil want to talk? 15:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per updates. -- Harshil want to talk? 11:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per reasons listed above. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:09, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasons mentioned by DBigXrayᗙ -- naveenpf (talk) 03:57, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The protests has been an independent events with an independent coverage and I agree with reasons supporting keeping the article. Mariogoods (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per reasons explained above.--Abhinav619 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Various good reasons to keep the article have been stated above. Let me also state that these protests are quite notable in that they are prevalent all over India and as a platform Wikipedia must ensure that events that have notability are covered and showcased in an unbiased manner. VP101 (talk) 08:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per already stated arguments. --Semsurî (talk) 10:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 is literally the page for anything related to that act. If a person HAS to come here to understand the protest and the same person HAS to go back to that article to understand the context, then they should be the same article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.211.143.219 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:CFORK both the articles have a different scope and coverage. Both are notable on their own. Relevant summary is added to both so that a reader can understand the background. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These protests have lasted for just a few days and aren't even nation wide or organised in any manner. If we include this article, it sets a precedent and hundreds of such irrelevant articles will spring up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:8100:2801:1D0D:8D69:39D5:AFDD:5D71 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
see WP:OSE. I would like to point out that, the protests are "nationwide" and have been ongoing for more than a week now, I dont see them stopping in the ner future. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What Joke to suggest a deletion for a huge event. Wikipedia is not your national censorship agency. DongFen (talk) 12:08, 16 December 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. North America1000 11:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Araba Laitonjam[edit]

Araba Laitonjam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article is a supposed actor but he fails WP:NACTOR . Although I should mention that I did a before search and could only come up with a blog that discusses him. Celestina007 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 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. North America1000 10:34, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv Mohyla Business School[edit]

Kyiv Mohyla Business School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Deleted in Russian Wikipedia. Mitte27 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:21, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Airguard[edit]

Airguard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a fabric name. No notability Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 16:49, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: another description Held USA, Abstract on the Royal Society of Chemistry Journal, US Patent in 2013 Lightburst (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
please notice that airguard as also a trademark in air filters domain, eg, in yor US Patent ref. - Altenmann >talk 04:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Sources mentioned in the discussion don't seem to be independent sources that would indicate notability, but relisting to give concerned editors more time to consider.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Altenmann: I have worked on List of fabrics in recent times, and this nomination is in order that I might tidy that list up. This fabric, trademarked I note, is used in a tiny niche market, and has not achieved the notability of "Gannex" say. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 21:13, 12 December 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) 20:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yejeon Media[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Yejeon Media (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Yejeon Media has absolutely no information on it, no website available, and alot of the artists listed on its page don't have any evidence of connection at this point. The label is a mystery at this point and exhibits 0 notability. K-popguardian (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - A Google search tells me there are reliable sources out there. Interstellarity (talk) 22:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The reliability of a source is not the full criteria for determining notability of a company. Please see WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP; besides it is a stub article. If the group is noted, there should be enough coverage and independent sources - Jay (talk) 17:31, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohsin Ejaz[edit]

    Mohsin Ejaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:NACTOR has one single role according to iMDb and the rest are minor, and I question how major the other is as well. No meaningful coverage anywhere. Praxidicae (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Most of the roles listed are not verified in the article, and no source given does more than mention his name. However, there are quite a few hits on Google that look promising. The first one verifies that he is appearing in the TV show, so I added a ref for that to the article. I'd like to see that someone has at least looked through the first few pages of google hits before deciding that he is not notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I did indeed under both spellings of his name. None of it is meaningful coverage of him. Praxidicae (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I originally PRODed the article for the same concerns and left a notability tag, which the article creator kept on removing without trying to improve the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 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. Closing as delete for both this and the related discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gigi Ben Artzi. The evidence presented in the two discussions indicates that they probably are not notable as a duo, and definitely are not yet notable individually. RL0919 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Roy Ben Artzi[edit]

    Roy Ben Artzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but right now simply doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:FILMMAKER. Onel5969 TT me 21:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 21:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. J947's public account 22:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. J947's public account 22:20, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - all you've done is WP:CITEBOMB the article, haven't improved the claim to notability at all. The brothers are virtually identical in notability so combining them doesn't increase the notability, just shows that they both don't pass the notability criteria currently.Onel5969 TT me 17:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep and rename Roy and Gigi Ben Artzi per WP:BASIC, based particularly on the Hebrew sources. I have stated that I believe that having two articles for the brothers is a bit over-the-top. Omert33 has created the article Tiger Love (musical group), a band the brothers were involved with and which has stronger sourcing than the brothers themselves. This arrangement might be a bit similar to Fernando and Nefty Sallaberry, who were founding members of a band called Menudo.StonyBrook (talk) 19:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Changed vote after closer inspection of the Hebrew sources, of which I could only find this one which only mentions this brother in passing, and that only in a caption. StonyBrook (talk) 21:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I agree. It has become clear to me that the two brothers operate as a duo, whether it's through photography, their band "Tiger Love" and their various directorial projects. If it would be more fitting to merge and rename these 2 articles to Roy and Gigi Ben Artzi then OK. --Omer Toledano (talk) 07:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment two non-notable things together don't add up to something notable just because they're always mentioned together in non-notable ways. I'm too tired to do a BEFORE right now but I would hope any closer would relist rather than closing this as no consensus (or worse keep) given the lack of evidence the two keep editors have put forward to justify notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I have now had a time to look at sources and I see no indication of notability for him individually or him with his brother. While I am not fluent in Hebrew I do feel competent enough to conduct a BEFORE in Hebrew and, absent explicit sources put forward by those arguing keep, feel that there is not sourcing to suggest notability per BASIC, GNG, or any other notability guideline (e.g. CREATIVE). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your vigilance Barkeep49, upon closer inspection of the sources I have changed my !vote. StonyBrook (talk) 21:31, 12 December 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. Possible renaming and article improvement is left to regular editorial processes. RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Golden Age of Flanders[edit]

    Golden Age of Flanders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Very ill-defined concept. Unlike the Dutch Golden Age, this "Golden Age of Flanders" is hardly ever used, and the definition varies (and doesn't match the one used in the article). Broadly speaking, it would encompass the period 1400-1650 or thereabouts, but the few sources that use the term don't agree or really try to define this.

    There are only a few book sources that use the term, one accompanying an exhibition about the period (in that case encompassing the 15th and 16th century)[37], and one source mentioning in passing "another golden age of Flanders" (sic!)[38], by which they mean the 15th century only.

    Removing the recent exhibition from the search results rather convincingly shows that "Golden Age of Flanders" is not a common term for any period in the history of Flanders, and should thus not be the subject of an article.[39]

    Note also that the current article is largely an unattributed copy-paste from Antwerp, the "Emperor Charles V" article from the public domain Catholic Encyclopedia, Dutch and Flemish Renaissance painting, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (and perhaps others I didn't immediately see). Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fairly well-established concept in Dutch, but doesn't seem to be much used in English. It effectively means the periods when Bruges and Antwerp were the main commercial centres of northern Europe (roughly late 14th to late 16th century), before the rise of Amsterdam and the "Dutch Golden Age". It's also used in art history and music history with slightly different (but largely overlapping) periodisation. The article as it stands conflates it with "Antwerp's Golden Age", which is much more restricted in scope. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an established period of flemish history. English sources for the concept do exist (the term "Flemish golden age" is more used than "Golden age of Flanders" though, and that explains why there are fewer books using the latter term), altough they are not as common as the ones in Dutch and they may conflate the earlier Flemish golden age with the later Dutch golden into a single "Flemish and Dutch golden age". I have adjusted the article in order to take into account what User:Andreas Philopater and User:Fram have said. Perhaps we can add other sources in Dutch and French + informations about music. Anyway, for me the article can stay and its scope should be extended as User:Philopater has pointed out. I have also removed the public domain stuff and in part reworded the article.Barjimoa (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I get quite a few results for "Golden Age of Antwerp" or "Antwerp's Golden Age". Perhaps it should be returned to its original, tighter scope and re-titled. Srnec (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem (or one of the problems) is that there isn't one Flemish Golden Age (or Golden Age of Flanders). There is the 15th century, when Bruges was the economic centre, and together with Ghent, Leuven and Brussels the artistic centre. There is the 16th century, which is mainly an economic story. There is the late 16th century and 17th century, which is a scientific golden age (Mercator, Dodoens, Lipsius, Vesalius, ...). And there is the 17th century, where Antwerp is part of the artistic Golden Age (mainly situated in the Northern Netherlands with the Dutch golden age), but where the remainder of Flanders only played a very minor role. Most of the books and other sources which discuss the "Flemish Golden Age" are about the 17th century painters (Rubens, Van Dyck, Jordaens, Teniers), and often in the context of the Dutch Golden Age. Some sources explicitly discuss multiple Flemish Golden Ages.
      • So the concept is very ill-defined and indicates different periods depending on the topic of interest. Trying to write this down would probably lead to serious WP:SYNTH problems though. An article on "Antwerp's Golden Age" perhaps is possible, assuming it doesn't face the same issues. Fram (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have looked at what you said and largely you are right on the "multiple" flemish golden age. I think that the opening paragraph should say that the term has a different periodization depending on the subject. And then each section (economy, art, music, science, etc) should give the details and for the 17th century art explain that it becomes also treated within the context of the Dutch golden age.Barjimoa (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rename and Restructure -- The core of the article seems to be about the entire Netherlands before the Dutch Revolt, when Brussels and Antwerp were more important than Amsterdam and Rotterdam. From the time of the Revolt, there were de facto two separate countries that were at war with each other for 80 years (except the 14 year truce). If provided with a new title and introduction, this has the makings of an interesting article, or at least may have, if the author is not trying to bring in material about the United Provinces after their revolt. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: This needs a further input.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 21:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now keep -- I am still not quite sure that the title is quite right, but the article is now much focused on 1500-67, during part of which Brussels (rather than Vienna) was the (or an) imperial capital. It concentrates on the period before the break up of the Netherlands, with the start of the Eighty Years War. As I said in my previous comment, it makes an interesting article, now it has been shorn of material on a later period, when Flanders was a mere outlying province. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Um, the 1500-1567 time was the original focus of the article, and the reason for the deletion nomination. What are the sources that declare this to be the Golden Age of Flanders, and not a much larger period, or an earlier period, or a later one, or perhaps even more than one? We have the exhibition focusing on the economic golden age during this period, and that's about it. Nothing seems to have changed fundamentally since the nomination, so I don't quite understand why you now change to keep? Fram (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • In case this is coming to an end and we Keep, which is obviously still my position, keep as Flemish Golden Age rather than Golden Age of Flanders. Based on the fact that Books use the former name more than the latter. So intro should say "Flemish golden age, also known as golden Age of Flanders etc etc".Barjimoa (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • But all the books that use this name ("Flemish Golden Age") are either about 17th century painting (Dutch and Flemish Golden Age, age of Rubens), or are about Flanders strictu sensu, and deal with 15th century Bruges and Ghent; while the article is about the 16th century... [40] 17th century painting, 17th century painting, 17th century painting, 17th century painting only in the book "The Golden Age of Dutch and Flemish Painting", Middle Ages, Bruges and Ghent15th century Bruges, 17th century painting, two Flemish Golden ages, 17th century, 17th century painting. The same applies to news articles using the term[41][42], all 11 results seem to point to 17th century painting only, usually in combination with Dutch painting.
      • We shouldn't use a term usually used to describe X or Y, and attach it to Z. If there is no commonly used term for 16th century Flanders, then we shouldn't have an article on it probably, but certainly not one that starts with the false claim "The Golden Age of Flanders, or Flemish Golden Age, is a term that has been used to describe the flourishing of cultural and economic actitivies of the Low Countries around the 16th century", nor ending the lead with the equally false claim that it is " within a "Flemish and Dutch golden age" covering the period from the late 15th to the 17th century. ". The "Flemish and Dutch golden age" is about the 17th century, nothing else. The "Flemish Golden Age" may refer to the 17th century painting, to 15th century Bruges and Ghent, or very, very occasionally to the 16th century, but then only in an economic sense. Speaking of false claims, " The term Flanders in the 1500s referred to the entire Habsburg Netherlands within the Burgundian Circle of the Holy Roman Empire and inclusive of modern-day Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. " Um, what? Just scrap this article please. Fram (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • User: Fram, aren't you proposing a too drastic solution for problems easily solvable with edits? If the late 15th/16th century "Flemish golden age/Golden age of Flanders" refers only to economy and cities as you say, then we'll stick to that. If in Art "Flemish golden age/Golden age of Flanderes" leaves us only with 17th century stuff, then we'll stick to that. But I agree in principle with User:Peterkingiron and User:Andreas Philopater insofar as, since Dutch Golden Age already exists, this article should focus primarily on the pre-17th century stuff and IMHO link to Dutch Golden Age for what's already included in there. That doesn't mean we apply X to Z, it's just a matter of practical distribution of content. Barjimoa (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then you are using a term predominantly used for two things, to get an article about a third thing which is only called thus in one or two sources (basically, the recent exhibition and articles referring to that exhibition, but nothing else). If you propose to completely rewrite the article to reflect this, then it might be okay. But that won't be "easily solvable with edits", it will mean starting nearly from scratch again, to get a different article than the one you started with. Basically, you keep the title, and that's about it. Fram (talk) 05:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Like Peterkingiron, I'm now inclined to come down positively in favour of keeping. My earlier reticence was due to the thinness of use of the term in English, but there does seem to be sufficient sourcing to establish it as viable (though still somewhat vague). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this article is important, it problemly needs to be rewritten thou by someone.Catfurball (talk) 20:40, 17 December 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. Yunshui 雲水 14:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Akram al-Ajouri[edit]

    Akram al-Ajouri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:BLP1E The only notable coverage in reliable sources seems to be about him not dying in an airstrike where some of his family was killed. Phil (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Phil (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I note that there are many search results of his name in Arabic. I cannot judge the amount of significant coverage available because of my language barrier. A review of sources per WP:GNG should include a search for sources in Arabic and in Hebrew. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 23:47, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect and Merge with Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, I see little evidence of independent notability but that could very well change. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Looking at the sources from the Arabic Wikipedia article, I think they constitute significant coverage. Russia Today calls him "the strongest figure within the Islamic Jihad movement". Al-Khaleej calls him "head of the military branch of Islamic Jihad." And al-Sharq al-Awsat covers his ties with Iran. 90% of the articles about him are from the last month, but I don't think he falls under BLP1E becasue he got some coverage in 2018 for being elected to the political bureau of PIJ (e.g. [43]). --Cerebellum (talk) 13:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:NEXIST and some is in Arabic. Wm335td (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:56, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as per Cerebellum. He seems to be mentioned as a senior Islamic Jihad commander in independent reliable sources and we shouldn't allow ourselves to be biased against pages with non-English sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 15 December 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 My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy. Also a reminder to consider WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD-R before taking articles to AfD. czar 02:56, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Who Will Survive in America[edit]

    Who Will Survive in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I believe the content in the "Who Will Survive in America" is not relevant enough to have its own article. Moreover, this song does not comply with the policy of WPN: Songs as all the reviews are taken from the context of an album review, it hasn't charted, no releveant covers or awards at all. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:12, 12 December 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. czar 02:53, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Good Morning (Kanye West song)[edit]

    Good Morning (Kanye West song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    When taking a closer look at the article, we can see it fails the notability criteria on wiki since it never ranked on a relevant chart (a song may be notable if ranked, not that it is notable), it has not won a single award and despiting having been covered before it was not done by notable artists.

    Moreover, there is one source covering the song (in the context of an album review does not establish notability). Reverb Machine is a blog so therefore not a reliably source, despite being created by a musician that goes by the name of Dan Carr, another source is West's official website and only the video is covered on Sterogum, the only reliable source, three links to it, one of those being a duplicate. So if anyone is planing on reviewing this article agains the GA criteria, please hold for now. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There are currently 126 sources in the article. Are you asserting that you can’t find a handful of them that help it meet the WP:GNG? Sergecross73 msg me 21:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sergecross73: Notability for the song WP:NS...no, with only two sources for the video which are pretty similliar. Take a closer look. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the sources listed in the article are not album reviews. I am sure that not all of those provide significant coverage, but the nomination does not address the many sources that are not album reviews. Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this passes WP:GNG as much as it pains me to say. Wm335td (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • But tit doesn't pass WP:NS. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that is at least questionable, given over 100 references most of which are not album reviews. Rlendog (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Doesn't matter if it didn't chart, the citations in the Critical Reception and Accolades are more than sufficient. Not a well-thought-out nomination. ValarianB (talk) 18:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep No argument provided against the fact that the song is indeed notable. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 23:44, 18 December 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. Yunshui 雲水 14:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Giovanni Battista Crema[edit]

    Giovanni Battista Crema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    A (deceased) Italian painter that fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE. The sole cited source is to a short biography apparently made in connection pinacoteca owned by a defunct bank that is now a charity. The page has apparently been taken down from the website. Online, only one of his paintings (Triptych: Prisoners of the Mountain Mist) are included in a notable gallery (the Minneapolis Institute of Art), which is not enough to pass WP:CREATIVE.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  04:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He's in a collection, meaning possibly notable. I found several sources and added them; more notable. Apparently Benezit is a big deal, and according to this page, he is mentioned in that along with four other books (see "literature at bottom right). All in all, I say we should leave dead painters with multiple mentions in reliable sources alone.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And also, there's the monograph/Catalogue raisonné L'opera pittorica di Giovanni Battista Crema : contributo alla definizione di un catalogo generale. Here's the World Cat entry. Meets WP:ARTIST ("The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book...". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added three more collections, (several of which are in confusingly named Italian places), so he meets WP:ARTIST very clearly. Personally I would be hesitant to nominate an article like this for deletion. If you had a fifty year career, you have been dead fifty years and your work is in one museum collection, the odds are always going to be that there is a lot more out there. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per ThatMontrealIP's research and article additions. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Subject is notable, based on research by ThatMontrealIP; artist is in multiple collections and art history books. Clearly passes WP:NARTIST Netherzone (talk) 14:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – work is in serveral collectins and the entry is well-referenced, meeting WP:ARTIST. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I started the article, and did not have a preconceived notion as whether to include, but his works are in two museums: Revoltella and Minneapolis. He links to other artists. I think it is worth keeping. I have a bias towards keeping in those persons who are recalled by independent sources.Rococo1700 (talk) 23:01, 14 December 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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Andrew Base (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Girish Chandra Bose[edit]

    Girish Chandra Bose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I cannot find links to this article and clearly fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, there are pretty lot of books that mention his name in connection with botany and as principal of the Bangabasi College. Plus, there is a college and road in Kolkata that are named after him. Also, Wikisource mentions a book written by him. Sohom Datta (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Banglapedia has an article about him, and while I don't think this is a reliable source (in particular, I've already noticed a few errors), much of the material can probably be backed up elsewhere. If Banglapedia is to be believed, he wrote several books, though only one in English. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    There's also a book prepared by Bangabasi College on the occasion of its centennial with a chapter "Our Founder" on Bose. The language is very flowery, however, and its difficult to pull facts out of it. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – A book from 1987 has the subject's biography, and its details match with the source provided by Russ Woodroofe. I have only a snippet view of the book, and to avoid WP:COPYQUOTE, I have removed the details regarding his birth, education, marriage, etc. from the following quote:[1]

    GIRISH CHANDRA BOSE ROAD: Girish Chandra Bose, after whom Police Hospital Road has been most probably renamed, was the founder of the Bangabasi College. ... Girish Bose proceeded to London in 1881 to study Agriculture with a Bengal Government Scholarship. ... Girish Chandra Bose was the first to bring out an agricultural journal in India in English and Bengali. He was made a Life Member, Royal Agricultural Society in 1882 and a Fellow of the Chemical Society of England. ... He established the Bangabasi School on May 13, 1886, and turned it into Bangabasi College in 1887. He was its founder Principal and Rector from 1935 to 1939. He presided over the Science Section of the Bangiya Sahitya Sammelan in B.S. 1326. Though Bangabasi College was established for imparting education in agriculture, that section of the college, died out. Girish Bose is the author of A Manual of Indian Botany, and Bhutatwa, Udbhid Jnanan, Krishi Darshan etc.

    There is also an article in a journal regarding him, although I haven't read it.[2]
    Note that I have done just a cursory search about the subject, and will most probably not spend more time on this topic. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The remaining content of the journal is available here. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Nair, P. Thankappan (1987). A History of Calcutta's Streets (1st ed.). Calcutta: Firma KLM. p. 962. OCLC 581826593. Retrieved 13 December 2019.
    2. ^ Palit, Chittabrata (2016). "Girish Chandra Bose and Agricultural Journalism" (PDF). Indian Journal of History of Science. 51 (2A). Indian National Science Academy: 273–279. doi:10.16943/ijhs/2016/v51i2/48438. Retrieved 13 December 2019.
    • Keep. We've got an extensive obituary in the Calcutta Review (with the link in the article, you need to scroll quite a ways to the November issue), a profile in the centennial book of Bangabasi, a lengthy-looking profile in the Calcutta's Streets book, and an article discussing some of his work in detail. Looks like plenty to me. I'll try to slowly add some of these sources to the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Unlike the Nom, I think this clearly meets WP:GNG/WP:NACADEMIC and, because of recent improvements, should now be a blindingly obvious keep. Here we have a person living between c1850-1939 in the Indian subcontinent (two areas where online sources are never easy to find) who is the author of one, maybe two, major educational textbooks, has a school named after him (and even a road). We see a 2014 academic paper in the Indian Journal of History of Science discussing the influence of his visionary agricultural beliefs, and his attempts to communicate to the educational literate and the illiterate(ref), and page 263 of the Calcutta Municipal Gazette stating The educational world of Bengal has suffered an irreparable loss in the death of Mr. Girish Chandra Bose, the veteran educationist and founder of the Bangabashi College, who passed away...". With a two page entry in the 1972 Indian Dictionary of National Biography, and two academic journal articles discussing his influence (sources added to the article, except for the Municipal Gazette obit as I can't access more than a snippet view) these all evidence a strong keep in my view. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep; meets GNG and that is very hard for an article of this nature. I'm willing to AGF on the Calcutta Review obituary as I can't find the obit myself. I can't seem to view the other sources either (at least on mobile) but I'm confident they contain significant coverage. The college source may not qualify as independent but there is enough already to constitute notability. J947 (c), at 22:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @J947:I've fixed the reference url so that the Obituary pages appear immediately the link is clicked. It's also worth me pointing out his Fellowship of the Chemical Society in England. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that's definitely enough. Also just found this to add to his notability. J947 (c), at 01:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Withdraw I am withdrawing my nomination since the article is well developed and well sourced. I nominated here based on this revision. I actually thought to close this Afd by myself but I have to leave it to admins because the Afd discussion should be closed after 7 days. Abishe (talk) 05:52, 18 December 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. Yunshui 雲水 14:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Zdzisław Henneberg[edit]

    Zdzisław Henneberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    While valiant, sourcing is only through non-RS sources, or are simply mentions. Meets neither WP:GNG or any of the 8 items of WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 02:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Query does being a fighter ace satisfy WP:SOLDIER? I'm sure this has been discussed at length before. If not then its Delete Mztourist (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No, simply being an ace is not one of the 8 criteria for WP:NSOLDIER.Onel5969 TT me 08:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per comments below regarding aces Mztourist (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • sadlyDelete Clearly does not meet our notability threshold.Slatersteven (talk) 09:45, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete those who won the Battle of Britain may have been designated by Winston Churchill as "so few", but they were not few enough to be notable. We likewise do not have articles on all of the 300 heros of Sparta who fought at Thermopolae.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to No. 303 Squadron RAF, as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tadeusz Arentowicz. This was a brave man who did in battle, but his story is the story of the 303. MozeTak (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. We have always considered that being an ace does qualify one for an article. We have hundreds of articles on people notable only for being aces and a number of AfDs have confirmed this. In addition, his four decorations, while none probably above third-level, together probably do qualify him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. He was awarded the highest military decoration of his country, which is item 1 of WP:SOLDIER, and was also decorated by the UK and France. Arguably he meets item 4, having "played an important role in a significant military event", namely the Battle of Britain. And there seem to be enough details about his "birth, personal life, education and military career" which the policy indicates would merit a standalone article. Anyway, personally I would rather see articles on every single one of The Few because of their accomplishment while the encyclopedia is full of articles on non-entities who happened to be born into a titled family. FrankP (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per FrankP. Apart from the sources in the article, there is info about his WWII career in Polish Aces of World War 2 (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2013) [44] and Poles in Defence of Britain by the same author [45]; Kosciuszko, We Are Here!: American Pilots of the Kosciuszko Squadron in Defense of Poland, 1919-1921 (McFarland, 2017) says "In recognition of the 303rd in December 1941, its best airmen, Lt. Witold Urbanowizc, M. Feric, Zdzisław Henneberg, and Jan Zumbach, were awarded the highest decoration of the RAF, the DFC" [46]; and there are other books in Polish, too. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:19, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 02:52, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    AgriScience Labs[edit]

    AgriScience Labs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is a decent article, so it pains me when nominating. My main reason for doing so is that is clearly fails NCORP and more importantly, GNG. Starting with the sources present in the article: most are not independent, and when they are they're actually about the company's testing methodology and do not constitute coverage contributing towards notability. Not that they're very reliable either (some Cannabis mags and a podcast). I searched in print and online media and could not find a single good quality source that was exclusively about the lab. Some staff movements, press releases or stories about products they've tested once again. So I can definitely say the company fails notability guidelines at this time, regardless of its status as "oldest licensed" Cannabis testing lab in the state; this just means someone filed paperwork before others; and again it would still need to fulfill GNG. PK650 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a single secondary source. Seems to be just a complete advertising skit. scope_creepTalk 21:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. czar 02:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Mikhail Spirin[edit]

    Mikhail Spirin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Was deproded due to the fact that the player had played in a Russian Cup game which might be eligible for WP:NFOOTY if it wasn't for the fact their is barely any references for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases which GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios to my knowledge, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. Plainly no extensive and proper article can be written about him as he fails GNG by a mile or two (unless someone can find some Russian-language references). Does meet NFOOTY as he has played in a fully-professional league per WP:FPL but it is never going to be more than a permastub really. Note that there is an article on another Wikipedia ([47]) but it is only referenced back to us and has nothing of value. Not really a redirect option here as a redirect to anything but something extremely vague (like Football in Russia) would be misleading. J947 (c), at 04:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails WP:GNG, more important than squeaking through on NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:34, 12 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Valaverse[edit]

    Valaverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Founded this year, fails WP:CORP. No coverage in reliable sources; in fact, scant sources at all and those that exist are blogs or press releases. PK650 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. and WP:SALT due to repeated recreation and attempt to evade salting of the previous title. RL0919 (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    InfoCepts LLC[edit]

    InfoCepts LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Run-of-the-mill analytics consulting company. Does not satisfy corporate notability.

    Google search shows that the company exists in India and the United States and has this Wikipedia article. No third-party coverage found.

    Articles on company have been repeatedly created and deleted by likely conflict of interest editors. Now that this version has had most of the promotional fluff removed, there isn't much left. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, the stuff that differentiates this company [like employing the highest number of MicroStrategy-certified consultants, having our CEO on the Forbes tech council (which is invite-only), retaining its position among the top 40 data & analytics service providers worldwide (3 years in a row)], is being denounced as a mere advertising ploy. I do not contest that decision since you are the experts. I would like to put forth the question, however, that since the article is now strictly 'fluff-free', how does it harm Wikipedia's standing if it is included in your database? As I've mentioned before, all it contains is information, and isn't that the core purpose of your free encyclopedia? If you curate content based on whether it has 3rd party mentions, does that not align you with all the other encyclopedias out there? (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AshVaidya (talk • contribs) 09:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – No independant coverage. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. References fail WP:NCORP by a wide margin -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see it's more than that. It's a WP:COI WP:FORK of InfoCepts, and apparently an end-run around Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 December 10. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems like their PR Firm keeps trying and failing to drum up notability out of nothing. Delete and block future attempts to recreate. ValarianB (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Exactly, User:RoySmith, an end-run. It is an example of why I added language to the guideline against gaming the system about the gaming of names in deletion and review a few weeks ago. (I added the language, after discussion at the guideline talk page, before this end-run, but because similar end-runs are common at AFC and AFD.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as per WP:G4 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoCepts. Though that discussion happened a long time ago, I can't find anything to show that the subject now meets WP:NCORP notability requirements. Not to mention the blatant WP:COI... Jmertel23 (talk) 00:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete: per Robert. It is just another company. It fails fails WP:NCORP, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 06:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and salt to stop further re-creations without NCORP sources. – Levivich 21:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Salting may require coding a regexp in the Title Blacklist, because this is a case where changing the name of the article, e.g., by inserting a suffix such as LLC, is being used to game the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The blacklist is overkill for something that's been created at two titles. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As per above, there shouldn't ever be a "reward" for attempting to game the system. HighKing++ 17:00, 16 December 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_December_12&oldid=1142614525"