Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 March 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 March	8 March >

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha YB 100[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. There's just barely enough sources to verify that this motorcycle exists (e.g. [1]), but nowhere near enough to verify that it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Per several previous AfD discussions, even motor vehicles must meet notability requirements to have separate articles about them, and per WP:NRVE, "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:PRODUCT & WP:CATALOGUE. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This book search shows that this bike was reviewed in quite a few publications, and also that it was for a few years the top-selling motorcycle in Pakistan. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed? "For any YB 100 YAMAHA * Motorcycle you buy, you GET a FREE solid crash helmet"[2]. Those hits are advertisements. This is passing mention on a single table of a book about the motorcycle industry. The claim that it was the top selling bike in Pakistan? You can tell it's an advertisement too because the snippet view shows the same text at least twice in the volume of 1982 magazine issues. We don't even know which advertiser is making the claim -- a local dealer, an importer, the manufacturer. In any case, not an independent source, and not even a source we can identify. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Completely unreferenced and no obvious WP:RS telling us that it was ever notable. I tried to find if it was a top seller in Pakistan but could get nothing. Doesn't mean it can't be found, but absent that, it is a delete. Britishfinance (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably notable, as there's an Owners Workshop Manual and a mention in The Encyclopedia of Motorcycles, Volume 5. Peter James (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an owners manual for every single class of Yamaha motorbike; don't think listing in a directory of motorbicycles is WP:GNG. We know it existed, we just can't find evidence that it was ever a notable product. Britishfinance (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these Haynes manuals are produced in a near-machine like fashion, since many of these bikes are parts bin specials assembled out of common components. The documentation is often produced via search-and-replace. Passing mention in a book like The Encyclopedia of Motorcycles is merely evidence of existence, not notability. The problem with maintaining separate pages for every motorcycle that meets such meager criteria is that it opens the door for hundreds and hundreds of such "articles" consisting of nothing but "The Yamaha YB 100 is a motorcycle manufactured in Japan by the Yamaha Motor Corporation. It is a small, naked bike with a top speed of 130 km/h, and an engine displacement of 97 cm". And actually the second sentence is an unverified and unverifiable performance claim. It's equivalent to a bio for every college athlete whose name was recorded on a roster, or every book we can verify was ever published, even if it was never reviewed or won any accolades. We'd have hundreds of thousands of such permastubs, and we'd never find anything to say about them. We have to draw the line somewhere. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:57, 8 March 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 Marathon, New York#Central New York Maple Festival. Notable content already merged. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Central New York Maple Festival[edit]

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

Lacked secondary sources since creation in April 2011. I can't find any in-depth coverage in RS. Fails WP:GNG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article's two sentences into Marathon, New York. There is no "significant coverage" of the festival, as would be required for it to have its own article, but there is limited coverage in e.g. an article in the Cortland Standard and one on WXHC, which seems like it might be enough for a sentence or two in the article on the town. (The only mentions of it in books that I see are a single-paragraph mention in Virginia Schomp, New York (2005, ISBN 0761417389), page 88, a resolution here, and a sentence in this report.) -sche (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and copied the content into the article on the town, which already mentioned the festival in its lead (but not its body; thus, my edit brought it into compliance with MOS:LEAD). At this point, the article on the festival can be deleted/redirected to the town, IMO. -sche (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 23:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marathon, New York § Central New York Maple Festival. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marathon, New York § Central New York Maple Festival.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 14 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:07, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McGreevy's (Boston)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Most of the sources are trivial or are about a predecessor that closed over 90 years prior. MB 22:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 23:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 23:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 23:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I especially like how a place a mile across town from the 1920s bar, with a different name and clientele, claims to be a "re-opened version." Ummm, no. Ravenswing 02:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsubstantiated conceit of continuity, and no other claim to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Lapablo (talk) 23:37, 13 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monorail modelling[edit]

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

Article PRODed in 2010 as it was suspected of being used to promote an external link. PROD removed by creator but there are still no references and the topic does not seem encyclopaedic. Mccapra (talk) 22:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's no reason why the subject cannot be adequately covered in the monorail article, suitably referenced. Mjroots (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is rough and lacks sources. I agree the topic of modeling monorails can be covered in the article about monorails.TH1980 (talk) 03:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 05:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plausible if minor hobby. unsourced since 2010. my searches don't bring stuff up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sourcing found, a search from GNEWS brings out nothing. Lapablo (talk) 20:32, 14 March 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 Nutrition per ATD. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of nutrition[edit]

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

This new page lacks any sources. Are there sources out there that discuss "outline of nutrition" as a topic? Legacypac (talk) 22:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please see Wikipedia:Outlines. ‘Outline of Nutrition’ does not need to be notable as a topic in itself. Mccapra (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Outlines is a creation of the editor who has been pushing these pages on the project and may not reflect policy. This is just another form of list and I've been advised that lists must be shown to be notable and have refs even when the articles on the list are referenced. Legacypac (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of outlines on Wikipedia (see Category:Wikipedia outlines and Portal:Contents/Outlines). I suggest that you try get a broader consensus on this if you are proposing that all, or a large amount, should be deleted. MarkZusab (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of outlines, which lead to such an uproar the wikiproject was almost abandoned. Consensus is built by precident at AfDs. Legacypac (talk) 01:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that consensus is built by precedent at AfDs, then I encourage you to look at past AfDs of outline articles. I've gone though several pages of deletion discussions of outlines and there is a precedent of keeping them. If you doubt this, feel free to look at a list I compiled at User:MarkZusab/outlineAFDs or look for yourself here. MarkZusab (talk) 01:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Nutrition. The majority of these links are already within the text of that article or in its see also section. Yes, that section is rather large, but I don't see this outline as being a helpful addition rather than redundant or excessive. With a number of links (including the sugar substitutes, freezer burn, and herb) not even being closely related to nutrition, I see no reason why this needs to be a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 21:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplication of nutrition but lacking refrences. This lack of references creates problems. For example, should dieting be described as the "essence of nutrition"? Not according to nutrition. Are Advanced glycation end-products a "General nutrition concept"? No. Is the Food and Drugs Act an organisation? No. Is Fructose a "sugar substitute"? No. Is the list of "polyunsaturated fats" complete or are important ones missing? Who knows? Polyunsaturated fats doesn't inform us. Is alcohol a sugar? No. Would deleting improve the encylopdia? Yes. --Pontificalibus 13:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GameInfirmary Talk 01:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Nutrition as proposed above by Reywas92. D4iNa4 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The only person arguing to keep is the article's author, who fails to make a policy-based arguments why this should be kept. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Control Institute[edit]

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

Organization without coverage to meet WP:GNG or WP:CORP, producer of a book and two certifications that also have meager online coverage. Largoplazo (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Given the lack of reliable sourcing (I find only the one currently in the article), an NPOV/NOR article about this subject would be very hard to write. Further, I see no good argument for inherent encyclopedic value in spite of weak sourcing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 00:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability per WP:Corp and not having good WP:RS sourcing does not help. Reads like a promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 00:43, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm a finance professional in real life. This organization is no different than counterparts or similar parties: For independent audit side, there are articles of International Accounting Standards Board possesses 12 references (9 self references), IFRS Foundation possesses 13 references (11 self references). For internal audit side, there is Institute of Internal Auditors possesses ONLY 3 references (all self references). So what is supposed to be done? If this article will be deleted, all these I underlined shall be deleted? I kindly invite you to assess with sense and with no particular bias. Internal control is a significant and raising notion in financial industry and this body represents it. Again, I'd like to underline that if this article to be deleted, those other shall be at least nominated, as well. I'd do. Umi1903 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Yes, it's entirely possible that other articles you might identify also qualify for deletion. If you have acquainted yourself with the notability guidelines, have performed due diligence as required under WP:BEFORE, and feel in good faith that they do qualify for deletion, then you can nominate them for deletion yourself.

The notability guidelines contain no exception of the form "If an article's topic is qualitatively in the same category as other topics that are notable, then the notability requirements are waived for that topic." For example, the fact that there are notable lawyers about whom Wikipedia has articles doesn't mean that all lawyers qualify for Wikipedia articles. Largoplazo (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which it theorical itself. You please answer my question: Will you vote "delete" when I nominate International Accounting Standards Board, IFRS Foundation and Institute of Internal Auditors which stand at same point with ICI? Umi1903 (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea because I haven't looked into them and if I were to !vote on them, it would be based on my own assessment of them independent of the comparison you're making among these organizations, and independent of my assessment of this one. Largoplazo (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my opinion stated above on 8 March 2019; I'd like to invite you to attend the deletion propositon from me for following articles relying your base concerns for this article. I don't compare articles, I just state that these articles fail in terms of criteria (WP:GNG or WP:CORP) constituted this thread. Articles proposed: Institute of Internal Auditors and IFRS Foundation. Please kindly attend. Umi1903 (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both your PROD tags because you repeated verbatim the rationale I gave for this article with no regard for whether it was true for those organizations. For example, neither of them, as far as I can tell, issues two certifications. One appears to issue one, the other at least four. I'm not sure what you were up to, but see whether Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point applies. Largoplazo (talk) 12:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is where exactly the other articles (IIA and IFRS Foundation) that I underline do make a difference compared to ICI? Is that because their Wikipedia creation date is earlier than this article? What is the rationale of this? My statement is perhaps verbatim for you, but it is solid and main reason. An answer is needed here and you cannot fill that answer yet, instead you tag the this discussion with hypothetical policies. On the other hand, cerifications are not the case here. An institution can issue professional certifications for qualifying professionals. Certifications may diversify up to specialisation, i.e. some of certifications that IIA issues are CIA for internal audit professionals, CPEA for environment audit professionals because the reqiurements are different. Back to basics, my standpoint is there is no difference in terms of deletion nomination of this article and others I underline. If this will be deleted, others shall be, as well. If not, this is hyprocacy. Again, if this will be deleted, I'll nominate them too. Why do you revert them? Just vote a "Keep" then. Please stop being bitter and tagging more policies. Other uses who voted a "delete", please answer my question and convince me so we will have a concensus. Umi1903 (talk) 13:29, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who's being bitter, making a scene about an issue that exists only in your own head. I said that, as far as I know, those articles qualify for deletion. The only thing I've disputed at this point was the specific PROD nomination that you submitted for each of them, where you indiscriminately and dishonestly copy-pasted my rationale from this discussion that doesn't accurately describe the situation in those articles. They were bad-faith nominations on your part. If you find those articles to qualify for deletion, then go ahead and nominate them following the process at WP:AFD with, for each of them, a good-faith, guidelines-based rationale justifying your nomination that applies to those articles.

There's nothing hypocritical about this. I saw an article that I felt qualified for deletion and I nominated it with a rationale giving my evaluation of that article's subject. You see articles that you feel qualify for deletion, you nominate them with a rationale giving your evaluation of those articles' respective subjects, not a copy-paste of the rationale I gave for this one. You're acting like this is some sort of a contest (which it isn't), as though I were spiting you somehow (which I'm not), or as though you think that by submitting those other articles for deletion, you're spiting me (which is ineffective because I don't care whether you submit those articles except to the extent that you're doing so out of spite—if that's your motivation, then that's disruptive editing). Largoplazo (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do not try to deflect the root-cause and personalize this issue, please. My point is very clear. My question is still unanswered. You nominated this article whereas I defend it to be kept. Thus I have right to stand my statement if there is somewhat fair judgement happening here. If I haven't got any good-faith, what's my business to contribute Wikipedia? Why shall I edit here for over 10 years? Why did I create over 100 articles? To try to label me "bad-faith" is preposterous. Since the start, what I underline if the criteria is propsed by you to delete this article would cause a deletion, the counterpart articles that I list also shall be deleted. What can be possibly wrong about this? Why do you fancy deleting this article but opposing others to be deleted? You still don't answer this and yet you started to personalize the discussion. Underlining again that I'm finance professional in real life, I'd like to repeat: "Where exactly the other articles (IIA and IFRS Foundation) that I underline do make a difference compared to ICI? Is that because their Wikipedia creation date is earlier than this article?". I hereby back up my opinion that I'll nominate those articles, again. If this article fails, they also fail. That's it. Umi1903 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me:

"Yes, it's entirely possible that other articles you might identify also qualify for deletion."
" I said that, as far as I know, those articles qualify for deletion."
"If you find those articles to qualify for deletion, then go ahead and nominate them following the process at WP:AFD with, for each of them, a good-faith, guidelines-based rationale justifying your nomination that applies to those articles."
"You see articles that you feel qualify for deletion, you nominate them with a rationale giving your evaluation of those articles' respective subjects, not a copy-paste of the rationale I gave for this one."
"... I don't care whether you submit those articles except to the extent that you're doing so out of spite ...."

You: "My question is still unanswered: Why do you fancy deleting this article but opposing others to be deleted?"

You've demonstrated your determination to continue fighting over a non-existent disagreement based on your bewilderingly counterfactual perception of my position on those other articles. Enjoy yourself. Largoplazo (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that it's entirely possible that other articles "I" might identify also qualify for deletion, why did you revert the nominations done earlier by me? I'll do that again and please come along and "vote", instead of reverting. Umi1903 (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me:

[in one edit summary] "The reason given for the PROD is simply false ..."
[in the other edit summary] "... because the second half of the rationale is simply false. Take it to AFD."
"I removed both your PROD tags because you repeated verbatim the rationale I gave for this article with no regard for whether it was true for those organizations. For example, neither of them, as far as I can tell, issues two certifications. One appears to issue one, the other at least four."
"The only thing I've disputed at this point was the specific PROD nomination that you submitted for each of them, where you indiscriminately and dishonestly copy-pasted my rationale from this discussion that doesn't accurately describe the situation in those articles."

You: "... why did you revert the nominations done earlier by me?"

Please do not ask me any more questions without first reading what I've already written to see whether I've already answered them four or five times. Largoplazo (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should add: There are reliable third party references in this article, whereas Institute of Internal Auditors possesses none. Umi1903 (talk) 13:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is exactly one third-party reference in this article. The others are from ICI and its branches in Belgium, Turkey, and Zimbabwe. As for the Herald reference, it is a single mention in passing, identifying ICI as the host of a conference that was the venue where the source's topic said something. Largoplazo (talk) 15:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough in-depth sourcing to show it passes WP:GNG, and doesn't pass WP:CORPDEPTH.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:39, 11 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Late Bloomer Bride[edit]

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

I’m not sure what would constitute reliable sources for this article. Most of the refs cited don’t make any use of the term at all. There is modest usage I can find in blogs and wedding websites which is where I suppose you’d expect to find it. But nothing beyond this. Mccapra (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Neologism. However, the nominators statement that "Most of the refs cited don’t make any use of the term at all" is false. When the article was nominated (along with when it was created), it contained two references cited. Both of these make use of the term and can also be viewed at the internet archive (see [3] and [4]). I believe that this was likely an error made in good faith by the nominator. MarkZusab (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apologies for not being properly clear. The two references cited in the article are blogs, which do use the term, but don’t normally qualify as reliable sources. What I meant was that of the seven external links produced, one mentions the term, one is dead, and none of the others do. Mccapra (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NEO.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:53, 14 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sy Smith Live: Worship at the Temple[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. This concert film does not have significant coverage beyond the Internet Movie Database website. The "filmbaby" source is a dead link. The recording is listed on AllMovie but it was not rated by them and no further information other than the movie title and director were given. None of the sources for "Cast & Production" mention the people listed on the article. There are also no sources on the internet to confirm the track listing. Horizonlove (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Horizonlove (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PROMO or fancruft for a concert film, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:06, 14 March 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 Mark D. No resources to proof the content is mergeable. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confetti (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC - only one of the duo, Mark D, is independently notable, not signed to a notable label, their only album was not a stellar success. This has been wholly unsourced since creation in the distant past of December 2005! and I can't find any in-depth coverage in RS. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mark D. The band existed. He was in it. I couldn't find any sources to make a merge desirable, but a redirect is appropriate. --Michig (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Peter James (talk) 21:48, 10 March 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 09:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lukasz Gadowski[edit]

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

Minor businessman, minor awards, almost no coverage, none of its appear both in-depth and reliable. The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. All coverage seems to be in passing, possible exception is the MDR piece but even if it is independent (I can't read German) it is a sole piece and regional. Awards as noted seem very minor and do not suggest the subject has signficant influence/impact on any field. Other than that is reads like your average WP:VANITY, failing WP:NBIO. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:31, 7 March 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 w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. There is only one clear !vote but the two other comments make a "soft delete" untenable. And there is no consensus for a hard delete. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ruff[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:MUSIC. No citations. May be promotional Actaudio (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator says "No citations", in the sense of "no footnotes" (how come no-one tagged it for that in the six years since article creation?), but there are 20 references (bare URLs - again no-one tagged till just now), which include at least one detailed review here which go towards GNG even if not NMUSIC. Most of the rest seem to be for the BLP1E of getting nominated for 2009 award although not winning. PamD 10:06, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines for music.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has had revisions, cleanup and information added since the original nomination. Millionaire10 wrote on the talk page he/she has an interest in working on the page (and fixing the lack of citations in the text) but may need some time (or someone to help). If the Stellar Awards are considered "notable" this could be worth building out and keeping. Actaudio (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 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 w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wabeeneeye[edit]

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

I don't see any mention of the term "Wabeeneeye" or any other likely spelling in any of the cited sources. Searching for the names of Wabeeneeye's parent clan "Majeerteen" (sometimes "Majerten" or "Majerteen") didn't turn up any mentions of the clan either. An internet search returned a few books that say they are sourced from Wikipedia articles (such as [5]), but nothing reliable. Google Scholar returns nothing other than a mere-mention in the appendix of this article, which includes it on a list of traditional Somali names. If the subject exists it may very well be notable, but I can't find any reliable evidence that it does exist, let alone that it meets any notability guideline. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 02:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been another article at this title (probably on the same topic), which was apparently turned into a redirect and then deleted in a mysterious way. Could an admin have a look at the deleted history to see if there's anything relevant there? – Uanfala (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I found this hierarchy chart [6] that describe the subclans of the Majeerteen clan. It seems to confirm it exists. Not great I know. No mention in GBooks, JStor or T&L. Whats the Force majeure on a Afd case like this? scope_creep^Talk 11:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That site sub URL is with this: [7] and this is the G search.[8] scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 10 March 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 w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Shroff[edit]

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

Non-notable subject:

While Cyril Shroff's employer, Cyril_Amarchand_Mangaldas, may barely qualify notable, this quality does not necessarily transfer onto him. Running a Google News search for his name returns only articles about said firm, with only one [[9]] referencing Shroff specifically—and even then, he only gives a short, generic quote. As this article's subject is not notable, I believe it should be deleted. HamartiaProsciuttoPharos (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyril Shroff is the Managing Partner and the Founder of one of India's biggest law firm - Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas of the erstwhile Amarchand Mangaldas and Suresh Shroff & Co. He has been consistenly ranked among the top 50 and 100 corporate lawyers in India. He is invited as an expert on various news channels, news papers and news portals to share his opinions on legal sector and financial markets. He is also a part of various committees formulated by the Indian government related to legal and financial matters, Plenty has been written about him in news articles so I do not believe this page should be deleted as he is a notable personality especially in the Indian Legal Industry. A simple google search brings up many articles related to him. Please find the references in the below links.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:22, 7 March 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Barrett (scholar)[edit]

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

I declined to speedy this as a CSD G4, because only around half of the text is identical to the version that was deleted in 2014. That said, I do believe this should be deleted. Most of the sources for the new content fail RS by a wide margin (mostly blogs and conspiracy theory websites). He seems to be mostly notable for a single event in 2006, although he has milked that into speaking engagements that might push him just beyond BLP1E if they had more mainstream coverage, but I'm not seeing it in the article. At any rate, it's different enough from the previous version to prevent me speedying it, and I think we need a new discussion of his current notability. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Basically per WP:BIO1E. The New York Times 2006 article is substantial, reliable, and primarily about the subject, but it's only a single source and only about that one event. Although the article is larded with many other sources, the rest appear to be primary, highly local, and/or not reliable. Certainly the congressional campaign and domestic violence claims do not rise to the level of notability and cannot be used to save this from BIO1E. And his academic career was over almost before it began, so WP:PROF is no help. The only other potential notability is through his speaking engagements, but I don't see significant independent coverage of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable conspiracy nut.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a conspiracy theorist/crank who fails WP:SIGCOV because sourcing is FRINGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E also agree with other AfD participants above. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:13, 14 March 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. There is clear consensus in favour of the deletion of this article on the grounds that the subject does not satisfy the requirements set forth within WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, nor WP:ANYBIO. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 01:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dayal Bahadure[edit]

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

Non notable article of Indian politician. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no evidence of passing WP:NPOL has been presented or is turned up by a quick source search. SITH (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOLITICIAN due to lack of electoral victory or a major post held, and is Unsourced BLP. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:08, 14 March 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Wasdin's perfect game[edit]

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

Not notable minor league sporting event. Please note this recent AFD. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor league no-hitters just don't get much media attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree; it's just not notable and was never a significant news story. Songwaters (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above non notable Reddragon7 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as it fails WP:GNG. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:09, 14 March 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/withdrawn. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anisopoda[edit]

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

Article has lacked any citations for its 12 years of history. Doing some very cursory research shows that the only reputable source (WoRMS) counts the genus as a synonym of Tanaidacea and not its own genus (See this link). Because of these two things, the article should most likely be deleted as it does not meet notability or informative standards, and over twelve years has not been improved enough or at all. Unless someone were to save the article y finding and incorporating some sources that hold this genus as its own, I would advocate for deletion. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 17:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the ...??? Keep. Flawed nomination. Article is about the plant genus Anisopoda, not the crustacean order Anisopoda. WoRMS is not a good source for land plants (it is not intended to be). Taxonbar shows that POWO, Tropicos, The Plant List and IPNI have records for the plant genus (these databases are intended to be good sources for plants). Even if the article were about the crustacean order, it could be turned into a redirect rather than deleted. Plantdrew (talk) 17:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel like I need a facepalm emoticon on here for this one. Sorry for the flawed nom, got my facts all twisted up. I realized too late that, doh, I was looking at the wrong taxon. Sorry once again and thanks for the speedy catch. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 00:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What the man said; once you realize this is a plant, sources are easy to come by. Added PWO listing ref, and original (1890) description ref. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't my area of expertise. Should there be a hatnote to Tanaidacea? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but I would say not. We don't need to account for every obscure scientific name that has long been disused. The most recent usage for the crustacean order I've been able to find is from 1894. Plantdrew (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now a well-sourced stub article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Error in nomination and the article is now sourced. Although more detailed sources would have been preferred, the sourcing is acceptable for the article. Hzh (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Keep. Mistakes happen.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:14, 14 March 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 08:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capsule speaker[edit]

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

This article has remained unsourced since its creation in January 2013. Most sources refer to X-mini but my redirect to that page has been reverted. Just Chilling (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - Redirect.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand or Redirect, after discussion. If you look at WP:BRD, you'll see that it's Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Revert-Delete. This could so much more simply have been discussed at the article talk: page first.
Comment - Are Capsule speakers notable? I'm unsure, as I commented last night. It comes down to whether the article scope is that of a generic term, or a named product. Clearly you see it as the brandname for X-mini and rightly redirected it there. But are X-mini themselves notable, or do they simply fail WP:MILL? I've never heard of them. Did they innovate the (generic) capsule speaker? Are they notably large manufacturers of it? Do they quietly make all the branded capsule speakers for a household-name brand? I don't know, but if they don't do one of those, I'd be inclined to AfD that article (We're an encyclopedia, not a business directory. A generic concept trumps a brand, in encyclopedic terms.) Are capsule speakers (in the generic sense) notable? I'd say yes, although the best article name could be debated too. A few years ago, no-one had such a thing. Now they're everywhere. Small children demand one for Christmas. Driven by the advent of the iPod, the MP3 player and the smartphone (all internally huge in data terms, but still physically small) it's now a commonplace need to have encapsulated speaker-amplifiers. There are a myriad brands of these. They depend on the technical innovation of Class-T amplifiers to work, they offer Bluetooth connectivity (after twenty years, finally a use for Bluetooth!), some have magnetic pickups to work from any tiny-speaker devices. They're even incorporating Li-po battery technology and USB-as-a-generic-power-socket to become energy stores and charging docks for smaller devices. But are they called 'capsule speakers' and do we already have their article elsewhere? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, your edit summary was "Restore article. Possibly delete (although I would see them as notable), but we can't imply that their only source is one minor brand." Since you apparently wished to consider deletion then here at AfD is the only viable forum to discuss it. I have added 'Redirect' to my nomination, as my preference, for clarification - redirects are cheap and this would be a useful search term. However, if it is considered a notable term but no-one is presently prepared to expand it then there is a WP:RED argument for deletion. Just Chilling (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - The opening line reads "A capsule speaker is a small self-powered auxiliary loudspeaker." So then merge it with Loudspeaker because there isn't enough content for this "capsule speaker" to be a stand-alone article. Whether or not capsule speakers are notable shouldn't be a question. This page should not have been created by itself unless there was going to be more content added to it immediately after it was created. Horizonlove (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - sorry, but we can't merge because that sentence is unsourced {and I haven't been able to source it). Just Chilling (talk) 19:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it should just be deleted. Horizonlove (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Draftify. 6 years old and still one line that is unreferenced. I would have "draftified" this (or put up as an A7 given no claim regarding notability). In terms of WP:BEFORE, I only see references to Capsule speakers with the X-mini speaker products. Outside of being name checked in X-mini speaker product reviews, no WP:SIGCOV showing any kind of independent inherent notability; probably why the article reamined unreferenced for so long. Britishfinance (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As far as I can find, the term "capsule speaker" is only ever used in context of a single line of products from X-mini. It is not a widely accepted term for any type of speaker outside of that one brand. At the very most, it could be turned into a redirect to the main X-mini page, but as this appears to be nothing but an unnotable attempt at a WP:NEO, I personally would not recommend that. 169.232.162.112 (talk) 18:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails WP:V. It's a completely unsourced microstub that has been tagged for three years. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:28, 15 March 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. Nobody except the nominator suggested to delete the article, and the keep comments seem to be variations on WP:ITSNOTABLE. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Sha[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All the references provided make no mention of the subject. Currently there's no WP:RS to establish notability. Lapablo (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that "All the references provided make no mention of the subject", references one and five are both discussing him. Using either his current rap name Big Sha or his previous one Misho Shamara. I still don't think there is enough notability for an article but atm I am going to abstain from voting. Greyjoy^talk 05:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is probably the most well-known Bulgarian rapper and anyone who's spent any amount of time in Bulgaria in the last twenty years will not have failed to have heard of him. And as for sources, a web search for his Bulgarian nickname "Мишо Шамара" comes up with literally hundreds of news items about him. – Uanfala (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a notable and influential Bulgarian rapper, with multiple hit albums and singles. One of the pioneers of Bulgarian hip-hop. Quickfingers (talk) 22:37, 9 March 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 Frog and the Peach. Notability is not inherited. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 23:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Lefebvre[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:BIO requirements for notability. A couple very brief mentions in the New York Times does not qualify as significant coverage in multiple sources. Rusf10 (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frog and the Peach. No independent notability, but some of the content about the chef is germane to the restaurant. TJRC (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose a merge as Frog and Peach page should probably be deleted due to lack of notability as well.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frog and the Peach; a decent WP:ATD-M in this case. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:58, 14 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ilaria Cucchi[edit]

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

This article is vandalism and possibly spam. So Here I'm nominating it for deletion MrZINE (talk) 07:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not vandalism or spam as what the nominator has said, so struggling to see why it is nominated. However may be needing a redirect to her brother. But I'll let more worldly people comment on her notability. Games of the world (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a poor translation (possibly a machine translation) rather than vandalism. The subject only seems to be known as someone who campaigns about her brother's death. I can't find any article about her brother, Stefano Cucchi, or his death to redirect to, but there is an article about a film based on the case. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article certainly needs work, as it does appear to have been automatically translated, but the subject does appear notable. The New York Times article says "That quest [9 years of trying to establish how her brother died in custody] — undertaken with unshakable determination — has transformed Ms. Cucchi into one of Italy’s best-known and admired human rights crusaders." There are many news sources in Italian about her and her fight for justice - it will be a matter of finding and including the most reliable and informative sources into the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable subject --5.171.188.49 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there seems enough coverage of her. But we also probably need an article about her brother, or his death: Italian wiki has Morte di Stefano Cucchi. PamD 16:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the now-blocked nominator of this AfD omitted to notify the creator of the article: I've now done so. PamD 17:08, 9 March 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. There is a clear consensus against keeping this. With regards to a redirect, which I generally favor when practicable, there does not appear to be anything supported by sources to redirect to. Unfortunately that leaves us with deletion. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton Edmund MacCormac[edit]

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

Completely unverifiable. Doesn't seem to be mentioned in the first source, and while I can't check the second one, that source is about a different MacCormac, Henry. Worse, I can't find any reference to this Hamilton Edmund (or Edmond) MacCormac (or MacCormack) in any online source (regular or Books). Fram (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Henry MacCormac (physician) is another brother (e.g. see this manuscript addressed to his brother). I don't see how Hamilton MacCormac passes GNG - not on the sources here nor with what I'm able to drag up in a search (and this is the sort of period where just about everything is digitized and out of copyright - should be easy to find). Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the section of John MacCormac where he is mentioned. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That section is unreferenced as well, so perhaps of redirecting there we should remove that section as well? The source given by Icewhiz doesn't seem to mention any Hamilton either... Fram (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and add to MacCormac family of County Armagh, Northern Ireland. One line should do. Narky Blert (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the reliable evidence for this Hamilton? Fram (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no consensus whether there is an appropriate redirect target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can read a bit of the second source on Google books, just enough to confirm the name and story about being improperly jailed. It says he was the brother of the timber merchant. However, not nearly enough to build a biography on, nor enough to show he was notable. His family was prominent in Sierra Leone's history, but the seems to be little said of him. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:01, 14 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Catt[edit]

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

The only reference used doesn't mention him explicitly or directly support him. I failed to find other RS outside. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. A very well known indie producer, who was effectively also a studio member of Saint Etienne. I found a few items of coverage: [10], [11], [12], [13]. --Michig (talk) 09:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found above, two of them substantial. Just about passing WP:GNG. Hzh (talk) 15:33, 14 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fuselier[edit]

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

Non-notable county sheriff. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The sources used in this article are: 1) a link to the funeral home memorial description for his predecessor, which appears to have been deleted by the funeral home; 2), 3), and 4) are simply a list of election results; 5) the bio of his successor on the St. Martin Parish Sheriff's department website; 6) a copy of a speech recognizing him on the LA state house floor (not uncommon); 7) a resolution more or less doing the same; 8) a link to the LA secretary of state's website that simply establishes that he and his wife are registered to vote; and 9) a list of members of the Louisiana Political Hall of Fame which he is a member of but its not a particularly notable achievement. GPL93 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:42, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county sheirrifs are not default notable. Not enough coverage to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of five sheriffs in the Louisiana Political Museum and Hall of Faame. Also a National Sheriff of the Year 70.123.203.24 (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC) — 70.123.203.24 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ―MattLongCT -Talk-^☖ 06:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:52, 7 March 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. The discussion was lightly attended so no prejudice to re-nomination, but it does seem that a merger discussion might be a fruitful alternative to deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Baeksang Arts Awards for Best Supporting Actress (TV)[edit]

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

I am also bundling the following related articles into this nomination:

I think these are unnecessary content forks. Perhaps they could be merged into a master list but I'm not seeing significant coverage to warrant an article on each sub-category. SITH (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are WP:SPLITS or WP:SPINOFFS, not "content forks", a term that implies a duplication (and typically a POV one) rather than a subtopic. If you are asking for merger of these to the parent article, that's not a deletion request and so should have been pursued through normal editing and discussion. postdlf (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are valid splits from a notable article and reincorporating them all into the parent article would make it of a size that would slow down access on slow internet especially on mobile and that is the main reason articles are split in the first place, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If they're kept then attribution needs to be added for compliance with Wikipedia licensing requirements, since Khgg19 seems to have created these with cut/paste rather than following WP:SPINOUT. Bakazaka (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Baeksang Arts Awards. Articles too insubstantial and unsourced to merit individual articles themselves, also they don't demonstrate that they are notable. The main article is not substantial enough itself to warrant splitting. Redirect will also be OK for some of them as they appear to be insignificant. Hzh (talk) 15:39, 14 March 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. No prejudice against renomination Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Murswieck[edit]

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

De-prodded, original concern was Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:PROF, fails WP:GNG. Atlantic306's contest was deprod as worldcat shiws 852 library holdings which is an indicator of notability for authors however I don't think a mere number of entries constitutes significant coverage. SITH (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep having a large number of library holdings is used by experienced editors such as @DGG: to indicate that there must have been a fair number of reviews of the author's works in reliable sources that are offline if not online, we should not be ruled over by google as what should be included, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:49, 7 March 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carmarthen Amateur Operatic Society[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since creation in February 2010. Created by a SPA. I cannot find in-depth coverage in RS. Fails WP:ORG. Delete. Just Chilling (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources to support this (I don’t have time to add today but I’ll come back to it). The significance lies in its being the oldest musical society in Wales. Mccapra (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 07:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should be very slow to assume there are no decent sources for such a venerable organisation. The question is not whether Google knows about it. Rathfelder (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 1891 is not that old, and the claim is unsourced. The Madrigal Society, for instance, dates back to at least 1744. I don't think keeping on the basis of age alone is justified, but I have no comment on whether it is actually notable. SpinningSpark 00:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the claim of being "the oldest musical society in Wales" also looks not to be correct - see Melingriffith Brass Band and Treorchy Male Choir. Just Chilling (talk) 00:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 12:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We have a claim of significance in the article that isn't true, and a claim on this page that sources will be added, also apparently untrue. All we are left with is a claim that the organisation exists, which is uncited. Fails WP:NORG big time. SpinningSpark 14:25, 7 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Express[edit]

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

Run of the mill company, no in depth coverage. Fails NCORP. Praxidicae (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence provided of significant notability. We already have User:Allied_Express and it appears to company has been trying to promote itself here for a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Passing coverage only. Submissions for articles on this company should be treated with suspicion, since they have been trying via numerous accounts to force an article into Wikipedia since 2015. Yunshui ^雲 _水 12:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:44, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There is a little bit of non trival coverage but not enough. It is a relatively well known company in Australia. If this article is kept then it needs balance, currently POV in so far as it fails to mention the Christmas delivery failure which saw it get roasted in at least three major social media and review sites which was also picked up by mainstream IRS media. Aoziwe (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, given the history. This is corporate spam. I've blocked the creator for UPE. MER-C 17:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in depth coverage not available. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & salt - recurrent spam. Cabayi (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:44, 12 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Albaina[edit]

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

~~This place does exist, see here (click on the marker item on the right centre) but I can't find coverage of this outside WP's mirrors.~~ This article has existed since September 2004 and yet doesn't exist on any other projects (eg Spanish Wikipedia) and is still marked as "coord missing" (since October 2008). It has been marked as unsourced since 2009 [14] and was prodded in March 2014 for lack of existance by Kaldari and again yesterday for not being able to find sources. ~~Either it should be deleted or if its location can be sourced in say Cayo District it can be merged there.~~ Note that there is another in Spain. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale: I don't see anything at that link about Albaina. I see Armenia, Belize, but no Albaina. Am I missing it? Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kaldari yes I see that the place near Choro Creek is Armenia, not Albaina. I would usually not nominate an article for deletion if its shown on a map but given that I couldn't find anything for Albaina, I did so, I just didn't notice the difference between "Albaina" and "Armenia" due to the fact that Armenia is also in the Cayo District, on Hummingbird Highway, south of Belmopan. I therefore am confident that the place doesn't exist (or is very local and NN). I suspect that the author, Belizian probably like me thought that this was Armenia and that this wasn't a (deliberate) hoax but if it was it would be the oldest, see Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. Possibly we could redirect to Armenia, Belize but I don't think that's a likely misspelling and as noted there is a place in Spain with this name. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that Roaring Creek, Belize which was created 2 minutes before Albaina by the same user definitely exists (per maps) although its still unsourcd and has no interwiki. There is an article at es:Albaina on the Spanish one though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I checked Google Maps and did some research. All I found was a trivial mention in [15] (not counting WP:CIRCULAR sources), and I also saw that there is an Armenia but no Albaina on the map. This alone definitely is not enough for the topic to satisfy WP:GNG, as there is hardly any coverage in only one source and no coordinates are given; hence, delete. ComplexRational (talk) 02:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't surprise me if the vacation website is also WP:CIRCULAR. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is probably Armenia? Albaina is not in the Belizean census. SportingFlyer T·C 02:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite my best efforts to find this village, my searches all came up empty. There is a village of Albaina in Castile and León but not in Belize. Even on the ArcGIS map of Belizean settlements there's no place called Albaina, but like others have said there is an "Armenia" off Hummingbird Highway which may have been the intended subject. Elspamo4 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Đorđe Alfirević[edit]

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

Non-notable architect, article is most likely an autobiography. The article contains no independent sources and no evidence of notability. A Google search revealed no significant coverage in independent reliable sources (just a few listings as architect and some PR activities and announcements). GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a clear promotional effort without sources to establish notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think reliable sources for the subject exist. The only search results I can find for him are non-independent of Alfirević (his books, websites, etc.). (Also note that, if you search his name in Google News, some results for 'Gradnja.rs' come up-- this site appears to not be independent of the subject either.) Gilded Snail (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No remote pass of WP:Prof or WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as I also couldn't find any WP:RS to satisfy WP:Prof or WP:Author --Theredproject (talk) 10:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of independent sources Reddragon7 (talk) 04:31, 11 March 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. Strike 1, strike 2, strike 3 you're out! No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Merit[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM.

Round Table, BR Ambedkar Caravan are not remotely reliable sources. N

Some random pieces about death of Dalit students have been cited in the article but I don't see about how they boost the notability of the subject, which is a documentary series. N

So, I conducted a WP:BEFORE. Accordingly:--

I spot a few trivial one-liner mentions over sources like this and this. Does not lend to significant coverage; required for passing GNG. N

There's another one-liner over this news-piece which is more significant than the two above but that's a blatant opinion piece (see this RSN thread as to the source not distinguishing between op-eds and objective reporting) and is of much reduced value. N

Scroll has covered the series over one of their articles but they have been unanimously documented to be not a RS for these areas. N

That leaves us with it's plot-coverage by the local city-section of The Hindu; which is hardly enough to make it pass GNG/NFILM. ∯WBG^converse 13:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 14:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 09:57, 7 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shahnaz Shoro[edit]

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

The sources are either not independent being from her publisher or hand-out bios from talks she's given, or not WP:SIGCOV being catalogue entries, or written by her rather than about her. She fails to meet WP:NAUTHOR as a writer and WP:NACADEMIC as an assistant professor. Cabayi (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Nothing here to warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. FitIndia ^Talk 10:42, 12 March 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. The additional week yielded little in the way of discussion. I don't believe we have consensus here. Fenix down (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Knattspyrnufélag Reykjavíkur season[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS and WP:NOTSTATS. Also, club does not play in a fully professional league. Davidsousa1 (talk) 05:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same aforementioned reasons:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even with a number of fotbotli articles, seems to pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 05:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources look good. I agree this passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what sources are the ones giving significant coverage to this season, and not routine events in the season? Giant Snowman 10:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the standard for these articles is now having significant coverage of the entire season in one article? SportingFlyer T·C 14:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSEASONS. Number 5 7 11:53, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The biggest club of the most popular sport in the country. Plenty of coverage in the national media [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Dammit_steve (talk) 18:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily passes WP:GNG. The idea that sources have to cover everything about the entire season in one article is completely ridiculous and not at all how GNG works. In virtually every case, you're not going to have a single source covering every single part of the article. The arguments above are completely absurd and frankly I want to use much stronger words to describe them but I'll bite my tongue bearing in mind WP:CIVIL. Smartyllama (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles fail WP:NSEASONS as KR don't play in a fully pro league. Fails WP:GNG because only routine stuff like transfers and match results are cited. KR's 2014 season was deleted five years ago. Dougal18 (talk) 08:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- These are not routine stuff [24][25][26][27][28] Dammit_steve (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure there is consensus one way or the other. The articles seem to be well sourced but other editor's are claiming that the sources are routine. More t8me needed to discuss that element.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Source 1 is transfer related, source 2 is a prediction, sources 4 to 30 are transfer news or stats (sometimes from KR's own site), 31 to 52 deal with match reports and 53 to 55 are the same thing cited 3 times. My knowledge of Icelandic is non existent so I can't decide on the newspaper articles.Dougal18 (talk) 19:03, 8 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Chaudhary[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be any coverage of the subject beyond mere mentions. I wasn't able to find anything significant searching for the subject's name online in English and what Google Translate says is the Hindi spelling, although it's possible I missed something that a Hindi-speaker could find. The Youtube videos cited do not appear to be significant coverage of the subject either, although as someone who does not speak Hindi it's possible I missed something. Does not meet WP:GNG. Finally, according to the article, the subject's most significant achievements are appointments to positions within the BJP and its youth wing, and winning an election to student government at Delhi University, which seems a long ways short of WP:NPOLITICIAN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 07:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject doesn't meet NPOLITICIAN, and I'm inclined to think the subject doesn't meet GNG either. Most of the current sources are either links to Youtube videos, or articles that either don't include Chaudhary, or only have a passing mention of her. Searching 'Priya Chaudhary BJP' and similar queries doesn't return anything good either. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN as lack of electoral victory or major post held. --DBig Xrayᗙ 05:10, 14 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bello Bala Shagari[edit]

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

No significant independent coverage in reliable sources, all coverage available is either trivial or directly quoting the subject. Searching online, it appears that the subject has recently won an award[29], but it's unclear to me that this award is notable enough to meet WP:ANYBIO. Their only other claim to notability (other than their notable grandfather) is that they are the president of the National Youth Council of Nigeria, but as a youth organization that doesn't appear to meet WP:NPOLITICIAN.

As an additional note, this article has been repeatedly created at the title Bello Shagari, as well as having been submitted as a draft to AfC by various known sockpuppets (and this article itself was created by a sockpuppet who was banned a few weeks afterward). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:18, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The persons notability is not in question as described in this article which is an independent coverage and reliable source according to this article: BELLO BALA-SHAGARI: Shooting star who considers the future distractive. Read more at: [30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anas Usman (talk • contribs) 13:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While Vanguard Nigeria is an independent source, almost all of the coverage in that article is quotes from the subject, which means that the coverage is not independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 07:01, 7 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plainfield Curling Club[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the WP:AUD requirement of WP:ORG since all sources are local. A truly notable organization would have coverage outside of the local area. The previous AFD resulted in no consensus. Rusf10 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article looks fine and coverage in sources such as the Genovese book is adequate to demonstrate notability. Andrew D. (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with Andrew D.Djflem (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The strictest relevant requirement of WP:AUD is "at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary". Of 15 current references at least NJ101.5, the Genovese book, njcurling.org, NJTV (in External links) and others cover the state. The Hi's Eye and North Jersey articles are at least regional and provide non-trivial reference. Zomno (talk) 18:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the Genovese book is essentially a travel guide, something Wikipedia is not (see WP:NOTTRAVEL). The rest of the sources are local to New Jersey. It also does not meet the curling guidelines (see WP:CURLING/AG)--Rusf10 (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N/A: Where does it say in the cited policy (An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. If you do wish to help write a travel guide, your contributions would be welcome at our sister project, Wikivoyage.) that travel guides cannot be used as references? It doesn't.Djflem (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 12 March 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, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Iffy★Chat -- 11:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beijing Daoxiangcun v. Beijing Sudao Food Industry Co., and Suzhou Daoxiangcun[edit]

Beijing Daoxiangcun v. Beijing Sudao Food Industry Co., and Suzhou Daoxiangcun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lacks reliable sources, unfocused and hard to understand, reads almost like a news story. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)~~ Because of a strong argument made on my talk page, I withdraw my nomination. PrussianOwl (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marni Spillane[edit]

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

Actress who basically has had just 2 roles, with one being a unotable role (playing girl #3). Article has been here for an amazing 13 years with very little to add on (it isn't like the person is deceased and was notable enough to let this fly by). Not the longest amount of time for a AFD to go up sure, but still, page has been up way too long. Should be deleted Wgolf (talk) 04:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Not even sure if her other role is that notable either. Wgolf (talk) 04:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just as shocked as nom about this pages longevity. Fails all of our notability criteria. If it weren't for this Wikipedia page someone would be hard pressed to find this BLPs existence.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Heh, I only found it because I was looking under the shortest BLP's (which I found a bunch of odd ones that were deleted per AFD years ago when I did that), still some are hidden in the depths of Wikipedia. (There was a search tool I used a few years back for short articles I was able to get AFD' but that search tool is dead now) Wgolf (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even close. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:34, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find anything to indicate notability. Aoziwe (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NACTOR, appears to be only one major role in a local (oz-wide) film that was not picked up internationally (a curiosity as to why she didnt continue her acting?), nothing else out there in googleland. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:01, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article lacks any reliable sources. It is really time we mass remove all the articles that lack any source other than IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
comment-well I have found some that do have some notability that have only the IMDB, just never found a good link for them. (I almost did XFD one person who just had a IMDB link until I found out she was a Emmy nominated screenwriter) Wgolf (talk) 01:39, 9 March 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. If anyone wants to merge this, can either do through WP:BOLD or by gaining a talk page consensus. In any way, nobody supports deletion, and charting WP:NMUSIC argument was never refuted. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quo (group)[edit]

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

Article is about a hip-hop duo but makes no claims to notability and is basically a discography. No Sources . The duo have been active for only a couple of years and I can't see any evidence of success/recognition/reliable coverage online. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC Akhiljaxxn (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this boils down to whether the chart positions on two Billboard charts for one of their singles is enough to make them notable – those chart positions can be confirmed [31], [32]. Coverage in Billboard is very brief: there are some details about the group members and release date for their album here [33], and a couple of even briefer passing mentions [34], [35]. Struggling to find anything that talks about the duo enough to create anything more than a stub article. Perhaps the verifiable charting information about the single could be merged to Wade Robson#Early career where the group are already mentioned. Richard3120 (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 01:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:Music, an artist is notable if "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." They have a charting single (2 really as one of their other singles made it on one of Billboard's Bubbling under charts), they were signed to a major label, affiliated with Michael Jackson, their album featured several notable producers (i.e. Redman and Teddy Riley). The article probably wont go past stub level but they are notable. Beast from da East (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They were basically a one-hit wonder, but they meet the conditions set for musical notability by having a charting hit and album. I remember the promotions from the time (the other act being promoted was Brownstone, which made it somewhat bigger!) Orderinchaos 08:01, 9 March 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kadie Lynn Roberson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A run of the mill talent show article. She did not make it far and fails WP:ANYBIO. The award does not mean notable. AmericanAir88^(talk) 00:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 00:57, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. In 2017, she received an award from the Texas Country Music Hall of Fame. [36] However, notability is still not satisfied. I'm seeing significant coverage in this 2018 blog article, but that's an unreliable source. Also her DOB needs to be removed, as she's a minor. wumbolo ^^^ 22:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Reed (artist)[edit]

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

Concerned about the notability of the artist and appears to be a lack of sources. Based on edit history, appears to be a conflict of interest 9H48F (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 04:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot find a single independent source.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable artist, would only find a book of his here [37] and nothing much to support GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also couldn't find sufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:Author --Theredproject (talk) 10:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not able to find any independent reliable sources. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:53, 11 March 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 is that the topic is notable. There is also consensus to rename. I'm moving to Mobile theatre in Assam, but further discussion can continue on talk. Whether to merge or repurpose can also be discussed on talk. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 22:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile theatre[edit]

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

There is already an article named Street theater that means about the same thing. But this article is written solely from the perspective of assamese street plays. I would say either a rename to "street plays in assam" or redirect to street plays or deletion is required. Daiyusha (talk) 01:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to street theater or soft delete by reedirecting if the content is not salvageable. I am not sure if travelling theater is the same are a street one; particularly historically I think there may be some interesting overlap between such a concept and a circus. But this poorly written article that claims the phenomenon is limited to a single Indian state borders on WP:TNT. In the current form maybe a few minor facts and refs could be merged into the street theater, if anyone feels like salvaging something from this? Otherwise a simple redirect with a small note on the other article's talk page that some half-relevant content is available in edit history of this may be the best solution. PS. There is also a slight possibility that there is a local unique form of theater, like Tamasha, and that the article needs a better name and a rewrite... but this really need an input from an expert on Indian theater. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on "Indian theater", but I can safely say that this is in no way limited to Assam only, It happens in the south of India(Telugu_drama#Kinds_of_theatre) as well, and its pretty popular(or should I say "was") during the festive seasons. Basically people set up a temporary stage on the road, made of wooden poles and planks and act out their plays. Every Indian state has its own history about it, but overall the setup is the same, after a week or two the setup is removed. I believe it comes under street play as well, having a makeshift stage should be considered to be a type of "street play". Daiyusha (talk) 08:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'm from Assam and I know well about it but unfortunately I could not write the first article of Mobile Theatre with a proper information, but I have recently edited this article. you may have a look. Mobile Theatre which you are guessing to be a kind of Street Play is not what you assume. The way tamasha is native to maharashtra, the Mobile Theatre is also native to my home state Assam. There are several articles and information available online, you can search it. It can not be a sub-genre of street Play or something like that. Its an another genre of its own which is native to Assam. You said mobile theatre is synonymous to that telugu drama which takes place in the south, but I ensure, Mobile theatre is a complete different theme in comparison to the telugu drama. The Mobile Theatre travells from different regions to another one, specially in rural Assam, and stages their plays, and after all the plays being staged, they shift to a new place carrying all their casts, tents, crews, chairs,costumes,pandals etc.They never stick to one place. There are several research articles available online which clearly cites this as native to assam. May be the sources which I took help from were unreliable or something, but to my conscience it is a must needed artice because, its a popular trend in assam and people doesnot know about it well, and there is not a single page about this subject. unlike Jatra, street play ,Mobile theatre is a different genre and it can never be merged with Street Play or something.Please read the article once again and reply to this chat.Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ankur Jyoti Dewri: The problem is with the title, mobile theatre is something that can have a lot of meanings, ihere a native name for these plays, if yes the article might better be renamed to that. If no, I believe its better if we create a page named Drama in Assam, like how the telugu page does, and put it there instead. Regardless they are the same as what happens in the other states of India, and is not certainly unique to Assam. The script for the drama may be different, but the setup, the "tents" and all are the same. The correct word I was looking for is stage plays.They do happen and troupes do move places.

can you please elaborate why is the title as Mobile Theatrenot appropriate. The term is being used in many other sources in internet and books also. In Assamese it is called " "Bhramyomaan Theatre", bhramyomaan means something which is not stable, travelling. Many writers, researchers have been using the title, that's how you can search in the internet by typing "Mobile Theatre", how can you change the title of a genre which has been used for decades. Please search the internet by typing "Mobile Theatre of Assam" and you'll get to know. There was not a separate page for Mobile Theatre, that doesn't mean the existence of the genre or the title is unrealistic.

Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk) 11:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@@Ankur Jyoti Dewri: When I google "Mobile theatre", there are no mentions of the assamese plays. Most search results are about this. That's my point, mobile theatre doesn't directly imply assamese plays. Maybe mobile theatres of assam could be better Daiyusha (talk) 12:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Daiyusha okay "Mobile Theatre of Assam" would be a better option. So the Title should be renamed as that, right ?

Ankur Jyoti Dewri (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Draft:Mobile theatres of Assam, for two reasons.

A quick google search shows plenty of reliable sources to make a proper article, but this current article is not up to standard for Wikipedia.
Street theater doesn't go into any depth on different theaters around the world, so it'd be hard to merge the information from this article to Street theater, making a move to a draft the best course of action.

Hecseur (talk) 09:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Mobile theatre in Assam. I don't think the kind of theatre being discussed here is Street theatre because there are tents for the audience and, I guess, audiences pay to see the show - the Street theatre article makes it clear that free access is one of its characteristics. There are other mobile theatre groups around the world, such as Mikron Theatre Company in England - four actors, travelling by canal boat in summer, by van in spring and autumn, some ticketed shows and other "pay as you feel" shows. Not street theatre, but definitely mobile. There may be scope for an article about Mobile theatre, but it would cover a huge range of travelling shows across time and space ... with some overlaps with circus as mentioned above, and with our Traveling carnival article. PamD 11:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And Touring theatre is an 8-year-old unsourced article specifically about shows which tour to different theatres ... something within the same spectrum. PamD 11:36, 11 March 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ganool[edit]

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

Non-notable torrent site, doesn't read like an article, no RS. PrussianOwl (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PROMO, no indication of significance. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:25, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT. Jmertel23 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I honestly agree that it is not notable enough and does not have enough coverage. (Note it is not a torrent site) Mosaicberry (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: verging on {{db-web}} territory. SITH (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with any other connected websites for unambiguous spam. "The site has gone through possibly over one hundred domains." nuff said. Graywalls (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you even mean lol Mosaicberry (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was a quote from the article. If it's true, this is just another iteration of the domains they have been going through which lowers the justification for having a page for this domain. Graywalls (talk) 03:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page on the website, not the domain, have you even read the page?

In addition, what do you mean by 'Delete any other connected websites for unambiguous spam'? Mosaicberry (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not have enough courage. Reddragon7 (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:SNOW.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:13, 11 March 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] ttps://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/we-want-to-transform-india-s-legal-market-with-help-of-tech-cyril-shroff-119022101206_1.html

[2] ttp://www.forbesindia.com/article/special/if-you-look-through-the-irritants-india-is-a-terrific-opportunity-cyril-shroff/42975/1

[3] ttps://www.livemint.com/Companies/cMTnz9x0Vfe9UIjOlFGGUK/Accepting-changes-is-the-DNA-of-Amarchand-says-Cyril-Shroff.html

[4] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE2nIn88yvU

[5] ttps://whoswholegal.com/profiles/63947/0/shroff/cyril-shroff/

[6] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/company/corporate-trends/cyrus-mistrys-ouster-tata-global-beverages-appoints-cyril-shroff-for-defence/articleshow/55465344.cms

[7] ttp://www.moneycontrol.com/elite/profile/cyril-shroff_2783.html

[8] ttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/sebi-forms-panel-to-frame-rules-for-direct-listing-of-indian-firms-abroad/articleshow/64559762.cms

[9] ttps://clp.law.harvard.edu/assets/Cyril-Shroff.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]