Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 June	26 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Brantford Galaxy season[edit]

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

The article fails WP:NFOOTBALL as the team is not part of the Canadian Premier League which is the proffesional league in Canada. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are other professional leagues in Canada as well - however CSL isn't even that, nor is it national. It's a stretch to even call it provincial. The league itself falls outside the league structure entirely, being unsanctioned. More to the point, it's hard to believe any of these teams have any media coverage, let alone coverage that meets WP:GNG. Nfitz (talk) 00:39, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I do know about those leagues being the MLS, USL Championship and USL League One. HawkAussie (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't thinking of the foreign fully-professional leagues - but of provincial semi-professional leagues that have pushed aside CSL which is no longer sanctioned. But that's not really relevant to this. Nfitz (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom, fail GNG and NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 09:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it has not meet WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with everyone. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. William2001^(talk) 04:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominator. Notability is not established in any of these articles. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ~~delete and~~ redirect to Enterbrain. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC) (Result amended --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Inou Tsukai[edit]

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

Article on a game has had no references other than to its official website for the last decade. There is a corresponding page in Japanese which, also, only has non-WP:INDEPENDENT references. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR fails to find additional references of any type. This seems to have a very critical WP:N issue. Chetsford (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It’s unreferenced and my own before search turned up nothing to help it. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 06:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything in any of the usual places. Hobit (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/SMERGE to Enterbrain per William2001. A sentence or two from this article would be nice to go there, but no more. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it's not notable itself and also no reliable sources covered the subject.Forest90 (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enterbrain. Pretty much unsourced, so fails WP:NGAME. William2001^(talk) 04:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Enterbrain seems reasonable; otherwise, delete, no sources found apart from affiliated website.GirthSummit _(blether) 23:54, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lomma Golf[edit]

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

Ralph Lomma, the founder of this company, is unambiguously notable. However, there is no content to merge into his biography that would not end-up being trivially WP:UNDUE. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR, and newspapers.com fails to find any references and the article itself is supported by just two references which is substantially less than what we usually demand for a company article. Redirect could be an option, though I think Delete is the preferred one. Chetsford (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:53, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Article because it's notability issue. And also the article could merge with main article such as Miniature golf, but the subject is not notable really and deletion is my first suggestion.Forest90 (talk) 07:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A company that makes Miniature golf courses but nothing notable. Nigej (talk) 08:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

World Scholar's Cup 2019[edit]

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

A BEFORE in newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books, and JSTOR finds only two very incidental mentions to the 2019 edition of the World Scholar's Cup. I would suggest making this a redirect to the main article, however, even that seems dangerously on the verge of deletion due to absence of RS and there is no reason to merge anything as all verifiable content already exists at the main article. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:13, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this doesn't appear to be covered significantly. We need to have a close look at the parent article World Scholar's Cup as well as that's hugely problematic and requires significant cleanup if it's even notable. There's a number of news articles about the event from around the world, but they're all schools who have either sent students to the event or have won the event, but the event itself does not appear to be significantly covered. SportingFlyer T·C 08:07, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect, the parent article is borderline notable, but the annual edition is definitely not. -Zanhe (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article. I searched about the subject and no independent and reliable sources has not worked the subject, as I saw.Forest90 (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McMillan Fire[edit]

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

Article by a blocked sock on a small brush fire in California last week with no fatalities and damage to a handful of buildings. Ample references exist outside the article, however, WP:NOTNEWS. Chetsford (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Relatively insignificant event; sources consist of routine news reporting. –dlthewave ☎ 12:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT, also, WP:NOTNEWS.Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Ordinary local news WP:NOTNEWS, Alex-h (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Article because it could consider as WP:NOTNEWS.Forest90 (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Draft:The Prom (2020 film). Since the merge target is in draftspace, this is effectively a "draftify" result and the mainspace page will be deleted after I copy the expanded content to the draft page. RL0919 (talk) 19:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Prom (2020 film)[edit]

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

Completely fails WP:NFF. Filming is not due to begin until the winter time which is months away. The article does not have an extensive production history as it was only announced to be happening today, so it doesn’t merit mainspace status yet. This is why I created Draft:The Prom (2020 film). To build it out of mainspace until it begins filming. Until then however it fails the necessary criteria. I wouldn’t be opposed to it being merged into the draft and remaining in draftspace. Rusted AutoParts 21:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to the page increased its source count but ultimately are just saying the same thing to cite the same information. It’s a bit excessive as well. Rusted AutoParts 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Neutral My interpretation from some of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) is that if a film meets WP:GNG then it's presumed notable and WP:NFF, as a subject-specific notability guideline, can't override the policy that is WP:GNG. (If you think I'm misinterpreting, let me know). This subject meets WP:GNG, despite all coverage being extremely recent. There's enough verifiable information to form a useful stub. Trying to incubate the content as a section in Ryan Murphy or something would be awkward, IMO. (And incubating it in draft space would be a disservice to readers looking for information about the film now.) Colin M (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The film does not meet GNG. It’s only just been announced. The entire thing could get scrapped between now and December. That’s why the caveat at NFF is that a project should be filming. The Marvel movies develop within the draftspace until they start filming despite having a lot of coverage due to their immense popularity. But again, there’s no guarantees to the films actual go ahead until cameras roll. And The Prom Just does not even have the notability safety net the Marvel movies would have, even now when it’s only just been announced today that they plan to make this movie. It would only be a disservice to the reader if the film is actually filming. But for now they can easily look it up on IMDB or other sites. We should not assume it’s going to occur until it actually occurs. Rusted AutoParts 01:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say it doesn't meet GNG? The first reference from the article looks to me like significant coverage in a reliable source. Colin M (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having a detailed source or multiple sources in one day doesn’t equate to a significant coverage. All those sources are just repeating the same information. Look at Akira (2021 film) (another article in the mainspace I feel is too soon). Look at the detail in it. The Prom has nowhere near that detail to even have consideration for an exception. One day of coverage doesn’t cut it. I’ll offer more examples, look at what happened to Mouse Guard or Blood Meridian. Two pretty high profiles projects that got shut down before filming began. If it can happen to those two it can happen to any film so it’s really only common sense to err on the side of caution. Rusted AutoParts 03:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm seeing where you're coming from. My initial thought was that even if the project were cancelled tomorrow, it would still be notable, and it would be worthwhile to have an article on the failed production. But on further consideration, if that happened, it would probably make more sense to describe it in The Prom (musical), as happened with the Blood Meridian adaptation you mentioned, which is now described at Blood Meridian#Attempted film adaptations. Another factor is that I realized the coverage is based on some kind of 'inside source' rather than any official announcement. That said, I'm still not particularly enthusiastic about deleting/draftifying for the reasons mentioned above (I think the current content is useful to readers, and still think it meets GNG), so I've changed my !vote to 'neutral' for now. Colin M (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Last year I removed more than 40 films that were announced but never made within five years at List of Walt Disney Pictures films and another user recently removed another 100+ announced films that had not been confirmed to be in production, many of which even had cast signed on. While this isn't Disney and this announcement seems pretty comprehensive, this is obviously premature for an article and should only be at The_Prom_(musical)#Film for now. Duplicative coverage of the announcement in the Hollywood media is NEWS to me and does not establish notability yet, and content can be preserved in the musical article while the crystal ball is glowing. Reywas92^Talk 01:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s already in the draftspace. I would move to if anything have the two merged or something in the draftspace. Rusted AutoParts 01:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so delete/merge with the current draft. Reywas92^Talk 01:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into draft space for reasons mentioned above. NathanielTheBold (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, obviously without prejudice against moving it back into mainspace if and when it finally clears the notability bar for films. The test for films is not "as soon as it's been announced as entering the production pipeline" — our actual rule is that no film should ever have a Wikipedia article before principal photography has started, and even then it still usually has to be an extremely high-profile film (e.g. a new entry in the Star Wars, Star Trek or Marvel franchises) that gets a lot more ongoing production coverage than the norm, with the vast majority of films still confined to the "not until we can properly source that a confirmed release date has been set" test. And, in fact, not all films that enter the production pipeline ever actually come out the end as finished films — sometimes even films that have started photography still collapse, or get delayed for years by production problems, or end up so bad that no distributor even wants to touch them anymore, which is precisely why even the photography phase isn't in and of itself an automatic inclusion freebie for every film. In all likelihood, this will qualify for an article sometime in 2020 when its release is imminent, but just because casting of a few lead roles has been announced isn't in and of itself enough yet. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I think this may be an exception to convention. Even if cancelled that alone would generate reams of media and many rounds of explanations. This is about as high-profile as a film ever gets pre-everything. Top streaming service, top movie studio, top producer, A-list celebs, some of the most high-profiles for each of their fields and generations. Already better sourced than one would expect. Gleeanon409 (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's just incorrect. There is not enough history or sources for the project to warrant a potential cancellation exemption, nor an exemption to convention until it starts filming. Rusted AutoParts 18:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to simply disagree on this. Gleeanon409 (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but considering you've only been around for four months I get the reason why'd you'd think this is good enough to remain. Rusted AutoParts 18:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not nice. In their four months, Gleeanon409 has contributed a huge quantity of high-quality contributions over the course of ~1,500 edits. They've also created over a dozen mainspace articles, none of which has been deleted, so I think they do know a thing or two about notability. And even if they didn't have a high edit count, dismissing someone's opinion simply because they're new(ish?) to the project is rude and doesn't advance the discussion. Colin M (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why you’d think I was being rude but that wasn’t the intent. I said that cause that’s how I felt once upon a time. I had a few articles I created get put up for deletion that I felt strongly about keeping. But I just gradually developed an understanding that films regardless of coverage can just fall apart. That’s all, no malicious intent was meant. Rusted AutoParts 23:05, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin M: messed up the initial ping. Just replying to your above comment. Rusted AutoParts 23:06, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the stub (which has since been expanded by other editors as well), and sorry if that conflicts with a draft page created the same day. I acknowledge and respect the opinions shared above, but I'd rather just see the article kept for expansion as additional details are confirmed. I understand some other editors take a very strict approach only keeping articles about films in production, but if the page is just going to be recreated in a couple months, then let's just keep and move on... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It can easily be expanded in draftspace until it films, which is why I put it there in the first place. Anything can happen in the next six months. So it’s not wise to keep it in mainspace. Rusted AutoParts 21:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to keep in main space, IMO. You've made your points known, no need to reply to so many comments above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:42, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cause it’s important to me to contest the points. It doesn’t make sense to keep it in mainspace on two fronts:premature cause of the filming and premature cause of it only being announced yesterday. The mainspace article can easily be merged with the draft, be kept in draftspace than moved into mainspace once the filming begins. But it’s not wise to keep it in mainspace so early. Rusted AutoParts 21:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draftspace and then create a redirect here to The Prom (musical)#Film, per WP:NFF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to draftspace I am not convinced that this film should be exempted from WP:NFF. Bennv3771 (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to draftspace Agreed. Obviously notable - the question here is timing.MaskedSinger (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a consensus that the subject meets WP:BROADCAST. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WBCQ (SW)[edit]

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

Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines for companies and It has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Lack of WP:SIGCOV Cox wasan (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the few well-known American shortwave stations yet; yup, it's become a very niche station as streaming has basically turned the entire shortwave band into a never-ending camp meeting band, but it's FCC licensed (see WP:BROADCAST; nominating this as a company isn't appropriate) and known well among radio enthusiasts. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WBCQ is known widely among shortwave and DX listeners like myself and others in Europe who occasionally hear it floating in from across the pond. As noted by Nate, it falls under the notability guidelines for WP:BROADCAST, since it has an established broadcast history (aired for more than 21 years). The article should be retained on this site. Dane|Geld 14:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:BROADCAST. Furthermore, references have been added to the article. WBCQ has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BROADCAST.Stereorock (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , Agree with above, passes WP:BROADCAST. Alex-h (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Article. It's passes WP:BROADCAST guideline but the weak coverage in reliable and independent sources is a real weakness for the Article.Forest90 (talk) 08:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has significant coverage, passes WP:BROADCAST, and can be improved to increase reliability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed. Passes WP:BROADCAST. William2001^(talk) 21:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Low Hartburn[edit]

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

It's just a neighborhood. Article content is appropriate for a community webpage, not for Wikipedia. WP:GEOLAND says that places like this should be considered according to WP:GNG, and GNG is not met by the article nor by my search for additional sources. creffett (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like a marketing name used to sell houses in a less wealthy area close to Hartburn. 92.5.165.10 (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hartburn, County Durham or Delete clearly fails WP:GEOLAND since its not an administrative unit or even a settlement according to the Ordnance Survey. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 28 June 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) 00:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Diet of Worms (band)[edit]

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

Nominated this for speedy deletion but it was declined. So I am taking it to AfD because of the band not meeting notability standards. GamerPro64 20:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 20:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if I'm just bad at finding sources but I found a sum total of nothing about this band after trying every combination I could with Google Search. To put it straight, this qualifies for {{db-hoax}} as it seems like pure OR to me, or atleast an WP:CSD#A7 (band) if we are to somehow assume the information is correct. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- They look to be real. Found an Amazon listing for one of their albums. GamerPro64 21:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, that's a start. Either way, there is literally no coverage, so again, no to the notability. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteArticle has no sources apart from an affiliated website (which looks awesome, in a 90s kind of way); can't find anything else about them. Fails NMUSIC and GNG GirthSummit _(blether) 00:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Category:Lists of concert tours. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of concert tours[edit]

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

We have categories and lists for different purposes, and that's fine. But this list is nothing more than a live copy of the category using the magic "categorytree" tag. This means that this page has none of the advantages lists have over categories, and we essentially have two copies of the same page. It also appears editors find it more difficult than usual to add entries to the list. If we want to keep this page, I would recommend copying the current membership from the category and forking it, though then we'd have to maintain both a list and a category, and they'll soon drift in different directions. -- Beland (talk) 19:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:56, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should not have articles that simply transclude categories, and it would be inappropriate inclusion criteria to have a list of lists that have only been created for the most major performers via WP:SPINOFF. Reywas92^Talk 23:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- It's never inappropriate to list the articles we happen to have on a topic, so long as we're not falsely implying that the list is comprehensive. postdlf (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Lists of concert tours. The category is useful and easy to navigate for the average reader. feminist (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Category:Lists of concert tours per above. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:17, 27 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Manufacturing, Inc.[edit]

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

No evidence this is a notable company. No in depth coverage, just your standard WP:MILL. Praxidicae (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:38, 25 June 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 Songs by Tom Lehrer. Nominator and discussion has agreed on a redirect consensus. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish Ballad[edit]

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

nn song, unref orphan tagged since 2008 Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball close; agree with redirect. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Songs by Tom Lehrer. I'm almost on the verge of giving this one a Weak Keep, because there are a number of sources that mention this song. However, most of them are very brief mentions, with this book being the only one that actually goes into an analysis of the song in any way. At the very least, it should be redirected to the page of the album that it originated from, rather than deleted. Rorshacma (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Songs by Tom Lehrer. Per above. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Per above I believe it should be redirected to Songs by Tom Lehrer Alex-h (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Miller (Kentucky)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. County clerk who ran for Lt. Governor (lost in primary) and unsuccessfully ran for Congress in 2004. Probably should be redirected to 2004 United States House of Representatives elections in Kentucky#District 3. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither "county circuit court clerk" nor "unsuccessful candidate for higher office" passes WP:NPOL as a valid reason for a person to get a Wikipedia article — in rare instances, those might be able to get a person in the door if they can be referenced to a depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage that establishes a compelling reason to treat the person as significantly more notable than the norm for those levels of significance, but they're not instant free passes to encyclopedic notability just because they've been asserted. And with only one reference, which is deadlinked but has a headline which plainly reveals that it isn't even substantially about Miller at all, the "sourced well enough to be special" test has clearly not been passed. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 26 June 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 per withdrawal by nom. (non-admin closure) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keyence[edit]

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

~~Unclear that this is a notable company. After removing some bad refs, the remaining ones are few and largely company sites or in Japanese.~~ RobP (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck the above for Rp2006, per withdrawal below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC) )[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No. Just ... no. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, trout for the OP. Rp2006 can choose not to believe the present article's claim that Keyence Japan is consistently listed in the Nihon Keizai Shimbun's yearly ranking of the "Top Ten Most Excellent Companies in Japan.", but not to say as much and just say it's "unclear" if such a claim could be made is unhelpful. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, the above is a link to the bottom of several hundreds of results for the company's name in katakana on the Nikkei's Japanese website. Let alone other newspapers and other reliable secondary sources in Japan. Even limiting ourselves to mentions on the same paper's English site there are plenty of usable sources.[1] Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've messaged the nominator and request they withdraw the nomination and speedy close this discussion, per the above and below. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keyence is a Japanese-headquartered multinational corporation founded in 1974 with a U.S. office since 1985, thousands of employees, and multi-billions of dollars in annual sales. Qualifies under WP:CORP and WP:LISTED. From Forbes business ranking website:
- #752 Forbes Global 2000 list for 2019.
- #33 Top 100 Digital Companies 2018.
- #38 World’s Most Innovative Companies List for 2018

There are currently 150 Japanese companies in the Category:Electronics companies of Japan. Instead of the drastic step of proposing for deletion, which for a global company of this size can affect the company's reputation, possible stock value, and generate news stories about Wikipedia, I suggest it should have first been tagged per WP:ATD-T with an additional citations needed message template at the top to invite remedial editing per WP:DEL-CONTENT. I will assume WP:GOODFAITH on the part of the nominator as to the motive for this deletion proposal, but given the above notability evidence and suggestion for a new template, I respectfully would like to see the nomination withdrawn per WP:WITHDRAWN or speedy keep per WP:SPEEDYKEEP. Disclosure: I have no connection directly or indirectly to this company. Thanks, this is my opinion on this. No one has to agree with it. 5Q5|^✉ 15:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the comments here I am withdrawing the deletion nomination. FYI, This company came to me attention when emplyees at my tech company received email from Keyence, requesting that I and my coworkers contact them to provide information. HR at my company warned us to not do this, saying it was spam. This led me to look at the WP article and (as mentioned), due to the poor list of citations, I believed this was a problematic article. RobP (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So... you nominated the article on a well-known Japanese manufacturer for deletion because someone at your workplace told you that an email supposedly from (someone who claimed to work for?) said manufacturer was spam, and a quick glance at our article indicated it didn't have the best sourcing? That's ... I don't even know what to say. Anyway, I've taken the liberty of striking your nomination and speedy closing this AFD, since you apparently forgot to do both. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:47, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy (choreographer)[edit]

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

This has been nominated for deletion before, soft-deleted and then refunded. The AfD rationale was "No evidence of notability. Most refs are YouTube. The Times is a gossip column feature about their new baby. Nothing that adds up to notability. Fails WP:GNG." I don't see that anything has changed – it was blatant promotion before, and still is. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator and REFUND requestor also has a UPE problem related to this article. DMacks (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "He is said to have choreographed the introduction song and the climax song for the Superstar." is perhaps my favourite quote from the article, but the whole thing is actually comedy gold, right from Sandy and his wife both being married on the same day, and the happy birth of their Girl child. It almost seems a shame if we lose it. "He has Choreographed for Several Shows including VIJAY AWARDS, VIKATAN AWARDS & VIJAY TELEVISON AWARDS.", you know... I think he's Working still. -- Begoon 19:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The quality of English is pretty poor and seems fairly promotional but the sourcing seems mostly based on Youtube and thus a lack of RS means I have to vote for deletion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A news search brings up lots of mentions that he is in the new Bigg Boss Tamil 3, which I believe was also given as a rationale for undeletion. I'm not personally convinced that a spot on a reality show adds enough notability to the sparse existing refs, but I believe the show is "very popular" so you can expect lots of Tamil (at least) media mentions and opposition to deletion from that direction. -- Begoon 20:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why his PR agent is so eager to have this page restored. And I agree (consider this my delete !vote) that merely being a contestant on a game-show does not meet WP:BIO and that this page (as with most related to popular media in that region, will be heavily abused. DMacks (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BLP and GNG due to insufficient mainstream RS. Also recreated by an undisclosed paid editor with top level COI.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No evidence that it's notable. Barca (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and my comments above. Fails WP:GNG. An appearance as a contestant on a reality-game show does not add enough notability to the sparse and poor existing references. The only addition to the dreadful REFUNDed content to date has been the following: "In 2019 , he entered the tamil bigg boss season 3 as one of the contestants which is telecasted in star vijay." and whilst this is certainly true, and the awful prose fits in perfectly with the existing grammar-style-comedy-nightmare, it does just about nothing to increase significance, and still would not even it was well-referenced, which of course it isn't. If the author is indeed being paid for this semi-literate drivel then the client should demand his own "refund". -- Begoon 01:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I nominated the first AfD and am quite astonished to see it re-appear in a state that is quite as woeful as the original. Still falls very short of any notion of WP:GNG. Why on earth do we restore content like this ? Velella ^{Velella Talk} 16:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
regretful delete: like Begoon said above "It seems a shame if we lose it". I mean, look at the introductory photograph of the subject. The entire article is funny. Maybe his PR dislikes/despises him so the PR intentionally made the article into a farce? Also per Begoon, the subject fails GNG. Also per Kudpung's talkpage. The creator claimed on Kudpung's talkpage that he is subject's PR, and subject wants to know why the article was deleted during such an important phase in subject's life (big boss). Proving themselves to be an SPA, with no regard to the project. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't comment confidently on the subject's notability - the current sourcing is woefully inadequate, but I haven't done a sufficiently extensive search through Indian, non-English language sources to say for certain that he's not notable; however, the author's UPE issues, and the state of the current sourcing, are too concerning to ignore. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:37, 29 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Stewart (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Only one source in the article and while additional sources were found by RebeccaGreen in a WP:BEFORE search 1 2, 3, none are of WP:SIGCOV value and it's not clear that they all refer to the same person either. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:52, 25 June 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. A company dealing with public funds may be in public interest, but it needs to satisfy WP:ORG or another applicable guideline before we can have a page on it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Artis turba[edit]

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

More non-notable crypto-spam. Praxidicae (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Owlf 17:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything more than self-published sources and a few random passing mentions - obviously not notable, and borderline G11. Aspening (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a company dealing with public funds is in public interest Lifestudent38 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Lifestudent38 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete: non notable ORG and WP:G11 Ceethekreator (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference can be found that meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail Passes notability. - MA Javadi (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yip. Fails WP:CNG.scope_creep^Talk 21:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

3.1 (album)[edit]

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

Could not find any sources for this album except database listings. Fails WP:NALBUM. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:49, 25 June 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. WP:CSD#G5 also applies. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giannis Patseas[edit]

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

Not notable basketball player and the references links are like in promotional tone and self-published and it's WP:TOOSOON to be on Wikipedia. Owlf 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Owlf 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Owlf 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Owlf 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Owlf 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Owlf 16:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and WP:GNG. Dammit_steve (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBASKETBALL and also clearly fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per TOOSOON. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeated listing of the same article is not enough to meet WP:GNG. Claiming he's sure to be playing in the NBA next season seems like WP:CRYSTALBALL to me (and makes me wonder about the quality of the sources). There's no evidence he's close to meeting WP:NHOOPS. Papaursa (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:02, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Julian W. Lucas[edit]

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

I don't see any evidence this person meets WP:NACTOR or any variants, nor any other criteria. This appears to be a promotional piece sourced to passing mentions, circular refs or sources which otherwise do nothing to establish notability. Might be too soon, but as it's already been draftified and moved by it's creator, I am left with no choice but to send this for a discussion. Praxidicae (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have absolutely no conflict of interest outside of also being part of the disability community. Lucas is a genuine face of models and actors with disabilities. I personally believe having a Wikipedia page is of great importance. This no different from other disabled models such as Jillian Mercado who he has even modeled with for Tommy Hilfiger. This is not intended to promote of any kind and was even supported and helped by readerofthepack an admin. Me and readerofthepack reworked the article to make it Wikipedia ready.

He’s clearly done more then just simply model for one brand. And he’s more then just some social media influencer. I’ve cited multiple news outlets, show reviews, and official YouTube videos with major bands and brands . I'm truly not trying to fight. I'm trying to understand. You’re saying he’s not notable when he’s one of the very few people with a disability to appear in such multimedia and at the level he has reached. Multiple commercials, Marketing campaigns centered around him specifically his name Julian W. Lucas, music videos, live shows, billboard and print along with an instagram profile of over 70,000 followers. To remove a page of a disabled model because he’s not “popular” enough is really heartbreaking to hear.

Please see just one of the examples of a campaign where he was the focal point. This was a major deal at the time as he was the literal face of the billion dollar fitness brand Champion. He didn’t just model. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WFrLqydiiYM

What I truly think that is getting lost in translation is that the stuff he has done is very notable. Especially within the disability community. You have to understand that disabled people do not get profiled at the same level of other performers. So outside of him becoming the next Brad Pitt. This is almost as good as it gets for disabled people. And I wrote this article because I think it’s so important for people to be able to find him. Learn about what he has done and accomplished, and be able to protect against any false claims, Etc.

Notability is the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. Within the disability community alone, along with the LGBTQ community he has demonstrated that. Livewire123 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - was deleted as a promotional article, and then moved to draft so the editor (who has left the lengthy opinion above, wholly not based on any WP policy) could work on it. After a day, the editor moved it back into mainspace. A lot of promotional cruft had been removed, and yet the article is still a puff piece about a minor model. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The piece was moved back after working on it with the admin readerofthepack. It is also sourced by using legitimate news sources and content posted by the official brands, bands, and/or companies he has worked with. He may be considered a “minor” model to the mainstream. But he is very prevalent in the disability and lgbtq community. He has over 70,000 followers on Instagram. Deleting this page is depriving the community from having access to his background and accomplishments. You’re also depriving a disabled performer a Wikipedia page that is clearly not only deserved but also appropriate and important. Name one person who has performed with a world renown comedy theater such as Second City who has a disability. That alone is big enough There’s been about three adult disabled models published in mainstream media in the past year and he is one of them. Multiple times. In various media outlets. He has literally collaborated with one of the the only other disabled models Jillian Mercado. Livewire123 (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. Actors and models, disabled or otherwise, are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they've done stuff — the notability test for people, regardless of their career and regardless of what identity community they might happen to be part of, requires them to receive reliable source coverage about their work. But that's not what the sources on offer here are: six of the ten footnotes are primary sources that do not constitute support for notability, such as YouTube videos and his IMDb page and an entertainment calendar listing, and the other four (Gay Star News, Disability Horizons and Queerty) are blogs, not reliable sources. People do not get a special exemption from having to clear WP:GNG on the sources just because they happen to be members of underrepresented communities — the reception of proper reliable source media coverage is the definition of notability. Wikipedia does not exist as a free publicity platform to help you increase the visibility of aspiring future stars before they have the correct kind of media coverage: making it comes first and then the Wikipedia article follows, not vice versa. Of course, he may come to clear our notability and sourcing standards in the future, so no prejudice against recreation if and when that happens — but "the things this person has done are so personally important to me that I should be allowed to use bad sources to make him notable because good ones don't exist yet" is not a thing we do: the quality and depth and range of the sources you can use to support an article are the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely a misrepresentation of the arguments that was proposed. It was never said he should receive an exception because he has a disability and is part of an under represented community. He is notable and he is searched and documented from notable sources. One of the Youtube videos is from the band 30 seconds to mars from Jared Leto, don't paint the picture that it's some random youtube channel. It's literally the band from an Academy Award Winner. The sources you claim to not be reliable is blatant discrimination. Queerty, as per it's own wikipedia page has showing that Queerty get's more then 5 million unique visitors monthly, and Newsweek, another reliable source called Queerty "a leading site for gay issues" in 2010. Queerty has been verified via Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter. Gay Star News another reliable source is verified via Twitter and Facebook. Gay Star News went live with the backing of Goldman Sachs and has received the award for Publication of the Year by Stonewall UK. Stop claiming these sites are not reliable sources when they are some of the leading publications and news outlets in the LGBTQ community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livewire123 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A person is not notable for being in a music video just because you can reference it to a copy of the video — a person is notable for being in a music video only if you can reference it to media coverage about their appearance in a music video. The notability test is not "as long as his work metaverifies its own existence on YouTube", it requires reliable source media outlets to pay independent attention to him and his work by doing journalism about him and his work. "Verification" on social media platforms has exactly jack spit to do with whether something is a reliable source or not, as well — the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable source is a question of whether the outlet is an established media organization or a blog, not of whether it has a green checkmark next to its name on social networking platforms or of who bankrolled it. And incidentally, I'm an openly gay man, so you can take your allegations of anti-gay discrimination and flush them down the toilet of your choice. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, you're becoming combative and denigrating, which coming from an Admin, is pretty unprofessional and sets a poor example of behavior proposed by Wikipedia as a community. Second, Where did I say since they have check marks they are considered god's word? Oh I didn't? Ok great. The sources I cited are respected news outlets that conducted independent journalism about him and his work. You're expecting him to be on the front page of the New York Times? Is that the only way notable people can get on Wikipedia? Livewire123 (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment immediately above mine clearly states that their verification status on Twitter and Facebook and Instagram constitutes proof in and of itself that they're reliable sources. And nobody said that a person has to get onto the front page of The New York Times before they're notable enough for a Wikipedia article, either — the United States alone has thousands upon thousands of perfectly reliable daily newspapers and magazines, and several television network news divisions, and libraries with real books in them...and so do Canada, and Australia, and the United Kingdom, and France, and Germany, and New Zealand, and Sweden, and South Africa, and other world countries. The world is not so starved for reliable sources that if a person hasn't gotten into The New York Times then we have to accept Queerty as the best we can hope for, because there are literally millions of other perfectly reliable sources in the world. Our sources still have to meet our reliable source criteria by being established real media outlets and not just blogs, but there is no rule that The New York Times is somehow the only source we would ever accept. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So he posted on social media that a story will be coming out in the Philadelphia Inquirer. I assume that falls under the reliable source category? If so I or anyone else can successfully cite that source I assume? Livewire123 (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a start. It wouldn't get him to the finish line all by itself, however — we would need to see three or four sources of that caliber, not just one, before he could pass WP:GNG on "notable because media coverage exists" grounds. Just keep in mind, please, that this discussion is definitely not a permanent ban on him ever being allowed to have an article — deletion at AFD doesn't necessarily mean "never", and very often just means "not yet". We have had lots of articles that got deleted because the person didn't meet our notability and sourcing requirements at the time, but then sometime later on they accomplished something more significant, and started garnering more real notability-supporting media coverage, than they had at the time of the first discussion — so, because the basis for notability had substantively changed since the first discussion, the article was allowed to be recreated again. There have even been some people for whom I was both the deletion nominator of the first version and the recreator of the second version once the bar had actually been cleared. This is why I invoked WP:TOOSOON in my first comment: it's entirely possible that he'll clear the bar in the future if he keeps doing what he's doing, so an article about him will absolutely be recreatable when that happens. He's just not there yet today, but that doesn't mean he can't still get there if he keeps at it: remember, even Beyoncé was once just an aspiring musician who hadn't accomplished anything noteworthy yet, and wouldn't have qualified for a Wikipedia article yet if we had existed at that time. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Tenious notability. scope_creep^Talk 22:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al Rowaad Advocates & Legal Consultants[edit]

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

Non-notable law-firm, no coverage, just passing mentions. Praxidicae (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Reads like a business profile. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as highly likely paid-for spam. I have blocked the creator for spamming and a likely failure to declare paid contributions. MER-C 15:53, 28 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen University[edit]

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

Article about an animated web series, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for web content. One of the two footnotes here is a Q&A interview in which the creators are talking about themselves on an organizational blog -- and while the other footnote is a more reliable source, it still takes much more than just one acceptable source to get a topic over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:01, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Gyananand[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable in the great scheme of things, notably Indian religion. Most of the sources are either primary or mention things he's been involved with, rather than the person themselves. Written by a paid editor. Black Kite (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 16:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Do you really thin that references like (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/18k-recite-shlokas-as-gita-mahotsav-ends/articleshow/67152706.cms) is paid? Let me inform you about the title "Manishi" as per Hindus. Wikipedia needs to know about the titles like Mahamandaleshwar and Manishi. Swami Gyananand is Manishi that means "biggest Knower". Kurukshetra is the place where Lord Krishna himself taught Bhagwad Gita. He is known with the title "Gita Manishi" and now he is sitting on the highest seat where Lord Krishna himself gave the teachings. Add to that he organizes biggest International Gita Mahotsav every year where Prime Minister of India visits every year. He is the chief of biggest research center related to Bhagwat Gita. This is enough to prove his notability. Also am adding many references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babitahamdard (talk • contribs) 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think the nom said the sources were paid, I think he suggested the editor who wrote the article was paid. The Times Of India source is pretty weak - this is what I'd consider a passing mention. A lot of news articles are of the 'this notable thing happened, also X person was there and Y person said Z about it' type. The article establishes notability for the 'thing' but often not for the people. What we'd want is an article from a reliable, independent source that is completely or substantially about the person. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wealth-X[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP.

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
fortune.com	Y	N	Y	Y	N	It reads like advertorial to me.
bloomberg.com	N	-	Y	-	N	Trade listing
NYT	N	N	Y	-	N	A few passing mentions which make it clear that the article is based on Wealth-X's research. Not about Wealth-X.
independent.co.uk	N	N	Y	-	N	Reprint from businessinsider.com, taken from Wealth-X's research. Not about Wealth-X.
insightpartners.com	-	N	N	-	N	Published by parent company - primary source
WSJ archive.is	N	Y	Y	-	N	Wealth-X gets a passing mention as the source for one fact. Taken from Wealth-X's research. Not about Wealth-X.
wealthx.com	-	N	N	-	N	Company's own website - primary source
time.com	N	N	Y	-	N	Redirects to money.com, reprint from businessinsider.com, taken from Wealth-X's research. Not about Wealth-X.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

-- Cabayi (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: When I archived the WSJ article at archive.is (so I could read it) the discussion at Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/Archive 21#Madonna's net worth was shown as linking to the same source. Pinging the users from that discussion: IndianBio, SNUGGUMS, SmokeyJoe, Chrishonduras, Moxy, Petergriffin9901 & Akhiljaxxn. Cabayi (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And the article's contributors... Allenkong11, Emir of Wikipedia, Mwp42881, BD2412, Dl2000 and TAnthony. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I have only edited this article to fix a disambiguation link, and have no opinion on its propriety. bd2412 T 16:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this publication itself is reliable for money numbers, then I don't see any good reason to not mark its own site as such (presuming we only use the site for non-contentious claims on itself where there's no reasonable doubt of authenticity). I don't have any comment regarding publication notability. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SEA-ME-WE 6[edit]

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

subject - submarine communications cable . The project is in proposing stage and not yet in production/construction stage which might take a few years from now. WP:TOOSOON CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thus far, I'm seeing this article, this article, and this article from The Daily Star, this one from the Bangla Tribune, this one from the Daily Sun, this one from the Dhaka Tribune, and this one from a telecomms news website called Capacity. I haven't read all of them, but they each seem to discuss the subject in enough depth. At a glance, it even seems like the article could actually be expanded a bit. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 07:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - I agree that this is WP:TOOSOON (even if that is intended for other article types). As per the report, the government has decided in principle to do this. But while there are numerous duplicates of this report, there aren't any other reliable sources. For example, the Daily Star rehashes the Capacity story. It is premature to even call it a plan as they're exploring possibilities still. Belongs on WikiNews at this point. ogenstein (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I started the article, so off course I want to keep it. Even proposed projects (even if they never get completed) can meet notability criteria as per above, there are multiple reliable sources discussing this. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except those are all basically the same article and all based off of the same quote from the minister. The content is basically the same and it's all speculation at this point regarding this project. That's why the page is only two sentences long. If it turns into something then there will be more to write. Compare this to the '4' cable page. Note that the news articles speak about other stuff which is why they are longer than this page, for example, the growth of internet in Bangladesh and the previous cables. I don't see anything written about the participation of other nations either. The previous cables all had other involvement (hence the 'SEA-ME-WE' rather than 'BA' in the name) so nobody even knows what the cable will connect yet. ogenstein (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did not come up with the name, the name is cited in all those articles. The consortium is being formed. We can't just delete Super Bowl LVIII just because the articles is smaller and has less information than Super Bowl XLI. Also Most of the 4 article is outages. Also noted in one of the articles is that "The consortium for SEA-ME-WE-6 is being formed." So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 22:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are two big differences here: Super Bowl LVIII isn't 'in principle'. It is going to happen exactly as expected. There is no issue about the league, nor about media coverage, etc… everything is already fully formed. The cable may not not happen as expected. Something we don't know about could happen instead. Secondly, there is news about the actual game, specifically, where it will be held. You can find different articles in different places about it already. That said, I think it's too early for that page as well but I do think that it's more solid than the cable at this point. And you'll note that there is not a SB LVIX page yet, as that game has not found a site.

As to outages on the '4' page, well those potentially affect millions of people which is inherently newsworthy. On the other side of the world I recall reading about two of them ('08 and '13) along with the 'interception' bit (even if I wouldn't have remembered the name of the cable). Regarding the name, my point was that previous cables involved multiple nations (across three regions) and spanning more than 10K km. We still don't know who is being connected to what yet. I just think that too much is speculative to support an article today but we'll see what consensus develops. ogenstein (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable incompatible and there is no problem with this article source.-Nahal (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not the issue here. WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL are. This project may or may not happen, and it's not Wikipedia's job to be a public service announcement for every project of potential significance. It can be recreated later if it is built and it is deemed notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL DO NOT APPLY HERE. No part of this article is considered crystal ball, everything is well cited. TooSoon implies that this cannot be independently verified. Again, there are sources that establish everything in the article. If it meets WP:N, and WP:V, not sure what the issue would be. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. When the project is in "propose stage" and not even in drawing board, tendering, or under construction, then it means WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yep, WP:TOO SOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Significant" is an element of the GNG, this project seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist. ST47 (talk) 23:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is premature to even call it a plan and seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage. even though, I couldn't find any other reliable sources. --MA Javadi (talk) 15:29, 25 June 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. bd2412 T 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Bashir Ahmad Abdul Majid[edit]

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

No sources are provided Agaba Perez (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11. The article may well be about a notable person but it is clear from the text that it has been created to promote the article's subject. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Meets CSD#G11. Promotional content for sure. --qedk (t 桜 c) 15:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleteblatant advertising. --MA Javadi (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete As G11. Pure promotion. Newshunter12 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Speedy declined. The article has been rewritten since it was nominated and now has independent references. I am not willing to delete the article in its current form on grounds of G11, which is the only rationale people have offered so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a resume. Avoiding G11 isn't a quick-and-dirty job of removing puffery; it's a fundamental matter of the understanding of the purpose an article is serving. The author of the article, even in its amended form, is abusing wikipedia by using it to host a one-sided explanation of all the wonderful positions and accomplishments of this bloke. Clear G11 even with the obvious puffery gone. Everyone above who said "speedy delete" understood that. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Irreparably promotional. Also, none of the independent refs mention the article subject as more than a namedrop, and some of them not even that much. —Cryptic 06:05, 29 June 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. Consensus that WP:NSONG is satisfied. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 10:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rodeo (Lil Nas X and Cardi B song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, A track from an EP released only a few days ago, not a single. Can be handled at the article for the EP. --wooden superman 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --wooden superman 12:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(new !vote below) Merge to 7 (Lil Nas X EP). Not notable. wumbolo ^^^ 13:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Song is a notable collaboration, without a doubt will chart high. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 01:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON; WP:CRYSTAL. --wooden superman 07:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YOUCANWAITFORTHREEDAYS. By the time this RfD concludes, the charts will be updated. You're wasting time proposing this article and Template:Lil Nas X for deletion. Also, per WP:TOOSOON, a better move would be to just move this page to Draft:Rodeo (Lil Nas X and Cardi B song) for the remainder of the week... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 17:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Delete - Remember that songs with two artists which are currently dominating the charts tend to chart well, even if they are not singles. The article might have to be recreated if it gets deleted. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm assuming this is an uninformed nomination? There's standalone coverage from multiple non-trivial, reliable and secondary sources in the article; most notably Uproxx, HotNewHipHop, Spin and Jezebel. Also this song is charting at number 11 on Spotify, top 20 on iTunes, and is being predicted to debut top 20 on the Billboard Hot 100. If anything is "too soon" it's this useless AfD. There's zero reason to delete an article about a song that is going to chart in less than 3 days just to make a WP:POINT. Total nonsense.--N Ø 16:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted + coverage in article. wumbolo ^^^ 08:08, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this has now charted, I am happy to withdraw this nomination. I would however encourage involved editors to not create articles like this WP:TOOSOON, but instead to utilise draft space until notability is clearly achieved. --wooden superman 10:33, 28 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Čajkovič[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur player who fails to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NHOCKEY. Can be recreated when/if he meets either. DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DJSasso (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 25 June 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. Assuming good faith that the subject has requested deletion and noting that where there is no rough consensus, the discussion may be closed as delete. Also per deletion policy, “Poorly sourced biographical articles of unknown, non-public figures, where the discussions have no editor opposing the deletion, may be deleted after discussions have been completed.” Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Margus Reinsalu[edit]

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

I am the article subject, and I regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and wish the article to be deleted Truetalksss (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD was listed for the article MargusReinsalu, which does not exist. I am changing to Margus Reinsalu, which does exist and has an AfD tag on it and so was the presumable target.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no claim of notability in the article. In 2009 Margus Reinsalu hired a PR agency Vare & Jaakkola is all you need to know about the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Dooley[edit]

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

Its been a day now, with no improvement in sources. I can find she has written books, not that she (or they) are notable. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes close to showing this person is a notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a promotional article (indirectly for her publishing house; cf this contribution by the very same user who created Dooley's article). She is owner of a company called Express Publishing, that publishes English language learning and teaching books and material of that sort [2] (see a self-presentation, in Greek, "Συνέντευξη με την πρόεδρο της Express Publishing και συγγραφέα, Κα Jenny Dooley", posted on February 26, 2018). The article on the company, Express Publishing. must be deleted too. No trace of notability for both of them, the owener and the printing house. ——Chalk19 (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 28 June 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 procedural close. Wrong forum. Merge proposals should be made on article talk pages. In this case I think you could just be bold and merge it (addendum: maybe not - appears to be a different company - see article talk page). Michig (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Connoisseur (Hi-Fi)[edit]

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

Not notable in its own right and no useful content. Merge to Sugden Audio Rathfelder (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:17, 25 June 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) 00:30, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of BMTC routes[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE - Massive directory of non notable bus routes, split into sub-pages. The only sources provided seem to be deadlinks (which probably referred to an old timetable). Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all the list articles associated with the parent article:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke all and make sure none are touched with a bargepole for a few weeks afterward. All of them as nom says fail DISCIMINATE. Its also difficult to ascertain provenance due to location of subject, none of these routes are likely to be notable. Nightfury 11:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of them, and point them to Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuke them. These titles are enough. They seem more like something you would see in a travel guide. Even then, these titles would probably also get the pages deleted on Wikivoyage. They aren't useful, and they also aren't going to be notable, as said by Nightfury. There's nothing to save them. Invalid^OS (talk) 00:54, 28 June 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. Noting some sockpuppetry. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mainul Ahsan Noble[edit]

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

not enough to establish notability Singer, Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG. fails WP:GNG. this singer seems to be too early in the concept phase for any such coverage to exist then it means WP:TOOSOON. WP:TOOSOON for this young singer. He did not receive any award.-Nahal (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.-Nahal (talk) 09:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:21, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.-Nahal (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per nom. Dead.rabbit (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Significant media coverage / He is a playback singer. I think he should stay on Wikipedia. Anupam (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - "User:Anupamofficial" is the creator of this article.-Nahal (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom. Significant media coverage, but WP:TOOSOON for this young singer. no awards yet. -MA Javadi (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- He is on media more then 1 year. I think he is notable. pedia1971 (talk) 19:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note: Struck as a confirmed sock of Anupamofficial. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anupamofficial.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom. ~ Nahid ^Talk 08:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Article created by banned or blocked user for shockpuppetry, the topic is not notable enough, covering songs and not yet received any award, does not meet musician notability. Maybe in the future the topic can be created. --119.30.32.12 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LtCorbis[edit]

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:CREATIVE. Contested PROD. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks like a fan page, concur on failing WP:CREATIVE, I would have given it the WP:A7 treatment myself. creffett (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete this hit-piece on a 14-year-old girl. All of the sources read like hit-pieces which they are, and we need to WP:AVOIDVICTIM especially considering at least one "journalist" has harassed Soph's father. wumbolo ^^^ 19:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete She is not even 15. It is bad enough that Youtube, twitter and the like make it so rash comments made when you are frustrated by something can be easily captured and preserved for all time. There is nothing of substance here, nothing coming close to justify having an article on a 14-year-old, let alone one that reveals she has been investigated by the police. Despite having participated in Everybody Draw Muhammad Day (with a truly innoculous cartoon, as opposed to many of the inflamatory ones that have shown up), I have no desire to kill anyone, and having worked in schools in both Dearborn and more so Hamtramck, I have seen Niqab in the extreme, hijab paired with full covering clothes, and Detroit's Yemini communities have nothing on Minnesota's Somali communities for contributing to ISIS. Still I expect that if recording of conversations had been as easy in 1990-2000 as it is today, me and all my fellow 30 something year olds would easily have all been exposed to have said some unmeasured things in our youth. There is no justification for this article. I know our current tendency to delete articles on Youtubers will probably get Wikipedia hated in some Youtube related circles just as firmly as my two youngest brothers hate Wikipedia for its heavy deletion of web comic articles back in about 2007, but reliable sources and strong citations need to continue to be our watchwords, especially when we are dealing with people who are minors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Claims the topic meets GNG through discussion in multiple reliable sources have not been refuted, after a re-list. Discussed article tagging is a separate issue. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:45, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One Night (2009 film)[edit]

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

Seems to be a fairly unknown movie, it says to have won three international awards, but all of them are just regional awards. We all know what count as the "world awards" in movies. it doesn't matter if the festival brand it as one, it just isn't. Viztor (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor I gather "fairly unknown movie" is not a reason to delete an article about a short film, or there would be virtually no articles on short films whatsoever. Your suggestion that "we all know" what is and isn't a "world award" leaves me somewhat confused, and I suspect I won't be alone. I'm curious as to know how you define "world awards" and why only that and "fairly unknown" are your criteria for notability/deletion. Whether or not any film won an award or not is not a reason to delete any film's article. Notability for a film is that it played at film festivals, and this one played at, among others, Gimli and the Montreal World Film Festival (definitely a "world" FF), where it was reviewed in the Montreal Gazette, a notable publication. I'm not seeing the issue you have with the article based on your arguments as presented. Why is something coming from a "region" a disqualification? The Gimli Film Festival is the most important film festival in Manitoba, and one of the most important in Western Canada; it was a suitable venue for the director of this film, Shelagh Carter, to be awarded a Directors Guild of Canada award for one of her later features. While I could not work it into the article for lack of sources at the time I wrote it, One Night comes across as a stalking horse or dry run for her later feature Before Anything You Say. Leaving that to one side, the film is also notable for its origins (i.e., Carter's project was selected by the national body and funded at a level which in and of itself is probably half or a quarter that of a typical Canadian feature film, never mind a short) and, perhaps, for the connections Carter made at the Director's Lab (her regular cinemtographer and the film lead, with whom she planned a feature that came out only late last year, Into Invisible Light). (Edited multiple times) ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you invited the other editors who have worked on the article to participate in this debate? ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just realized that the first award in the list is from the WorldFest-Houston International Film Festival. I think this debate is over.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is just impossible to find the film. And the problem is there are way too many awards in the industry, we're not IMDB and we're not going to write an article on every single one of them when there is just too little to write about. Viztor (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not arguing for writing about "every single one when there is just too little to write about", but you have not explained how that statement applies here. Be specific: how little is too little, according to policy. The article I created was assessed independently as Start-class from the beginning, not a Stub. That means there's more there than Stub articles and those are not deleted simply for having not very much in the article. The length of the article has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. Likewise, your statement that it's "impossible to find" is blatantly false and irrelevant. I don't even know what you really mean: you mean you can't find a DVD on Amazon? What? f you can't actually refute any of the arguments I've made above, and just keep repeating yourself ("not well known") you're not going to convince anyone. But we'll see if anyone else feels as strong as you do. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - won a few very minor awards. Not enough to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. On another note, I was canvassed to come to this discussion by the article's creator, ZarhanFastfire. Please be aware that "inviting" people to join a discussion is not something you should generally do.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel Per WP:NFILM "The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." The director, Shelagh Carter, is a notable person and this film is very frequently cited as a significant film in her career, because, in addition to the not-insignificant award, per my description above, the project was chosen for development/funding by the CFC. NFILM goes on to say: "An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." We certainly would not include everything in the article in Carter's bio, particularly the quote by her cinematographer.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author left some messages on my talk page which hinted WorldFest Houston as a world class movie festival while in fact, as listed on their websites^[1], they bestowed about 894 awards this year (+16 asian regionals). There are 628 mentions of "international" on Wikipedia's List of film festivals, and that list does not include "WorldFest Houston". Viztor (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the notability test for film festivals does not hinge on whether they've already been added to List of film festivals or not. It is not a list that's been preselected for notability assessments such that a film had to be on the list before it was allowed to have an article at all — it's actually the other way around, having an article is the prerequisite for getting added to the list, but people don't always remember to add new film festival articles to the list once they've been created. So preexisting inclusion in that list is not the notability test for a film festival in and of itself — it took me all of three seconds to add it to that list so that it is in there now. Bearcat (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "2019 Remi Winners – Worldfest-Houston". worldfest.org. Retrieved 2019-06-10.

Comment in response to Onel. I did seek input from the small number of editors who have made contributions on the article. I am not aware that is inappropriate (as it would be if I invited a bunch of editors with whom I work cooperatively on a regular basis). In fact, I assumed it was expected as I have been "canvassed" before for similar reasons on RfCs simply for having conributed on the relevant page as someone who'd be "interested" in the subject. If that's not how it's done, I'll refrain from doing so in the future. I still don't see why that festival or its awards are the be-all and end-all of the article when there are so many articles on films that have none at all.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Viztor. Again, you are confusing the issue by making this all about whether WorldFest is "really" a "world festival" and how many awards they give out. And just because they are omitted from that WP list does not mean anything. I could add it tomorrow, and you could remove it. It's irrelevant. I have moved a quote I had added here earlier which was better suited on that article's AfD, which I will not participate in further. It's really neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Viztor (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and flag for reference improvement. Yes, this could use a few more solid sources — but short films are routinely much harder to write long, highly sourced articles about than features are, because they don't get as many full reviews from film critics. Nevertheless, short films still can and do win significant notability-supporting awards and/or get designated as artistically or culturally significant, and can still pass WP:NFILM on that basis. Nominator is misrepresenting the significance of the film festivals in play here: WorldFest Houston is a long-established real film festival, not a PR-fraud operation, and Gimli is a major stop on the Canadian film festival circuit. (It is a Canadian Screen Award qualifying festival, for starters — and if you find it curious that Winnipeg doesn't have its own general film festival on the TIFF-VIFF-MWFF-CIFF-AFF-Cinéfest prestige tier despite being a major city that very much should have such a thing, but instead restricts itself solely to special interest and genre film festivals, well, "we don't want to undermine Gimli" is the reason.)
The notability test for films also does not depend on one user's ability or inability to find them on the internet, nor does it depend on the film's preexisting "fame". In fact, precisely the point of Wikipedia having film articles at all has at least as much to do with helping people find reliably sourced information about lesser-known notable films as it does with having articles about franchise blockbusters. And note that NFILM includes a criterion that extends notability based on archiving, but does not include a criterion for "distributed on internet platforms like Vimeo or YouTube or Netflix or BitTorrent" — in other words, your ability to find it on the internet is not a notability criterion in its own right. Even completely lost films whose prints can no longer be found at all, let alone on the Internet, can still be notable.
So, granted, the podcast and IMDb sourcing isn't ideal and could stand to be replaced with better stuff if possible: but I do still count four genuinely reliable sources here, which is quite enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- BearcatCould you point me the four sources which you consider to be reliable? thanks. Viztor (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Three of Canada's largest daily newspapers and Canadian Cinematographer magazine is somehow not enough? Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original two arguments for nominating the article for deletion have been refuted: (1) WorldFest Houston is a real and significant festival, as is Gimli, as is Montreal World. Nominator's attempt to devalue this article by nominating WorldFest's article has failed, result was keep; (2) "fairly unknown film" was never a starter. The nominator is now unofficially introducing a third argument by asking which sources in the article are reliable -- something they should be able to do for themselves, and if they cannot, they have no business nominating articles for deletion in the first place, which is something they've also been advised by senior editors on their talk page. I believe the problem may well arise from the difference between the threshold for notability on English Wikipedia, which is the lowest of the big language Wikipedias. The editor has not yet learned that whatever was the standard on Chinese Wikipedia, it's different here.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Taylor (meterologist)[edit]

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

Although a well known weather forecaster and meteorologist, there are no links or reliable sources to support this article. There is definitely potential, but not as it stands. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the nominator says, he is a well known weather forecaster. Vorbee (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, on the afternoon after I typed these words, the next weather forecaster I heard on BBC Radio 4 was Matt Taylor. Is this an example of what Jung called synchronicity? Vorbee (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- the nominator hasn't really given a reason for deletion, just suggesting that the article needs improvement. I don't think AfD is an appropriate place to take articles needing improvement. matt91486 (talk) 05:19, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Rillington (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment. This article has been lacking information for sometime with no additional information or citations being added. If more information can be provided, there is scope for the article to remain. At the moment, the article fails WP:GNG. There is an ongoing discussion re a few meteorologists at the moment with the argument that they warrant an article "due to their job". This isn't the case, as with all articles, the information must be there if the article is to remain. I'm sure Bearcat would be happy to explain this better than me. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability test for weather presenters is not just the ability to verify that they exist, by virtue of a staff profile on their employer's website or your sworn affidavit that you've personally just heard them doing their job with your own earholes: just like people in any other occupation, the notability test is always still the ability to get them over WP:GNG as the subject of significant and substantive reliable source coverage about them, in media that don't sign their paycheques. The notability test for people is never just the ability to use their own primary source web presence as technical verification that he exists: it always requires journalists to be writing and publishing content about him and his work. On a Google search, however, all I can find is a one-day blip of WP:BLP1E coverage about two months ago when he caught a lighting rig that was about to fall on him live on the air — but that's not enough, because what we need is ongoing coverage of a variety of aspects of his career, not just 10,000 reprints of the same story about a single viral moment. And he's not exempted from having to get over GNG just because you've heard him on the radio, either: not everybody on earth lives in the UK, so many more people have not heard him on the radio than have. Bearcat (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the nominator says, he is a well known weather forecaster and there is no issue with this article not passing WP:GNG but the article does need more independent sources. Rillington (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question. Matt Taylor has done the five-day weather forecast on the BBC One series Countryfile. Does this make him notable enough to have an entry in Wikipedia? Vorbee (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It underlines his notability as he has presented the weather on the BBC for many years. Rillington (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we're all missing the point here. Just because he is on TV doesn't mean he is automatically entitled to an article. The article fails WP:GNG and this is not OK, despite saying there is no issue. More RS need to be provided for this article to remain. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Funky Snack, I'd like to respectfully suggest that rather than simply nominating articles for deletion which you feel do not comply with Wikipedia rules, that you instead try to address the issues that you have, for example with this article by trying to find additional references as I did with several of the previous articles that you nominated for deletion. Rillington (talk) 13:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is clearly a lot wrong with this article. It has remained minimal for sometime and was given a number of chances to have stuff added, but this didn't happen. You seem to have created quite a few articles which you seem to be upset that are being nominated for deletion. Articles must meet WP:GNG, and this article clearly doesn't. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So why don't you attempt to improve this, or any other article, when you think it isn't up to scratch rather than merely nominating it for deletion? Rillington (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's not fair to say it clearly doesn't. In just a glancing search, it's clear that he's gotten coverage in various sources [3] [4]. I don't say that this is definitive one way or another, but it's clear that sources not affiliated with the BBC do talk about him and his work -- indicating that it's at worst a debatable case. matt91486 (talk) 05:54, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding those sources. I have incorporated them into the article. Rillington (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you seem to be missing the point. This article has remained "bare" since its creation, and in 2016 was asked for more information to be added. This hasn't happened and remains very minimal. I'm not withdrawing the nomination, as the issue remains. There are no reliable sources. - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:49, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't asking you to withdraw this article, which now contains two new independent references. Instead I am respectfully challenging you to consider changing your approach to articles which you feel are not currently following guidelines by asking you to try to improve these articles rather than merely nominating them for deletion. Rillington (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply following Wikipedia guidelines. If an article has no reliable sources or anything to support the need for an article, it gets nominated for deletion. See WP:AFDEQ. Like I said, this article was given a chance in 2016 for more to be added, and it didn't happen. To be honest, I'm very surprised the article has lasted as long as it has with nothing proving as a reliable source. May I request that you let the AfD discussion continue and to let editors nominate articles for deletion which don't meet the Wikipedia requirements. - Funky Snack (Talk) 11:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying that "the article was given a chance in 2016". I genuinely don't know what this means. It seems to imply that there was some sort of AfD debate about it at that time, which if there was, was not linked to in the nomination. If you just mean it was tagged, articles are tagged all the time, but this hardly means "giving it a chance". And as far as I'm aware, duration of time with a tag is not a reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article was created as an unsourced stub in july 2006, it remained uncited for almost 10 years when the refimprove tag (actually should have been a no ref tag) was added, had one source added in March 2017 (that did nothing for notability). it has taken this afd, over 2 years later to have any more sources added (again not supporting wikinotability), so yes, there has been plenty of time and opportunity for improvements to be made. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, although having a successful career with the met office and the BBC, Taylor does not appear to have made achievements that tick any wikinotable boxes. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A well-known national weather presenter and a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society ([5]). If it doesn't satisfy the GNG then that suggests that the GNG isn't fit for purpose as an overriding criterion for inclusion (which it clearly isn't). --Michig (talk) 08:23, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing to go by on this article and it has been given a chance to be improved but it doesn't look like it has. 132.185.160.131 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. a weatherman who is a national figure. [https://books.google.com/books?id=4RZSDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT133&dq=%22Matt+Taylor%22++weather&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb8cqflpnjAhVsh-AKHcY3DCUQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22Matt%20Taylor%22%20%20&f=false And Now, The Weather...: A celebration of our national obsession Random House 2017.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a case of WP:NEXIST notable subject on national/international broadcast. Lightburst (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slade Mercer[edit]

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

Non notable wrestler. Contested prod recommending AfD discussion. There are a number of unsourced claims, and sources that are there are mostly primary with a heavy reliance on Cage Match. 2001:8003:594A:6800:B4D4:8F80:7EAE:5041 (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural creation of AfD on behalf of IP editor --DannyS712 (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is generally not a good sign when the first page of a Google search only has unreliable sources such as the Pro Wrestling Wikia and the subject's social media accounts. I lean towards the nominator's view that this wrestler is not notable. Addicted4517 (talk) 10:13, 25 June 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, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donya Jahanbakht[edit]

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

WP:N Ladsgroup^overleg 07:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely fails WP:RS and WP:GNG Atheist (talk) 09:27, 25 June 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) 00:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Polachirackal Tharakan family[edit]

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

Delete This article was full of unsourced puffery and cheap self-promotion. Most likely created by a family member with a vested interest. The majority of the references had broken links and led no where; the rest were poor and unreliable. Had a lot of irrelevant and contentious material and unsourced petty claims, unrelated to the subject matter possibly included only to increase the article length. Performed a thorough clean up, corrected grammar mistakes, removed all the unsourced and irrelevant content. Left only the references with some credibility and contents based on that. But this leads once to the inescapable conclusion that this article, its contents and the people mentioned (except perhaps a bishop for whom there is a separate page to which the same old unsourced puffery was copied and hence needs cleanup) are insignificant with low importance. Hence recommending to delete article as it does not add much value. Frazer591 (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 3 of the references left in the article are not verifiable. Did scour various websites providing book previews but did not find the relevant pages or any reference to the contents of the article. Anonymous ip 27.0.137.50 sneaked in and removed the Deletion Nomination tag from the article; but was reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazer591 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Water Music Records[edit]

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

No reliable sources. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could find no sources except directory listings, so fails GNG. There's nothing in the article that would indicate notability, with the possible exception of Just Me (Tiffany album). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A search online for sources failed to find anything that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hadnagy[edit]

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

Article was created by a single-purpose account that has only edited about the article subject and the article is borderline G11. The references provided are all passing mentions or to the article subject's own website. The news articles I'm finding on him appear to be virtually all passing mentions as well. Additionally, I don't think that his company appears to be significant - I'm barely finding any non-self published sources about it that are more than passing mentions. Aspening (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit Saxena[edit]

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

Does not seem to meet the GNG. Existing sources do not seem to be in depth coverage, and I can't find anything on Google or Google News. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NBIO. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NBIO and GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. this article should be deleted.--Nahal^(T) 10:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Per PCN02WPS words. (non-admin closure) Masum Reza^📞 04:35, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Southern Utah Thunderbirds football team[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. I previously tried to PROD it but JetCity22 removed the prod tag without giving any reason. Masum Reza^📞 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions.~~ Masum Reza^📞 02:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck the above listing as Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Football does not deal with American football, but rather soccer. I have listed it in the appropriate place (note below my !vote). Thanks. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Masumrezarock100: Just a heads up, this is American football, not football football. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the heads up. But I am still concerned of it's notability. Masum Reza^📞 04:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article has nothing to do with WP:NFOOTY as the article is (1) not about a specific player and (2) not about association football (soccer), but rather college football. As for GNG, Wikipedia has individual season articles for every NCAA FCS team (one of which being Southern Utah) dating back to at least 2011, and there is absolutely no reason to single this particular team's season for this particular year for deletion. The team, though there is still about two months until the season starts, has received coverage in secondary (not directly related to the team) sources, for example: (1) Schedule on ESPN, (2) Recruits and commits on 24/7, and (3) Schedule on FBSchedules. Additionally, ESPN (independent, reliable source) will publish statistics and a recap for every game; while these are not present yet (as games have not been played), they will be published as the season progresses (here's some examples from the 2018 season: 1 2 3 4 5 6 etc.) Other sports websites will also publish recaps and summaries, as well as local sources both online and in print. Finally, the notability guidelines laid out by WikiProject College football regarding single season articles (found at WP:CFBSEASON) says As long as the sourcing is not solely from the team website, and local routine articles on regular season games, Why not?...Content should be of high quality, and be well documented by sources independent of the sport and school. All of the examples from 2018 are from the Associated Press, which is not a football-specific source, nor is specific to Southern Utah University. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamm (record label)[edit]

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

No significant coverage per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more relevant than the nominator's rationale is the fact that this is a bootleg label with no notable artists signed to it. Certainly does not meet WP:MUSIC's sense of "one of the more important indie labels", and would not pass the GNG outside of that, so far as I can tell. Chubbles (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Chubbles. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Little known underground labels which gain zero (or barely) significant coverage don't need articles. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 22:14, 30 June 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 13:29, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

7 Samurai (duo)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 08:25, 25 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paris International Fantastic Film Festival[edit]

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

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Simply does not meet WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:10, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Lacks any indication in either English or French of sources which satisify GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Striking in light of coverage highlighted by other participants. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article has been improved by the addition of references to significant coverage in reliable sources such as Collider, Rolling Stone and MovieMaker which is probably the best ref so far here thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added several new sources from general interest publications -- the original listing only included one source, and this has been fixed. This is one of the most popular and widely attended film festivals in Paris. Classicintense (talk) 01:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atlantic306. SpinningSpark 19:39, 25 June 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 13:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Soulseekers[edit]

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

Non-notable music company whose only link/source is an archived URL. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Willy No1lakersfan (Talk - Edits) 01:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions.-Nahal (talk) 12:00, 26 June 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. Opinion is divided on the notability of the subject. There have been no further comments in the last six days and i don't think that a further relist will gain a clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Romano (ER)[edit]

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

Fictional character, usual routine coverage, but no real in-depth coverage to show real world notability. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the character is mentioned in reliable secondary sources, including in scholar books. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At worst, this should be restored as a redirect - I created the redirect but it was made an article by 82.208.209.97. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was an entry at List of secondary doctors in ER, but I believe that Romano is notable enough to sustain his own article. However, I agree with you that redirecting/merging into the aforementioned list is preferred over deleting. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Lord Opeth: "mentions" are not enough. There needs to be significant coverage. Can you list sources that push it above WP:GNG? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:15, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, at least two of the references in the article are about the character's death. I guess I misused the term "mentioned". --LoЯd ۞pεth 13:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - and all are simply brief mentions, or short blurbs. Not the in-depth coverage needed to warrant real world-notability.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do believe the article needs improvement, not deletion. Los Angeles Times devoted an article on the character's death, and TV Guide conducted an interview with the actor to discuss the matter. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:47, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JoomShaper[edit]

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

Just not notable company Clnreee (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep:I think the user:Clnreee is doing general pattern of disruptive behavior and editing as a battleground. He created this account just 1 day ago and it's seems to be he create this account only for put deletation nomination on articles. He already put a lot of deletation tag on many notable article. He is putting tag in articles and in afd pages he is writting Just not notable.

1. It has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

2.The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered and it's enough for notability.

3. Widely written in many category-A level newspapers of Bangladesh. (Prothom alo, Jugantor, The daily Star, Sanakal etc)

4. Received international awards and honours

5. Ranked 2nd among Joomla companies from all over the world.

6. Nationally and internationally famous.

7. Arranged many international conferences & it is internationally recognized. (Joomla World Conference)--123.108.244.85 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to the sexists attacks and unfounded allegations from the anonymous IP 123.108.244.85. I am a SHE. Clnreee (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In response to anon IP. You have mentioned at your first point above that the company has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject but you failed to point to a single reference to support your assertion. Your 4th reason states that it has won many international awards and honours but you fail to provide a single example. None of the other reasons you provided have been supported by any references either. An examination of the references in the article shows the following:

This bdnews reference is a mention-in-passing as the founder won an award, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This Daily Star reference only mentions the company as in the company's CEO attended an event. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This Sharebiz reference is based on a company announcment (attending and sponsoring a Joomla conference) and fails WP:ORGIND
This Jagonews reference is a mention-in-passing (name used in the title of the CEO) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
This Channel Online reference fails for the same reasons as the Sharebiz reference above (pretty much the same content too)
This Prothom Alo reference fails as it is churnalism, relies exclusively on information provided by the company with not clear indications of independent content, fails WP:ORGIND. This reference is the exact same content and fails for the same reason.
This Priyo reference fails as it is based on a company announcement and also has no in-depth information on the company. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
This howiwork reference is an interview with the founder and fails WP:ORGIND
This Tech Shohor reference is classic churnalism (mostly a profile on the founder) and fails WP:ORGIND
This Manobkantha reference is marked as a "permanent dead link"
This Banglatech reference is based on a company announcement (attending and sponsoring a Joomla conference) and fails WP:ORGIND
This bhorerkagoj reference is based on a company announcement (attending and sponsoring a Joomla conference) and fails WP:ORGIND
This Samakal reference is a mention-in-passing and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
This ittefaq reference is based on a company announcement (attending and sponsoring a Joomla conference) and fails WP:ORGIND
This Joomla Day reference is paid promotion from the company as a sponsor. Fails WP:ORGIND
This Joomla reference is marked as a "permanent dead link"

So not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on company marketing. Wikipedia is not a Yellow Pages nor a platform for promotion. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:17, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article lower importance also shown advertising and promotional. Fails WP:GNG .--Nahal^(T) 12:31, 01 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ST47 (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Zhdanov[edit]

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Never played in the KHL or RSL which fails #1, the VHL and the Kazakh league are not considered for criterias #2 and #3 and never played internationally so fails #6 as well. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This stub cannot possibly be expanded right now--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player He played in the Russian major league (now Supreme Hockey League) teams: “Mostovik” (Kurgan), “Metallurg” (Serov), “Motor” (Barnaul), “Sputnik” (Nizhny Tagil), “Kazakhmys” (Satpayev), “Ariada” (Volzhsk), “ Barys "(Astana)," Yermak "(Angarsk). In the championship of Kazakhstan: "Irtysh" (Pavlodar), "Saryarka" (Karaganda), "Barys-2" (Astana), "Beybarys" (Atyrau), "Astana" (Astana), "Arlan" (Kokchetav), "Almaty" (Almaty). In the teams of the first league: “Irtysh” (Pavlodar), “Miner” (Rudny).[6]. Kazakhstan Championship professional hockey League is no worse than many others. --Kirill Samredny (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has no chance to pass WP:GNG as there are no available articles specifically about him and he's a career minor leaguer that does not come anywhere near WP:NHOCKEY. Deadman137 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 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. bd2412 T 00:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minhon Khan Chandio (M.M. Chandio)[edit]

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

Non-notable bio, created for self-promotion purpose. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional auto biography. Fails to meet basic GNG. --Saqib (talk) 07:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional.— Bukhari (Talk!) 13:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, has had a solid career but not quite wikisignificant, awards received (WAPDA Medal of Honor, and the All Awami Balochistan Gold Medal) do not appear to be top level awards, and his nomination for Sitara-i-Imtiaz, a third level award is also not enough. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:37, 28 June 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. No real indication that this player will pass GNG from the discussion other than unsupported claims. I'm happy to restore to someone's user space though if they feel they can and request it. Fenix down (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Ramón Mejía[edit]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Simione001 (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a cursory glance at his Spanish-language wiki shows he may meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy He definitely has the potential to satisfy WP:GNG based off his Spanish article and quick Google News search. Perhaps it would be for the best if we give Hondureñodecorazon a chance to improve the article in his userspace. I also placed the notice of this discussion on his talk page. Toreightyone (talk) 01:34, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:31, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 09:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - The player is notable as it has played in a professional league that being the Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional de Honduras which doesn't fail WP:NFOOTBALL. But the page does need some work on it to be put up to standards. HawkAussie (talk) 23:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's actually not a professional league. Simione001 (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Appartenly it has been since 1965 so what you are saying it's false [7] HawkAussie (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The league is not listed at WP:FPL and is not considered "fully-professional" for the purposes of conferring notability via WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The league is also not listed as not fully professional either. There's an absence of information, rather than a confirmation that they are not fully-professional. Given how highly Honduran teams currently rank in the CONCACAF Club Index (just behind Panama and Costa Rica), how much attendance they draw, the international TV coverage of league matches, and how much national media coverage the league attracts, I've always been perplexed that there's a lack of a good source (one way or another) on their status. It's most certainly a professional league - is it fully professional? Nfitz (talk) 13:46, 26 June 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kaliyev[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY at this point in time Triggerbit (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject fails NHOCKEY but passes GNG with articles specifically about him in The Athletic, The Hockey News and others, such as this and this and this. Rlendog (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes GNG per Rlendog. --MrClog (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Birnstill[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY, WP:GNG at this point in time Triggerbit (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:19, 25 June 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. bd2412 T 00:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Blinovskaya[edit]

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

There are no criteria specified in WP:ENT. As a source of significance for businesswoman, blogger, motivational speaker the source indicates fashion magazines, which are a priori an authoritative source in fashion and nothing more. The absence of an article about a person in the Russian Wikipedia additionally indicates a lack of significance. Article created for PR. JukoFF (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deltete a non-notable blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She has no article on ruwiki, despite ruwiki having very lenient notability rules biographies.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 17:36, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - non-notable person. Geoffroi (talk) 22:36, 29 June 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.

[1] "2019 Remi Winners – Worldfest-Houston". worldfest.org. Retrieved 2019-06-10.

[1]