Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 October	29 October >

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. MER-C 10:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theater-by-the Grove[edit]

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

This article about a college theatre company has been flagged for notability since 2014 because it lacks any independent sources. Search suggests there are the usual routine, local articles about plays produced by the company, but not the sort of coverage that would indicate notability. List of awards from the Kennedy Center American College Theater Festival looks impressive until you notice they are regional-level, not national, and most of them are for individual students, not the program as such. RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just a college theatre company. Nothing encyclopedic or unusual about it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Per Nom, Clearly lacks enough coverage to pass a notability criteria Kakaey (talk) 06:31, 4 November 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. Tone 11:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Star Camp[edit]

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

Non-notable summer camp with no reliable sources. The only sources are primary and a funeral website. Highly promotional as well. Fails WP:ORG AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a funeral listing is not the type of indepth 3rd party sourcing we use to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 2 November 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. Tone 11:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Menominee[edit]

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

No reliable sources to prove notability for the inclusion of the camp. Parts of the article are highly promotional. Original research of a non-notable summer camp failing WP:ORG AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete one industry specific outside article is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 2 November 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. Rough consensus that the article doesn't meet the notability requirements for an EVENT per WP:LASTING (as in reliable sources - this is not an indication it doesn't have personal lasting effects) Nosebagbear (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Christopher Stewart and Deanna Rivers[edit]

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

A DUI case, while tragic, does not meet the threshold of WP:EVENT. Contested PROD. Cabayi (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 22:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. A very tragic case, but it is a sadly common occurrence. The sport player hashtag is not enough to justify encyclopedic inclusion. AmericanAir88^(talk) 22:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was a tragic event that got a blip of national coverage due to a social media campaign, but it does not appear to have WP:LASTING interest or impact beyond the routine crime-trial-punishment news cycle. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, nor is it a memorial. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad, yes, but otherwise does not meet the requirements for WP:NOTNEWS. --Darth Mike^(talk) 15:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Page creator User:ImYourTurboLover left a talk page message stating they "object to the deletion because the event gained national coverage (I cited sources), and still affects people years later." --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that it doesn't show sufficient organisational/corporate notability Nosebagbear (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommon Grounds Coffeehouse[edit]

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

This has survived attempts to speedy delete and PROD it. Tagged for notability since 2015, it’s about a local business with local coverage, Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a platform for promotion or advertising WP:NOTPROMO. Also, fails ORGDEPTH. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGDEPTH in that coverage is trivial and limited. The article also does have an excessively promotional tone and I agree it violates WP:NOTPROMO. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 19:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not sure how this would survive speedy as it is an unremarkable company. Nothing in the article or online meets the standards of WP:NCORP. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:04, 29 October 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. Tone 11:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bat-Cow[edit]

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

Minor fictional creature with no real-world notability. I found four sentences in a Mental Floss listicle and occasional passing mentions from pop culture websites such as Newsarama and CBR. None of this is significant coverage, not even cumulatively. Best case is for this to be a search-term redirect to List of Batman supporting characters, where the Bat-Cow is already mentioned, but an attempt to redirect was reverted. RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. RL0919 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In-Universe cruft that doesn't show up on the Google radarscope thingie in any meaningful way. Fails GNG spectacularly. This is not a hoax, however, as has been speculated on an off-wiki forum, but this is the equivalent of a "biography" of a transformer or a pog... P.S. Thanks to the nominator for bringing this here after I reversed the unilateral decision to redirect. Process is important... Carrite (talk) 02:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I think the initial WP:BOLD redirect was appropriate, and redirects are WP:CHEAP. As nominator stated, all the info is there. -2pou (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has a full page entry in the DC Super-Pets Character Encyclopedia and so seems as valid as any of the other animal superheroes. Andrew D. (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That "encyclopedia" is in-universe fictional material, not an independent source that shows notability. --RL0919 (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Batman supporting charactersDelete There are no significant reliable sources to indicate any sort of independent notability for this character (and no, an entirely in-universe children's book is not a reliable source). Rorshacma (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had initially supported Redirecting, under the notion of WP:REDIRECTSARECHEAP, and that the character was already listed on said page. However, looking further into this, the character is ridiculously minor, with no reliable secondary sources discussing it, and utterly fails the WP:GNG. Instead of being redirected to the Batman supporting characters list, it should really just be deleted, and have its entry removed from that target article to prevent that list from being a mess of unsourced, non-notable info. Rorshacma (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I laugh at the idea that an entry in the in-universe Super-pets Character Encyclopedia means that we must have a separate entry too. Reywas92^Talk 23:53, 3 November 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. Tone 11:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Likhoradka[edit]

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

dubious, unreferenced since early 2018 Staszek Lem (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep (see below). I'm pretty dubious about the veracity of this content, to say the least, although I'm open to being surprised and proven wrong. "Likhoradka" is a Romanization of the Russian Лихорадка, the perfectly normal everyday word for fever. This article posits an earlier meaning of that word as a type of evil spirit. If that's the case, I'd expect it to be much better documented that this appears to be! Mike Dixon-Kennedy's Encyclopedia of Russian & Slavic Myth and Legend is probably the best book-length scholarly treatment of Slavic myth, and there is zero mention of likhoradka or tryasavitsa within. I do see likhordka used in this sense (along with the connection to Chernobog) in the appendices of Gaja Jezernik Kos's books — but these are fictional works, and do not approach in any way a reliable source. Otherwise, these two spirit names show up here and there on self-published Wordpress sites and the like. I may be missing something here, but I really don't think so. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The page is unsourced, but the subject is legitimate and can be easily sourced. One can check ru:Лихорадка (мифология) or even Google books [1],[2]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. That Russian article is pretty terrible by our standards. From what I can tell, the Vladimir Shuklin source looks pretty solid, and has gone through at least two printings; I'm willing to accept it sight-unseen as reliable. I'm worried about how many different terms are attributed to the same type of creature as well; there's a concern that the Russian article might be making a WP:COATRACK out of several mythological elements. Regardless, our English article is still terrible: the bit about Chernobog in particular doesn't appear to have any correspondence with the sourced Russian version. You're likely right that there's enough here to write an article, ideally in the hands of someone far more fluent in Russian than I am! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 1 November 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 Trinidad and Tobago. Tone 11:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

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

There has never been an entity known as the "Dominion of Trinidad and Tobago". Between 1962 and 1976 Trinidad and Tobago was an independent country that retained Queen Elizabeth as its head of state, but it was never a "Dominion". Legally it was simply "Trinidad and Tobago"; the 1962 Constitution doesn't mention the term "dominion". The Independence Act only uses the term when it says that military forces raised in TT will be treated as those raised in Dominions under a law passed in 1933, before the idea of independent non-Dominions had been envisioned.

This is not to say that the term was never used - there are some examples of usage on the talk page, but they are vanishingly few and none constitute more than passing mention. It's a reasonable colloquial term that someone familiar with the usage of "Dominion" as it was used for countries that became independent before WWII (and for a few of the early stages of independence of some of the others), Wikipedia shouldn't be in the practice of making up names for countries that they don't, themselves, use. Guettarda (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge The Dominion of T&T is the same entity as T&T, just with the Queen as head of state rather than its president. Trinidad_and_Tobago#Post-independence_era and History_of_Trinidad_and_Tobago#20th-century_political_development are the place for this constitutional change, not an article describing a fictional entity. Reywas92^Talk 21:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Trinidad and Tobago. It might be a plausible search term, so could perhaps be a redirect. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the appropriate history articles. There was never a polity with this name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 2 November 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 Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). Clearest consensus amongst Deletes and Keeps is to merge; reasonable argument as to why a Redirect would not make sense given other uses of term. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gem dragon[edit]

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

Non-notable D&D topic TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) without substantial merge. Now, what's already there is arguably already too detailed, and the target article is a mess that will require cleanup, but the iconic dragon of D&D has certainly attracted sufficient out-of-universe attention to be a notable topic, so we can safely redirect there without fear of the target falling pray to domino deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual list items should be notable. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment WP:LISTN literally says the opposite. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 12:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of articles and the subject is not notable. I also could not find appropriate sources for the article, as when doing a search, I came across sites that don't appear to be reliable sources and unrelated things. Also see WP:ENN. --LPS and MLP Fan (Littlest Pet Shop) (My Little Pony) 22:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 23:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dragons may be a big thing within the D&D universe, but people seem to be confusing in-universe importance with notability, of which I see no evidence of. I'm not entirely sure Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) will survive an AfD. Either way, it should be deleted as there is nothing of note to merge, but I also support Merge/Redirect over keeping._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keepor merge Dragon (Dungeons & Dragons) AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The lack of reliable secondary sources demonstrates why the article should not be kept. I was initially going to support Squeamish Ossifrage's suggestion for a Redirect without a merge. However, doing some searches shows that the term "gem dragon" has been uses for plenty of other minor fictional creatures from other games and franchises. And as the D&D version demonstrates nothing to show that it is any more notable than those other uses, Redirecting it to the D&D related article over anything else does not make sense. Rorshacma (talk) 16:12, 2 November 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. MER-C 10:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ecobranding[edit]

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

This article seems to serve a promotional purpose for the advertising agency “Royalties-Ecobranding”. The link “About” on the home page of the agency’s website^[1] directs to Wikipedia’s Ecobranding article. This agency has a Wikipedia page under their former name Royalties.

In its introduction, the article presents Ecobranding as an eco-designed graphic and artistic movement. The author of the article, Robert Petit added Ecobranding to the list of 21st century Art movement which has been removed since then.

The Origins section of the page specifies that Ecobranding started when designer Sylvain Boyer envisioned a more ecological method of creating visual identities (in French, “ecological” is a synonym of “environmental”). A reading of the 2017 web sources provided in the article ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] make it clear that Ecobranding was endorsed as a personal project of Sylvain Boyer rather than as an Artistic Movement. In the same Origins section, the author specifies that Sylvain Boyer created in 2018 a company named Ecobranding in collaboration with the agency Royalties. Without prior sources to confirm this information, I assume that the author of the article Robert Petit must be Sylvain Boyer or someone from Royalties-Ecobranding.

Other instances of Ecobranding can be found on the web such as a website^[6] presenting samples of design works and linking Sylvain Boyer’s personal email address, a Behance portfolio^[7] linking to the former website and a GitHub repository^[8] linking to the “Ecobranding Foundation” website^[9] which automatically redirects to the Royalties-Ecobranding website.

My conclusion is that Ecobranding is not an artistic movement but de facto the personal design practice of Sylvain Boyer and the agency Royalties he is related to. This article is written without neutrality and behind an open-source/artistic appearance serves a promotional purpose. My opinion is that even if this page was written with neutrality, Ecobranding would not present an encyclopedic value.

Other contributions by Robert Petit have been deleted as they were considered promotional such as his mention of Sylvain Boyer’s “FriendlyUI” on the article Light-on-dark color scheme or his mention of Royalties being the author of the 2024 Summer Olympics’ logo on the article of the event. Raoul Anodin (talk) 18:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete this article when the sources are verified, and when the only aims to this article is to improve and preserve the world in which we live and this regardless of any financial considerations, Ecobranding is for all, and must be improve with all, do you want to deprive us of it? Robert Petit (talk)

Dear @Robert Petit, although it is not listed in What Wikipedia is not and although it is a beautiful aim that I strongly support, I do not think that to preserve the world is in the entitlement of Wikipedia. In addition to that, the sources I joined to this article clearly show that Royalties-Ecobranding and Sylvain Boyer indeed have financial considerations regarding “Ecobranding.” I invite you to answer the points I raised if you disagree with my perspective. Regards, Raoul Anodin (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the subject has received some coverage, it is so over-the-top promotional that it cannot be salvaged other than by a complete rewrite. What I found particularly grating are some of the claims made in the dark mode section which reads as if it was invented by Boyer and subsequently adopted by Google and Apple. No source claims that, and it's patently untrue. Vexations (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://royalties-ecobranding.com/
^ "Designer tweaks famous logos to use less ink". CNN. November 29, 2017.
^ "Eco-Friendlier Versions Of Brand Logos That Save Both Your Money And Earth". Design Taxi. September 14, 2017.
^ "Ecobranding: Famous Corporate Logos, Redesigned To Use Less Ink". Fast Company. September 25, 2017.
^ "Inside One Designer's Plan to Make Brand Logos More Eco-Friendly". Adweek. September 26, 2017.
^ https://ecobranding-design.com/
^ https://www.behance.net/ecobranding
^ https://github.com/ecobranding
^ http://ecobranding.foundation

Delete - This article is basically an advertisement and promotional material WP:PROMO for a company as stated in the nom. It is not part of the environmental art movement. Possible WP:COI. Netherzone (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find a number of sources for the concept "ecobranding", however none of them make any mention of an art movement or graphic movement or Boyer or Royalties; everything I could find was all about the marketing concept of "ecobranding". There might be an encyclopedia article in that, but not the one we have now. Schazjmd (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G11. From AnUnnamedUser ^{(open talk page)} 01:45, 30 October 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. A WP:HEY by Djm-leighpark has met GNG, which was upheld after a re-list. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lansweeper[edit]

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

First off - I just reverted this article to an older, shorter (and less promotional) version. This is how it looked as I found it. The only independent references were a series of broken links to WindowsNetworking.com (a blog) to source a series of nonnotable yearly awards given by the blog to this software. Everything else was from the company's own site or from a reposted press release. I've done some looking for additional sources, and I've mostly found more press releases and listings in indiscriminate software directories. Google scholar turns up a couple of hits, but they are brief mentions - for example just the name in a list of low cost software alternatives. I don't believe this topic meets either WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG and therefore this article should be deleted. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 14:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: (See revised !vote below)Neutral:keep: deliberate vandalisation of article by nom. I currently don't have time to fix. If you have a negative COI don't muck about with it before presentation here.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem to address the reason for the nomination, which is the lack of reliable sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 11:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I might have tried to rescue this but there's simply too much vandalism going on and other smuck. And this is meant to be a security product. I'm going to neutral until people with COI start behaving nicely. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: First off - I just reverted this article to a newer, longer (and more informational) version. Secondly, I've adjusted the number of citations to the company's website and added more independent references. While doing so this also countering the deletion reason given above. Ls.EsbenD (talk) — Ls.EsbenD (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Blogs and reddit posts aren't independent references that actually help us. - MrOllie (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogs and user-generated content can be a good source of information. Reliability is a diffirent question. Regardless, other reliable third-party source have been added. So, I don't see how your claim holds. Ls.EsbenD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is written like a documentation page. WP:NOTMANUAL. In fact, the article looks like a rehash of this page: [3]. Even assuming that reliable sources that prove the subject of article's impact could be found, everything written in this "article" so far needs to go. They are exactly what an encyclopedia does not want. flowing dreams (talk page) 09:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with MrOllie - (nsoftware & gng) — Ched (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There was a spate of undisclosed conflict of edit / paid editing on this article (at great inconvenience to the nom. I may add) which has been seemingly brought under control. I have also reworked the article to remove paid editing content. No doubt it may issues but undisclosed paid editing has been removed and it is not an unambigous advert as at Old revision of Lansweeper. A lifespan of 15 years and the appearance of CVEs on the mitre.org database are indicators of product significance. I think when additional references were introduced 22 October 2019 efforts to remove the article moved towards emphasing the coi/paid editing which is fair enough and perhaps I should have clocked it myself earlier. And while not ever reference satisifies WP:RS per WP:THREE I select initially the following as demonstrating both WP:NSOFTWARE or WP:GNG:

Jacobi's PC World review from 2010, I like the fact he is saying Spiceworks is better in at least one aspect.[4].
Rux's Windows IT Pro(now ITPRO today) review from 2009. [5] ... I was nearly tempted to present Schulman's 2005 from the same magazine instead.
Evotec's Przemyslaw's review: [6].

So I believe we have a sold keep. thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So, seems like Djm-leighpark's rewrite and sources need to be reviewed here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable per WP:GNG and also improved in other ways after Djm-leighpark's work. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:18, 1 November 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. On pure notability grounds there was clear consensus that event sourcing was sufficient. There's a number of non strict-policy arguments made. There was some discussion as to whether it must/should be merged with the other attacks of that month, but significant disagreement with that. As it stands, the article is agreed to be capable of self-standing. That doesn't rule out a potential merge, but that can be had in a separate future discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pobé Mengao shooting[edit]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 11S117 (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. 11S117 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable topic. 11S117 (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a mass shooting in which terrorists killed 16 civilians. That's easily notable enough for an article. If it happened in the West, many people would have edited the article, it would be major international news & no-one would question its notability. There having been several major terrorist attacks in Burkina Faso recently doesn't reduce their notability. Terrorist attacks are even more frequent in Afghanistan, but we don't delete them due to being commonplace there. Jim Michael (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Then merge it with the two other articles. There is two many articles for Burkina Faso attacks this month. Just merge the three articles and we don't have to delete this article. 11S117 (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't merge articles simply because there are others in the same country during the same month. We have 6 articles about terrorist attacks that took place in Afghanistan in July 2019. Jim Michael (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - looks like substantial coverage. Reported by Reuters and AFP, picked up by the NY Times. Guettarda (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Lot of victims. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 00:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep - no concrete deletion rational put forward, I guess WP:NOTNEWS would be the most obvious, but I'm not sure if the article fails or passes that. Also as noted this AFD was not correctly formatted. Also I think it is a bit iffy that an Islamophobic attack that occurred the same day and resulted in only 2 injured is deemed notable, but an attack where 16 people die is questioned? Inter&anthro (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of many examples of WP's Westerncentrism. If this attack had happened in the West &/or the victims were Westerners, this would be major international news, the article would be many times longer & it would have been edited by many people.

How can a terrorist mass shooting - killing 16 civilians - not be easily notable enough for an article? Jim Michael (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is Afghanistan a "Western" country? You are saying It's one of many examples of WP's Westerncentrism. And you are also saying Terrorist attacks are even more frequent in Afghanistan, but we don't delete them. I think we follow sources. It has nothing to do with whether an incident is "Western" or not. Bus stop (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, Afghanistan isn't Western at all.

I maintain that WP is very Western-centric, which is clear. To use Afghanistan as an example, notice how short many of our articles on bombings in Afghanistan - with double-digit death tolls - are. Imagine how long the articles would be - and how many times more editors there would be - had the attacks taken place in the West. Examples include: 2019 Ghazni bombing, Kabul University bombing, 25 July 2019 Kabul bombings, July 2019 Farah bombing, 2019 Qalat bombing & 2019 Jalalabad suicide bombing. Far fewer people edit them, because far fewer people are interested in them.

You've commented here without stating keep or delete. Jim Michael (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different parts of the world generate information differently. In some countries there is a vastly more information available on incidents than there is in other countries. We can only write an article based on the availability of information. When little information is available it may be better to combine articles. Merged articles have the advantage of having all the available information in one place. Is there any inherent advantage in having a freestanding article such as Pobé Mengao shooting, one sentence long, when it can be merged with Burkina Faso mosque attack, perhaps changing the title to 2019 Terrorism in Burkina Faso? Bus stop (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with merging articles on different attacks unless we know that they're closely related, such as 2 and 5 September 2019 Kabul bombings (same city, month & terrorist group). An article being short doesn't mean that it should be merged, deleted or is insufficiently notable. Jim Michael (talk) 04:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any advantage in having it as a freestanding article rather than having a WP:REDIRECT take the reader to the exact paragraph of an article combining this incident with another incident? (I didn't say it was insufficiently notable or it should be deleted.) Bus stop (talk) 06:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not suitable for a redirect due to it not being known to be closely related enough to any other WP article.

I was expecting that more info about this mass shooting (which group did it, action against them by the authorities etc.) to be reported by the media. It hasn't, and this is more evidence of what I said on Talk:2019 Halle synagogue shooting. The media, general public & WP readers/editors take a lot more notice & care a lot more when the target is a religious building &/or the people inside it. 2019 Kabul mosque bombing is many times longer than this article, despite having a far lower death toll. Jim Michael (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim you made those Afghanistan post. No one asked for that you made it yourself. I'm fine with you deleting those Afghan attacks. Also if you want to talk about Western-Centralism you know this is the English version of Wikipedia right. There's tons of Wikis you can make for their country for their language. Another thing is many mass shootings in America are WP:REDIRECT you wanna know why, it's because their not that important enough. Like this attack, Burkina Faso is in war right now that's why there are so many attacks. Now please either merge it or delete it because your arguments are invalid. 11S117 (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All the terrorist attacks I mentioned are easily notable enough for articles of their own. None of the are anything like legitimate military engagements. A terrorist mass shooting or bombing against a civilian target which has a double-figure death toll is easily notable enough for its own article, even if it takes place during a war.

Being the English WP doesn't mean that we should be Western-centric. WP is meant to avoid biases.

I can't communicate in any Asian languages, so I can't create the articles in question in any of those languages. Jim Michael (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are going on about Wikipedia being "Western-centric". Do you find articles that are only one sentence long pertaining to "Western" countries? That is the problem with Pobé Mengao shooting—it is only one sentence long. An article can be created that contains all of the 2019 terrorist incidents in Burkina Faso. Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing as one freestanding article on Pobé Mengao shooting? One such article may even be more useful, because a reader would be able to glance at a table of contents and quickly grasp the state of violence in that country in this year, and if they were only interested in one such incident, they just go to that section. Bus stop (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you want this story out there. But the article is only one sentence and it's already jotted down in the current events portion of Wikipedia. Knowing how short the article is can't that be enough? Honestly though if you want to make these articles go back a few years and make some articles for the Syrian and Iraq attacks. 2014-2017 need some love too because many articles that could've been made aren't. 11S117 (talk) 10:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If it's to be merged, it should be into Terrorism in Burkina Faso. Jim Michael (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If 16 people were killed anywhere in the US but Detroit it would be notable. Probably in Detroit too, but we had 8 people killed in a barber shop and people forgot about it in 2 days. I am probably one of less than 10 people who didn't have family members killed in the November 2013 barber shop massacre who still remembers that horrid event.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If 16 people were killed anywhere in the US but Detroit it would be notable." At WP:NOTE we find "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." The question here as I see it is whether or not this should be a one-sentence stand-alone article or a component of an article on a broader subject. This is a consequence of different levels of reporting found in different parts of the world. The journalism industry would likely be in high gear if this transpired in the USA but our articles are subject to the availability of information. If an article on a broader subject with WP:REDIRECTs to individual paragraphs can be created this may be our preferable option. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert—I don't find a barbershop shooting involving 8 deaths. Do you have a link to the news story? Bus stop (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the ten people shot were killed. I hadn't heard of it until I looked it up online today. Jim Michael (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that individual is not notable Nosebagbear (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amirali Azimi[edit]

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

Sources do not indicate notability under NARTIST or GNG. No additional sources found, in either English or Farsi, which indicate notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Lexy iris (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 2 November 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. Tone 11:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We Stand Alone (Liberian film)[edit]

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

Another film for which I can find nothing usable in Google. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete. I'm pretty aggressive about giving the benefit of the doubt to African film articles because so many of the key resources remain print media that aren't available, much less searchable, online. This... isn't one of those, though. This is an American documentary about a Liberian amputee football team. It has received very little attention. As noted in the article, it received a screening by the UN Creative Community Outreach Initiative, but I see no reason that would confer notability (for one, that's basically a core part of the CCOI's role). It was screened at the 2013 PUFF Film Festival Hong Kong, but received no awards (not that I'm at all certain that festival grants awards), and the festival in question isn't a "major" film festival in any sense. And, finally, it was shown as part of a documentary screening in New York and mentioned in the Summer 2004 issue of local publication NewFilmmakers New York, but that mention is just a capsule listing without commentary, and I'm deeply dubious whether the publication in question is a reliable source besides. None of this establishes notability, and in this case I don't think there's any reason to expect Liberian sources would do otherwise. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:24, 28 October 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. Tone 11:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survival to Service: Benjamin Wollor's Story[edit]

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

Another non-notable film by this filmmaker. It's absurd having articles like this. We're not IMdB. I can find nothing except download sites. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing the notability guideline for films. Like the nominator, I cannot find anything about this film besides wikis and download sites. Geolodus (talk) 10:55, 31 October 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. Deleted per G7. (non-admin closure) ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 16:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minnale (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Not enough titles per WP:TWODABS. The film article already has a hatnote pointing to the less notable TV series. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus that there is sufficient sourcing to show notability, and that it is (or is no longer) (overly) promotional Nosebagbear (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deliv[edit]

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

Likely fails WP:NCORP. Run-of-the-mill company. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Treadgold, Alan; Reynolds, Jonathan (2016). Navigating the New Retail Landscape: A Guide for Business Leaders. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-19-874575-4. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Halzack, Sarah (2014-12-12). "Will the same-day delivery war be won by a competitor you've never heard of?". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Rao, Leena (2017-05-10). "This Startup Wants to Deliver You Your Groceries". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Griswold, Alison (2019-09-19). "What happens when delivery startups use employees instead of contractors". Quartz. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Bose, Nandita (2019-02-11). O'Connell, Vanessa; Tobin, Edward (eds.). "Exclusive: Walmart, Google-backed Deliv end online grocery partnership". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Bose, Nandita (2018-12-13). Benkoe, Jeffrey (ed.). "Deliv signs up 20 new U.S. retailers for same-day delivery". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Carey, Nick; Saito, Mari (2016-02-24). Cooney, Peter (ed.). "With Deliv investment, UPS hopes to study same-day delivery market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Said, Carolyn (2019-06-22). "Deliv switching California couriers to employees — 'start of a wave'". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Gagliordi, Natalie (2017-08-16). "UPS-backed logistics startup Deliv expands print delivery service". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Manners-Bell, John; Lyon, Ken (2019). The Logistics and Supply Chain Innovation Handbook: Disruptive Technologies and New Business Models. London: Kogan Page. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-78966-008-1. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Goodison, Donna (2013-12-14). "Get your mall buys delivered". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Hofmann, Erik; Osterwalder, Florin (2017-11-04). "Third-Party Logistics Providers in the Digital Age:Towards a New Competitive Arena?" (PDF). Logistics. MDPI: 14–15. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Lacy, Peter; Rutqvist, Jakob (2015). Waste to Wealth: The Circular Economy Advantage. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-137-53068-4. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Bensinger, Greg; Stevens, Laura (2016-02-24). "Same-Day Delivery Startup Deliv to Get Funding Boost From UPS". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-24. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
Nassauer, Sarah (2018-10-30). "Startup Deliv Raises $40 Million in Home-Delivery Arms Race". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.

Sources with quotes

Treadgold, Alan; Reynolds, Jonathan (2016). Navigating the New Retail Landscape: A Guide for Business Leaders. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 186. ISBN 978-0-19-874575-4. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Case 8.3 Deliv—Crowdsourced Same Day Fulfillment

Deliv (deliv.co, 'Delivery. Shortened'), based in California, aims to solve the so-called last mile delivery challenge with a crowdsourced model by which it connects retailers to self-employed local drivers that act as same day delivery drivers for purchases made in-store or online (then delivered to the store) with a wide and growing range of highly credible non-food retailers. Retailers using Deliv include Bloomingdales, Brooks Brothers, Crate & Barrel, Macy's, Nordstrom, Staples, Williams Sonoma, and Walgreens. Deliv drivers only need to have 'a vehicle, a smart phone, and a friendly, professional work ethic'.¹⁶ Deliv began operating in 2012 in the San Francisco Bay Area and has subsequently expanded into other major metro areas across the US, including Chicago, New York, Seattle, Miami, and Los Angeles.¹⁷ In mid-2014, Deliv joined IBM's Smarter Commerce ecosystem of, at the time, '41 certified pre-built partner solutions with integrated cloud, mobile and social capabilities'.¹⁸ Several major shopping centre owners, including Simon and Westfield, partner with Deliv so that the service is available to traders in their centres. The Deliv operation is 'white labelled' so that the delivery service does not intrude into the relationship between the retailer and the shopper.
Halzack, Sarah (2014-12-12). "Will the same-day delivery war be won by a competitor you've never heard of?". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
When Daphne Carmeli launched Deliv in 2012, her pitch for a same-day delivery service didn’t often get the warmest reception. “The stupidest idea ever,” she was told.
...
In other words, customization is king here. Deliv’s model is geared toward a generation of shoppers who want service that is both predictable and flexible. It’s designed to accommodate a shopper who wants his purchase to arrive in the two-hour window between his haircut appointment and his kid’s soccer game. It’s for the shopper who schedules a 6 p.m. delivery, but needs to push it back to 6:30 at the last minute when a conference call at the office runs late.
Deliv is vying with Goliath-size competitors for same-day delivery supremacy. Amazon.com is racing to build out a vast network of distribution centers to support its same-day efforts in more than a dozen markets. (Jeffrey P. Bezos, the chief executive of Amazon, owns The Washington Post.) Google has been buying up delivery vehicles and hiring workers for its Google Express offering, which executives are reportedly prepared to spend $500 million to expand.
But Deliv is not making such massive investments. Its model doesn’t require them.
Deliv relies on a crowdsourced network of on-demand drivers, a set-up that carries few expenses: no inventory, no fleet of vehicles, no fuel costs and a small permanent workforce. And while larger rivals are trying to entice consumers directly, Deliv is selling to retailers and mall operators. The stores and malls then decide for themselves how much to charge shoppers for the service.
Rao, Leena (2017-05-10). "This Startup Wants to Deliver You Your Groceries". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
For the past five years, Deliv has focused on handling same-day delivery for big box retailers like Macy’s, PetSmart, and Best Buy. Now the Silicon Valley upstart is eyeing food companies and grocers.
On Wednesday, Deliv debuted a new service called Deliv Fresh, a delivery service for grocers, meal startups, and other food companies that want to get their perishable food to customers the same day that it is ordered. The new push is a natural extension of the company’s existing logistics network that can quickly get products from a warehouse to a customer’s doorstep, explained CEO Daphne Carmeli.
...
Deliv uses contract drivers, who pick up orders from stores and then drop them off with customers. The company, backed by shipping giant UPS (“UPS”), operates in 100 U.S. cities on behalf of 4,000 retail partners. Deliv makes money by charging these retail partners a fee for its services. Carmeli declined to reveal revenue but said that sales have grown at least 300% over the past two years.
...
Deliv’s new service competes against Instacart, Amazon.com (“AMZN”), and the delivery services operated by the grocery companies themselves such as Safeway.
Griswold, Alison (2019-09-19). "What happens when delivery startups use employees instead of contractors". Quartz. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
He spent a few years ferrying packages around Sacramento, California, for Amazon before switching to Deliv, a mid-sized same-day delivery startup, in late 2017. Deliv makes deliveries for retailers like Macy’s and Walgreens, and MacLeod liked that about it. He liked seeing the same people every day and chatting with them when he picked up packages. He liked it a lot more than dashing around with a trunk full of Amazon boxes.
So when Deliv announced earlier this year that it would change its model in California from independent contractors to employees—including a limited number of full-time driver positions—MacLeod knew he wanted a full-time slot.
...
Deliv founder and CEO Daphne Carmeli wants to be clear: Deliv is not an on-demand company. The company was founded in 2012 in Menlo Park and has raised $85 million—peanuts by today’s standards—from investors including Alphabet, General Motors, and, as it happens, UPS. “Our world is about scheduled delivery,” Carmeli says. “The insight that we had is predictability trumps speed. Because what you really want to avoid is the dreaded yellow sticky on your door that you’ve missed your delivery.”
Focusing on scheduled delivery means Deliv has always done things differently from other delivery companies, like have its couriers work shifts. Even when they were contractors, Deliv workers like MacLeod had to log onto their app every Tuesday night to choose hours for the following week. Signing on too late could mean getting the least popular shift or no hours at all. Deliv also designed routes that focused on having drivers deliver the most packages over a set period of time. Carmeli likens Deliv to an airport shuttle: it takes longer than a taxi, but moves a lot more people.
Bose, Nandita (2019-02-11). O'Connell, Vanessa; Tobin, Edward (eds.). "Exclusive: Walmart, Google-backed Deliv end online grocery partnership". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Walmart Inc and logistics firm Deliv pulled the plug on a key same-day grocery delivery partnership, dealing a setback in the retailer’s race against rival Amazon.com Inc to deliver groceries to customers’ homes.
...
Deliv, which was one of Walmart’s earliest partners with pilot programs in Miami and San Jose, served the retailer with a 90-day termination notice, and the two companies stopped working with each other in late January, according to two people familiar with the situation.
...
People familiar with the Walmart partnership with Deliv said the Deliv drivers had to frequently wait 40 minutes or more to collect grocery orders when they showed up at the store. One reason for that, they said, is because Walmart gives a priority to customers over delivery drivers during regular hours, which complicated the partnership.
...
Deliv offers scheduled same-day deliveries through gig drivers, a model which can work well with faster order processing and a better ability to predict demand and robust volumes.
Deliv operates in 1,400 U.S. cities, tapping into networks of local freelance drivers to deliver packages same-day for a fee for a range of retailers, from Home Depot Inc to Kohl’s Corp.
In October, it raised $40 million in a new round of financing from investors, including Alphabet Inc’s Google and United Parcel Service. In December, it signed up 20 new U.S. retailers including Nike Inc and Nordstrom.
Bose, Nandita (2018-12-13). Benkoe, Jeffrey (ed.). "Deliv signs up 20 new U.S. retailers for same-day delivery". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Deliv Inc, which uses contract drivers to deliver online orders from stores and malls for a fee, said on Thursday it is partnering with twenty new U.S. retailers including Nike and Bed Bath & Beyond as demand for same-day delivery surges.
Deliv handles last-mile delivery to homes and businesses, for malls and retailers like Walmart Inc, Macy’s Inc, Kohl’s Corp and Best Buy Co Inc.
...
Deliv serves traditional brick-and-mortar retailers with contract drivers using Uber-like crowd-sourcing technology as more retailers use their stores as distribution centers for online orders. The strategy allows them to compete with the likes of Amazon Inc, which offer delivery in as little as an hour.
Carey, Nick; Saito, Mari (2016-02-24). Cooney, Peter (ed.). "With Deliv investment, UPS hopes to study same-day delivery market". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
United Parcel Service Inc is investing in Deliv Inc as a way to study the same-day delivery startup’s business model and see how that segment of the market evolves, the world’s largest package delivery company said on Wednesday.
...
UPS will lead a $28 million funding round for Palo Alto, California-based Deliv, although the company would not disclose the size of its investment. UPS will take a minority stake in Deliv and sit in on board meetings.
Deliv is an Uber-like startup that uses a fleet of contract drivers, thus avoiding healthcare and other costs, to pick up online orders from stores and malls for a fee.
...
Satish Jindel, a logistics consultant and president of SJ Consulting Group, described it as a “smart move” for UPS.
“For what is a few nickels and dimes for them, they get to see how this model works, and if there’s any validity to it they can apply it in their own business,” Jindel said. “But for Deliv, this is like letting the fox in the henhouse by allowing UPS to see how their model works.”
Said, Carolyn (2019-06-22). "Deliv switching California couriers to employees — 'start of a wave'". San Francisco Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
San Jose resident Lynne Richardson drives her Volkswagen Jetta around the South Bay to pick up cupcakes, flowers, wine, electronics and clothes from stores and bring them to consumers via Deliv, a Menlo Park startup that works with stores to get goods to people the same day they buy them.
...
Starting in August, she’ll have similar tasks, pay and scheduling but with a crucial difference: She will be an employee with benefits such as coverage for workers’ compensation and unemployment, paid sick leave, access to a retirement plan and health/dental/vision coverage.
...
Deliv appears to be the first prominent California gig company to change its business model — but it won’t be the last.
...
“I think it very well could be the start of a wave,” said Tiffanny Brosnan, a partner at Costa Mesa (Orange County) law firm Snell & Wilmer who specializes in employment law for management.
Gagliordi, Natalie (2017-08-16). "UPS-backed logistics startup Deliv expands print delivery service". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Same-day delivery startup Deliv is expanding its on-demand print service for small businesses.
Deliv is described as an asset-free logistics network, meaning it doesn't sell anything via a marketplace. Instead, Deliv offers its crowdsourced drivers to retailers and e-commerce companies to make last-mile deliveries.
UPS invested in Deliv's $28 million Series B round in February 2016 and in doing so gained a seat on the startup's board of directors. The shipping giant also used the investment as a way to peak behind the curtain at Deliv's same-day delivery operations.
With this latest collaboration, Deliv is serving as the delivery arm for UPS' small business clients, specifically when it comes to their print orders. The on-demand print partnership kicked off with a pilot back in January and is now expanding to all of Deliv's 19 markets nationwide, or approximately 977 UPS stores.
Manners-Bell, John; Lyon, Ken (2019). The Logistics and Supply Chain Innovation Handbook: Disruptive Technologies and New Business Models. London: Kogan Page. p. 50. ISBN 978-1-78966-008-1. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The book notes:
On a far bigger scale was UPS's US $28 million investment in Deliv in February 2016, one of the best-known on-demand delivery networks. Working specifically within the US e-retail and multichannel sector, Deliv provides the platform with same-day crowd-shipping delivery solutions. Among its customers it names Best Buy, Walgreens, Macy's and Office Depot.
...
The investment also gave UPS a seat on the Deliv board, which critically allows the company to understand its operations. Beyond this, UPS has also rolled out Deliv services to its small- and medium-sized customers through its UPS store network. This has proved particularly popular for print on-demand customers looking for the rush delivery of orders.
Goodison, Donna (2013-12-14). "Get your mall buys delivered". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
California startup Deliv has jumped into the same-day delivery fray, offering the service to malls through crowdsourced drivers.
...
Founded in 2012, Deliv has raised $7.8 million in venture capital funding from companies including Cambridge’s General Catalyst Partners.
Deliv generates revenue from fees paid by the retailers and malls — currently $5 to $15 per delivery — who can opt to charge customers or offer free deliveries, according to founder and CEO Daphne Carmeli.
Hofmann, Erik; Osterwalder, Florin (2017-11-04). "Third-Party Logistics Providers in the Digital Age:Towards a New Competitive Arena?" (PDF). Logistics. MDPI: 14–15. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Deliv is a start-up focusing on crowd-sourced last mile deliveries. Deliv uses private drivers with cars to pick up and deliver shipments from retailers and small stores to consumers. This allows drivers to earn money for delivery and enables retailers and stores to establish a home delivery system without their own infrastructure (through a partnership with Deliv). Communication is offered via an online platform and mobile applications on smartphones.
The article also notes:
A first indication of the increasing professional significance of C2C transport sharing platforms can be seen in the business model of Deliv, which uses private drivers for B2C home deliveries from stores.
Lacy, Peter; Rutqvist, Jakob (2015). Waste to Wealth: The Circular Economy Advantage. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-137-53068-4. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The book notes: <bblockquote>Deliv is a platform that lets retailers use "crowdshipping" as an alternative to traditional delivery services. Deliv partners with mall operators and retailers to provide a low-cost, high-quality, same-day delivery service via its quality-controlled fleet of crowdsourced drivers. Deliv is essentially the Uber for retail delivery.
Bensinger, Greg; Stevens, Laura (2016-02-24). "Same-Day Delivery Startup Deliv to Get Funding Boost From UPS". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2016-02-24. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Same-day delivery startup Deliv Inc. is getting a funding boost from an unlikely source: United Parcel Service Inc.
The Palo Alto, Calif., company fetches goods from brick-and-mortar retailers to bring them to customers’ homes nearby, one of a crop of such firms hoping to win the day in so-called last-mile delivery, typically the priciest leg of an order’s journey.
Deliv is set to announce the $28 million funding round, led by UPS, on Wednesday with existing investors including Upfront Ventures, RPM Ventures and mall operators General Growth Properties Inc. and Simon Property Group Inc., among others. This round brings the four-year-old company’s total funding to $40.5 million, though a valuation couldn’t be learned.
Nassauer, Sarah (2018-10-30). "Startup Deliv Raises $40 Million in Home-Delivery Arms Race". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-21. Retrieved 2019-10-21.
The article notes:
Deliv Inc., a startup that provides same-day deliveries for Walmart Inc. and other retailers, has raised $40 million in funding that values the company at less than $500 million, according to a person familiar with the matter.
...
New investors in the latest Deliv funding include Alphabet Inc. ’s Google and rental-car firm Enterprise Holdings, Deliv said. Previously Deliv raised over $40 million from investors including mall owner GGP Inc. and United Parcel Service Inc. at a $71.6 million valuation, according to PitchBook Data Inc. The latest round values Deliv at several hundred million dollars, the person said.
Deliv, based in Menlo Park, Calif., has carved out a niche in the competitive landscape by not emphasizing its brand with shoppers, instead working behind the scenes to provide logistics software along with a crowdsourced fleet of drivers to make deliveries.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Deliv to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the article and did not find it promotional. I found it to be a factual article and to be neutrally written. I can remove any promotional content from the article if it is pointed out.
Cunard (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. I made a minor change to the article to neutralize it. The current version does not seem promotional to me. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have enough notable sources such as WSJ and TechCrunch and service in 1400 cities is significant to be notable. Also, article does not sound promotional and only seem to stick to most notable facts.Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:12, 31 October 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 Fredrick Richard Senanayake. After two re-lists, a clear consensus to merge with Fredrick Richard Senanayake, but openness to merging with other suggestions. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 22:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grassmere, Colombo[edit]

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

Sources are just passing mentions, not about the house. Article doesn't make it clear why this is a notable subject, and looking for online sources doesn't help either. Article creator added more sources when removing the proposed deletion, but this source has the most content about the house of any of them: "“There’s a dining table in my home on which E. W. Perera signed the famous ‘letter-in-the-shoe’. The Grassmere mansion is where many of the ideals of winning our independence were originated, and my great grand father F. R . Senanayake played a role in it,” says Chathuka Senanayake, grandson of R. G. Senanayake." Interesting, but if no other sources go into this in much more detail, it isn't sufficient for an article on this house. The final source, "Miller. Fredrick Richard Senanayake", is an Alphascript published book[7]: Alphascript doesn't publish any original content, only reprints of Wikipedia articles, and thus isn't a reliable source. Fram (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 08:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Architecturally and historically appears to be a significant building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you elaborate on what sources you base this on? Fram (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - One source suggesting that the site is significant (i.e. it likely would be historic-registry-listable on anything like the U.S. National Register of Historic Places under the reasoning that important events happened there), is this article in Daily News (Sri Lanka), which includes:
    “There’s a dining table in my home on which E. W. Perera signed the famous ‘letter-in-the-shoe’. The Grassmere mansion is where many of the ideals of winning our independence were originated, and my great grand father F. R . Senanayake played a role in it,” says Chathuka Senanayake, grandson of R. G. Senanayake.

Perhaps someone more conversant than me about Sri Lankan history and E. W. Perera and Fredrick Richard Senanayake could explain that more, but it sounds like a significant place to me. I dunno [what is the "letter-in-the-shoe" incident], is it comparable to the Secret pumpkin incident/place in the U.S., of comparable era, whose historic site is recognized in the very high-level National Historic Landmark registry? --Doncram (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Alger Hiss incident, and the pumpkin hiding spy stuff, were of 1948-50. The pumpkin's farm was listed on U.S. national registries early, relative to 50-year event significance rule. --Doncram (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Fredrick Richard Senanayake in section 'private' or 'family'. He appears to have commissioned house & its use by Goethe Inst is significant.Djflem (talk) 19:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For sources we need someone to search in Sinhala language and Tamil language. Also need searching on alternate names, including "Grasmere" spelling. It appears to me that this would be a leading candidate to be on any historic register of historic sites in Sri Lanka or in Colombo, the capital and largest city. There are eight world-level World Heritage Sites in Sri Lanka, and a TripAdvisor tourism page points to various historic sites, but i can't find info for any official historic registers for the nation or city.

A website of historic photos of Sri Lanka which i can't link to includes 1945 photo showing historic house with likely-important architecture (another type of reasoning for historic site listing), and mentions RAF officers being housed there, presumably during World War II (adds to event-type significance). (Linking to the source is blacklisted in Wikipedia: find by searching "Grasmere Situated in Gregory’s Road, Colombo 1945"). By the way the related Echelon Barracks also look notable to me (search on "Echelon Barracks Colombo, Ceylon 1945") ... oh there is an article for those barracks, although they were demolished. Grassmere, surviving, is relatively more important to cover, I suppose.

This site seems comparable in age and importance to those of several AFDs in last year or two which closed keep, in other countries where official historic designations are far less developed than in U.S. and U.K.:

Aziz Bagh (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Bagh (2nd nomination)), Hyderabad, India -- this mansion/house appears very similar, and it was hard to find out that it was listed in an unofficial, club-like historic registry that had been started up in advance of a more official Hyderabad area registry, in which it was also listed. It takes a while for nations/regions to figure out how to do this, although we can be pretty sure about some of the obviously historical ones being recognized eventually. This building actually looks very similar, and must be similar in era and architecture.
Kholvad House (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kholvad House), South Africa, not yet officially recognized, but noted unofficially as a place to visit/see potentially, even though not open as a museum. Actually very similar, in being event-type-significant about independence movement, in fact a "den of defiance":"The documentary 'Flat 13' is the story of an apartment [in Kholvad House] in downtown Johannesburg which, during the late 40's to early 60's, became a hub of rebellion and resistance against apartheid's injustices because of the young people who lived there and those who hung out there. Nelson Mandela has described this flat as the place 'where the first seeds of nonracialism were sown and a wider concept of the nation came into being'.The flat first got its reputation as a nonracial social and political centre in the mid - 40's when Mandela, a fellow first year law student with Ismail Meer at Wits University, started to hang out there with other young political activists, journalists, musicians and intellectuals from across the colour and religious spectrum. Ismail Meer was the tenant of this flat in downtown Johannesburg at the time. These young people would often dance the night away and also debate their vision of a future South Africa, until the early hours of the morning. Mandela and Meer were both just 24 years old when they first met. This reputation of Flat 13 as a den of defiance scorning apartheid and its injustices continued ...." quote from here)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashough Jivani's House-Museum, important in Armenia broadly, located in Georgia (country). [Maybe not exactly a national independence-related location, but Jivani's rise to prominence was part of a national awakening. --Doncram (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)][reply]

I think it is reasonable to keep the relatively few articles in English wikipedia that cover these sites of independence-seeking era, which have both event-type and architecture-type significance, that are pretty clearly comparable to high-level historic listings in the U.S. and U.K., even in advance of them being officially designated in their countries. Sure, having more documentation would be good here, so tag for development. --Doncram (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fredrick Richard Senanayake. I agree with the keep !votes that the subject appears to be significant, but without adequate sourcing it isn't notable. -- Scott Burley (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If some of the associated persons are in fact very important in Ceylon's independence movement, then this place would be like Mount Vernon, say, if besides being George Washington's home it was also the location where the U.S.'s Declaration of Independence was signed, maybe. :) Okay, maybe that is a tad overstated, but this does seem likely to me to be one of few well-preserved sites associated with people and events of Sri Landa's independence movement, therefore extremely likely to become prominent historic sites if/when the nation can get beyond various tragedies in its modern history. And, again, I think coverage is likely in Sinhala language and Tamil language, and so far in this AFD i think no one asserting to be extremely knowledgeable about the nation has offered perspective. I think tagging for development, and posting at relevant WikiProjects would be appropriate, not deletion. I !voted Keep above. --Doncram (talk) 18:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fredrick Richard Senanayake seems like a reasonable approach here. Significant enough to mention somewhere, if possible, but not enough to base a stand-alone article on, it seems. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are several possible targets for a merge besides Fredrick Richard Senananyake, including the Goethe-Institut, which currently is active inside the building, and Richard Gotabhaya Senanayake.4meter4 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as appropriate into one or more of the articles suggested by 4meter4. I see incidental mentions of the residence in the biographies of prominent members of the Senananyake family, but no evidence that it is a listed building or that any effort is being made to promote it as a significant national landmark. The 'letter in the shoe', for anyone still interested, was an incident where E. W. Perera traveled to England to present a letter to colonial authorities there- a number of prominent Sri Lankan leaders had been imprisoned by local colonial authorities as a result of riots between Sinhala and Muslims, and it's regarded as a significant incident in Sri Lanka's independence movement. Perera thought that the local colonial authorities might seize the letter since it was potentially embarrassing to them, and so reputedly hid it in his shoe. The incident might be deserving of an article since it seems to be widely known in Sri Lankan history, but the residence seems to be incidental to the story. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:23, 28 October 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 List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1943–1944). No consensus to keep; recognition that the incident should be included in the larger list article. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1943 USAF C-47 Tamaqua crash[edit]

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

Fails notability because it was a wartime military flight. These types of accidents were very common, the USAAF had more than 7,100 aircraft accidents in the U.S. alone during WWII. - Samf4u (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Military wartime accidents without a notable person involved are rarely notable....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, as the nom said a lot of C-47s were lost during the war and there is nothing in the article that says this one is particularly noteworthy. MilborneOne (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep. True, the C-47 saw lots of losses during the war, but not so many in Pennsylvania. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 00:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wartime accidents were all too common to warrant individual articles unless there was something much more unusual than occurring in Pennsylvania. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there were four plane crashes in Pennsylvania that day alone, including one which killed a former congressman. Did make front page news the next day. Not really sure what to do with this, the article itself is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 08:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It seems comparable to other incidents in List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1943–1944), like crashes in South Carolina, etc., yet seems not to be listed there, and should be. The incident seems to have adequate reliable coverage that it happened. We are obligated to seek reasonable Alternatives to Deletion; merging to that list-article is what makes sense to me. Or, maybe there is enough coverage that it should be Kept outright, but even then the list-article should be modified to mention/link to it. --Doncram (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of accidents and incidents involving military aircraft (1943–1944).4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 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. Clear consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fijian passport[edit]

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

This was recently nominated for deletion on pl wiki and it made me think - what makes most passports notable? They exist, there is government legislation about them, and...? That's not enough. Some passports presumably have been written about due to their significance, history, etc. But I don't think that all passports of all countries are inherently notable. Overall, this topic seems to fail WP:GNG. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (as article creator). As far as I can tell, the rationale in the AfD on plwiki is along the lines of "oh, so we have to create 200 passport articles now?"—well, those 200 or so articles have already been created on enwiki, in a surprisingly comprehensive set of articles! If some passports are notable by virtue of a presumed "significance", that risks exacerbating a systemic bias against smaller countries like Fiji where passports are as an important part of their national administrative infrastructure as currency and elections. Regarding the GNG, I must thank you for drawing my attention to this article after some time, which made me realise that Fiji introduced biometric passports just a few weeks ago, which was both a notable milestone in the history of that particular travel document, and allowed the addition of several independent, non-government sources. --Canley (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The new sources (newspapers) are a step in the right direction, through I am unsure if they can be considered in-depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that all passports probably do pass the GNG, since they're almost certainly the subject of specific legislation (probably several pieces). Current sourcing on this article seems to indicated that it passes the GNG. Guettarda (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Specific legislation about passports is pretty much the definition of WP:PRIMARY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD on Polish Wikipedia was closed as keep. --Canley (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I feel that all passports probably can be deemed noteworthy, but I'm happy enough with the sourcing for this one to remain here and now. There are some more that discuss various aspects - potentially a case could be made on UNDUE about the content breakdown within the article, but I feel it's existence is clear enough. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:09, 4 November 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. additionally, consensus is to SALT. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Generali Osiguranje[edit]

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

Recreation of Generali osiguranje which was afd-merged and then G7ed according to log. Despite the context of the previous AfD was about the Croatian sister company, while the current wiki article was about Generali Osiguranje Srbija and "Generali osiguranje Montenegro". But it seem both subsidiaries still did not pass WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Routine mention of change in ownership did not count as in-depth coverage. For the sake of WP:Overlap either the wiki article(s) for the subsidiary should be merge and creating a SALTed redirect. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And it seem Generali Osiguranje Srbija was G11 three times and SALTed as well. Matthew hk (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I concur with the nominator, delete and salt, topic fails GNG/NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT per nom.4meter4 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 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)} 15:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BORN Group[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable business. Awards are not major. This article is bombarded with sources they are largely churnalism. Routine, listings, primary, press releases, passing mentions. "provides system integration services, easing the adoption of complex systems by e-commerce vendors". That gobbledygook is not supported by the two sources used. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: buzzword-laden advert for unnotable entity. . . Mean as custard (talk) 22:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/WP:NCORP, HighKing⁺⁺ 17:23, 5 November 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)} 15:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soprano Design[edit]

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

Originally tagged for prod by User:Cabayi (diff), before removal by page creator.

Original reason for nomination: Fails to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Cabayi. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 11:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A promotional article (created by an editor editing in violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use). Also, little evidence of notability, despite attempts to make the list of references look impressive by bombarding it with anything the creator of the article could find that so much as mentions the business, and some which don't even mention it. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 13:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 03:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am striking the following comment, which was posted by an editor evading a block for persistent policy violation regarding COI, undisclosed paid editing, etc. The editor also tried to pass his or her edit off as being made by another editor, giving a fake signature linking to that other editor's talk page. I am removing that fake signature. JBW (talk) Formerly known as JamesBWatson 20:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Soprano is a public company, if that is not reason in itself. They powered the first mobile transaction in Australia and in addition, enabled the use mass text voting on shows such as Australian Idol and X-Factor. They are the winners of numerous awards, even published on the Wikipedia page for The Telstra Business awards, their founder won the EY Entrepreneur of the Year Award and they have won the NSW Premier's Export Awards 2 times. They are well deserving of a wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.151.195 (talk) — 49.180.151.195 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Spammy article referenced only to lightweight or not reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 5 November 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. A consensus to Keep since the first of two re-lists, with the Telegraph article giving a measure of WP:SIGCOV, and none of the arguments put forward by Keeps since 15 October refuted. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Harker[edit]

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

a beginning engineer, not yet notable., with a promotional article. All the awards oare specifically awards for beginners. The promotionalism is signalled by such things as using her first name alone in the article, which is appropriate only for popular performers, and rpeatedm ention of the same award.

We need to cover more women in engineering. We should do so from among those who have already had successful careers, not those who merely hope to have one. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too soon. According to the initial edit summary the article was created because she was on the list of Top 50 Influential Women in Engineering for 2017. But that year the list was for early career women with a theme of "Under 35", and early career awards are not sufficient. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are huge numbers of notable engineers who lack articles. We do not need to go to creating articles on non-notable engineers like Harker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the six awards and accolades Harker has received demonstrate she is a person of note. McPhail (talk) 22:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion so far has lacked policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She won six awards in a short period of time:
- Technical Graduate of the Year - new graduate award
- Graduate of the Year 2017 - new graduate award
- Top 50 Women in Engineering 2017 (Telegraph) - early career women with a theme of "Under 35"
- Bee Beaumont Award - recognizes newly qualified engineers
- 2018 Young Woman Engineer of the Year Award - early career award
- Henry Royce Medal - outstanding young professional (early career award)

These are all new graduate or early career awards. If she were an academic they would not count toward WP:NPROF. That guideline requires that an academic or research make a significant contribution toward her field and does not consider early career awards sufficient. However Harker is a professional engineer. Perhaps given that she has won so many different awards in a short time, the press releases of the awards could be considered enough for WP:GNG. But winning this many awards also might be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. It is wonderful when the press picks up press releases about a young woman engineer doing well, but I don't think that meets the qualifications for a Wikipedia article about an engineer. I assume she won the young graduate awards on the basis of her academic record, but the article is also lacking a description of the engineering work that won her the early career awards. What was it that she did? StarryGrandma (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harker's awards range from the BAE Systems Technical Graduate of the Year (2016) to the RAEng Engineers Trust Young Engineer of the Year (July 2019). Multiple awards ranging over four years cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as "one event". McPhail (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]". Harker clearly meets this test. Additional criteria: The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Harker has received multiple significant awards and honours.

Further evidence of notability:

As set out above, Harker has won seven separate awards relating to engineering. This sets her apart from other engineers.
Harker features in "A nationwide STEM awareness campaign led by the Royal Academy of Engineering"
Harker featured in a competition ran by The Beano, one of the UK's bestselling comics.
Harker "is one of the youngest engineers to have achieved Chartered Engineer status at just 25 years old".
Harker is described by the Royal Academy of Engineering as a truly exceptional and talented engineer (who) works at the forefront of aerospace technology

McPhail (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. (Since I approved this article through AfC I'm obviously a keep as well) Academic notability was never in consideration. The combination of significant awards from the leading professional bodies and press coverage (see McPhail's post above or a Google News search for "Sophie Harker") beyond the awards satisfied WP:GNG in my opinion. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject's awards recognize her contributions and show notability in her engineering field both during and after college. Also, the subject has received wide media coverage. Easily passes WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep She made it to the Telegraph education section [8] and the mirror and the Independent [9]. She is being celebrated a bit I think perhaps for the awards, but the coverage is name drops. I think there is enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Also the Kirkintilloch Herald mentions her. scope_creep^Talk 11:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the Telegraph entry is detailed. scope_creep^Talk 11:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Collins Rice[edit]

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

Rather obvious autobiography. Sources lack intellectual independence and are or barely exceed passing mentions. Might just scrape WP:PROF with a complete rewrite? Guy (help!) 10:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this likely autobiography is a case of WP:PROMO, almost at the G11 level, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have to start actually enforcing our rules against autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matzav[edit]

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

The writer has kept it a mystery what the subject of this article is. A quick search to gain clarity only made clear that it was a non-notable term. The Banner talk 10:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

writer comment: The NYTimes understood the topic well enough to publish the cited "A Cork Pops, People Duck And Israel Laughs" article. It may be that the topic of explosives costing people's lives needs (gallows humor) some Wiki-TNT, but both the term and the situation called the matzav are quite notable. Pi314m (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The named wiki article now has a citation to Fast Company's extensive overview on this topic (and also refers to a Haaretz article). Pi314m (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You pick up a single word in an article and give it an undue relevance. The article you refer to is about comedy, not about Matzav. And earlier you connected the single word "The Troubles" in the article from Chessler to The Troubles in Northern Ireland, without any reason. As this is a recreation of an earlier removed article, it should be significantly better than the last version. But this again ref-bombing while failing to show notability. The Banner talk 09:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. This classic coat rack article is ostensibly about an Israeli slang term or euphemism, yet it is somehow being classified under journalism. Note that the similar-but-encyclopedic term Nakba is redirected to 1948 Palestinian exodus; there is no comparable Israeli topic to redirect this to at present. Would be better suited to a Wiktionary or urban dictionary-type site, not an encyclopedia. The relevant background can already be found at Matzav.com. Havradim (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An incomprehensible collection of anecdotes. Nothing to do with journalism as far as I can tell. Is it connected with Matzav.com? Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 2 November 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. Not sure a redirect is the best thing here, they don't look like they play in that division anymore. Fenix down (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slacks Creek Tigers FC[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY - they haven't played in the national cup competition (or the national level of the league structure) and there is no evidence that they satisfy the criteria under WP:GNG - lacks any coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. The club's website is a primary source. Dan arndt (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 09:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Football Brisbane Capital League 1 (no verifiable content to merge). Bookscale (talk) 09:10, 29 October 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. (non-admin closure) ——SN 54129 15:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Specht[edit]

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

Unfortunately, I don't think Ms. Specht is encyclopaedia-notable. The article's already been deleted once for being overly promotional, and the current state of the sources in the article are from the Los Angeles business journal, a couple WP:MILL pieces about her chairing the LA Music Center (it also seems she's no longer in charge of it, but check out [10] which is a classic example of a local business/board announcement, and only dedicates two grafs to her out of the five in the article), and an article on her TV show from the early 1990s. I also found [11], which isn't in the article, so that makes two articles about her television show, and an article from the Indianapolis Star from 29 January 1991 which called the television show a "trash derby" (and doesn't talk about her at all apart from mentioning she's a host.) It just seems as if she's a decent but WP:MILL attorney who was in the press a couple times over the course of her career, and that WP:GNG isn't quite met. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 09:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Her main ref that would qualify as SIGCOV is from her entry in the LA500 list of a small LA newspaper called the Los Angeles Business Journal; these types of publications often give favourable coverage to advertisers, such as her law firm. Her BIO-type ref from the Music Centre is likely from herself, and thus unlikely to be suitable as an RS for Wikipedia. Has been speedily deleted twice as promotional, and looks created by someone with a COI. Britishfinance (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Noting the improved RS from Yngvadottir from the LA Times (a WP:RS/P), and particularly this one which is getting closer to a proper dedicated article on her from a quality RS (a core part of any BLP imho): You Be Bumped? Is the Cleaner Coming Clean? Ask Lisa Specht. Still a little wary that her WP BLP would become the central "plank" of her notability, which I use as a WP:COMMONSENSE test for BLPs (e.g. it should be the other way around). It's borderline territory. Britishfinance (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: and consider blocking the undisclosed WP:PAID editing that this article's main editor is doing for several apparently WP:NN clients seeking a better personal brand. Toddst1 (talk) 19:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I had to beat the bushes; LA sources are more often search-protected than NY ones, and the unattributed birthdate for her on one site is in 1945, so much may be too early to have been digitized. But I found one article about her that covered her early life and the start of her TV career, and that led to discovering she ran for city attorney; the news from that time is largely offline, but Los Angeles magazine filled in the story of the campaign in an article on her opponent, and the LA Times endorsement is online. So that's three things in her career that have attracted coverage, and a proper article about her to set beside the business journal. I also found obituaries of her husband, so there's a Personal life section too, now. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking deeply into the sourcing. Which article covered her early life and TV career? I'd like to have a look at it. Also, in terms of at least the political element, we almost never keep articles on people who have run for office and failed, so I don't think we can call her notable just because she received a local endorsement. SportingFlyer T·C 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times, June 15, 1991; after finding that and recasting the article I edit conflicted with Britishfinance making another cleanup edit or two before coming here. The LA magazine article also has a paragraph or two on the race, pointing out how strong the support was for her. Part of what tipped me toward keep is that she's evidently been in the public eye for decades, for more than one thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Promotional is never a reason to AfD an article. It is a reason to cleanup. The WP:BEFORE done by Yngvadottir has found reliable sources exist. And the article can be improved with the LA times endorsement, the business jounal, and obituary of her husband. Wm335td (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion is a standard reason to delete articles. If an article was written with promotional intent, there is no evidence the person is actually notable outside of this promotional intent, and no reason to keep the article. We have far too many articles on living people and far too few editors dedicated to building quality to let junk articles stand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Yngvadottir's work. It doesn't really matter if the article was written with promotional intent, if that content can be cleaned up. If it can (and has), there is no policy based reason to delete from that angle. As has been stated above, multiple news sources have covered her various activities over several decades, and that does suggest she is a suitable encyclopedia subject. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:28, 3 November 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. Clear consensus to Keep (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhakharwadi (TV Show)[edit]

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

Unnotable TV show. KingofGangsters (talk) 07:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - show receives reviews, sufficient media coverage to indicate notability: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. The first link there is just a repository of Times of India articles alone on the subject, and this only includes an English language search. Article needs improvement, but NEXIST applies. matt91486 (talk) 18:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of programs broadcast by Sony SAB as even with all those sources, the article remains thin. Nate • (chatter) 00:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the article is thin right now is not particularly relevant, however, as stubs are acceptable articles and can always be expanded. NEXIST does not require incorporation into the article. matt91486 (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It needs more than "it airs here and the plot is Romeo & Juliet", though. We need more, including actors, airdates and a much longer and more comprehensive synopsis for it to stay here as an article. Nate • (chatter) 00:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your position, and I certainly agree that the article would certainly be better for that information, the current quality of the article has no bearing on the topic's notability. matt91486 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:TVSHOW and article improved. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Passes WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable and with enough content added to make one concern on those grounds resolved. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:15, 4 November 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; it is generally agreed that notability has not been demonstrated here. bd2412 T 04:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ornamental (band)[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:BAND. Searching "Rose McDowall" "Ornamental" gives only ~100 results when unique ones are filtered out, all of which are either Wikipedia mirrors, discography directories such as Discogs,

Claims notability with "Crystal Nights" being a "hit", but "Crystal Nights" + "Ornamental" returns only false positives. No song of that name appears on Billboard.com, nor in the Joel Whitburn chart books. The only hits for the song "Crystal Nights" + "One Little Indian" are also Discogs and similar discography databases. "Ornamental" does not even have a placeholder on Allmusic, and the song title doesn't show up on Allmusic either. Billboard.com, americanradiohistory.com (which archives various music publications, even British ones), newspapers.com, and the like all yield absolutely nothing when searching the band, song, or record label name with various keywords. The members may be notable, but this one-off collaboration does not seem to be in the slightest. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Timarit.is is an excellent source of articles from Icelandic newspapers (although the search feature gets worse as the papers get older) and it has a few articles that mention the band and the Crystal Nights song. They do state that the song placed high in charts in Iceland and Japan[20] and that the song was selected as the song of the week by the british pop-magazine Record Mirror.[21] There are also mentions of some full-page interviews with Hilmar Örn Hilmarsson and Rose McDowall in pop-magazines but it is not stated what magazines. All in all, the Icelandic sources are not close to be indepth enough to push this band into the notables. Dammit_steve (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find that usually whenever a source says "charted in [country]" instead of "Charted on [specific name of chart]" it's usually a weasel-wordy way of saying they made some independent third-party chart and not the official one(s). Indeed, the song title gets no results on Oricon, and Iceland doesn't seem to have an official singles chart per WP:GOODCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge somewhere. Satisfies WP:NMUSIC #6, with twice the number of notable members needed for that criterion. Keeping this as effectively a link page to the members seems like probably the best option. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NMUSIC is not ironclad. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waycross (band) for an example where a musical act passed criterion #2, but was still redirected due to an absolute lack of sources. I didn't opt for redirection because multiple notable musicians were involved in this act. Notability is not inherited from the notability of their individual members, and I think it's pretty clear that this act fails the overall notability/reliable sources test even if it meets one criterion of WP:NMUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - indeed a couple notable members, which is a good indicator of notability, but I'm not just finding anything of substance. Not really anything to merge, either, since it's entirely unsourced. Not opposed to redirect if there's a suitable target. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge/Dab. Lacks WP:SIGCOV. The information can be covered in a couple sentences in each of the articles about the individual artists because there isn't much to say about this short lived collaboration. The content can be cited from the articles found by Dammit_steve. A note about the band could be placed at Ornamental with a wl to each individual artist's page.4meter4 (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no GNG here. I am open to redirecting, but to where? A few of the band members note the band on their BLPs but not the discography. Ultimately, TPH is right, and if the band was not notable, and even the BLPs hardly mention it, then maybe we should just delete it. Britishfinance (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Rozario[edit]

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

Fails both WP:MUSICBIO and the general notability guidelines. None of the current references contribute to establish notability. one source has just a trivial mention. Others like Facebook are not reliable sources and the remaining two don't even mention the subject. Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unfortunately as not passing WP:GNG, apart from Facebook I couldn't find even the trivial mention in the other refs. If someone finds good reliable sources coverage please ping me, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Klinec[edit]

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

Biography of an academic who does not appear to meet WP:NPROF. Created by a single purpose account. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GS cites negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails NPROF, ANYBIO, and GNG. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I specifically logged in to vote delete for this article per above comments. Editorkamran (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of notability. Working at a national academy (as opposed to being honored by membership in one) does not give automatic notability, and I doubt chairing the Futurological Society in Slovakia does either. The article lists several publications that look like they might be books, but that would only provide notability if we could find multiple independent reviews of them, and my searches came up short. Indeed, the only links I could find for those titles seem to be derived from Wikipedia. Nothing else mentioned in the article even comes close. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History of the San Diego Clippers[edit]

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

There is no evidence that the Clippers' mere six seasons while located in San Diego warrants a separate article. Per guideline WP:N, a notable topic is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. As it is, this current version is pretty much a copy-paste (and without proper attribution) from Los Angeles Clippers § 1978–1984: San Diego Clippers. Articles on individual seasons in San Diego (e.g. 1978–79 San Diego Clippers season) already exist.[22] From what I can tell, article creator Azure1233 had been edit warring at San Diego Clippers (history) to covert it from a redirect to a standalone page, and has ignored early advice in August from Lithopsian to discuss the issue. —Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. In addition, WP:NBA does not create such pages. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Consensus is to generally NOT create stand-alone pages for previous incarnations of NBA teams. The exceptions occur when the former name had a lot of history to it (like the Seattle SuperSonics), but that isn’t the case here. Rikster2 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. After a re-listing, consensus to redirect remains, the most logical being List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions[edit]

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

Special event one-time tournament episodes of a game show. While Jeopardy! is a widely notable television show and part of pop culture, a largely unreferenced article about a single 75-episode tournament held once during a series of 8,000+ episodes does not meet WP:N. Subject is adequately covered in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events.

Google search produces links back to this article and other Jeopardy!/game show fandom wikis. News search produces results for Ken Jennings and one link about Watson (computer), but no sources applicable to this specific tournament broadcast.

Of the 16 footnotes in the article, 12 are comments within article content about either contestants who didn't make it to Final Jeopardy or why specific contestants were given a bye in the tournament and are not WP:V references to external content. The remaining four references do not meet WP:SIGCOV:

Jeopardy! Seeking Tournament of Champions Alumni is a dead link
The Complete Directory to Prime Time Network and Cable TV Shows, 1946-Present is note about $2m top prize for tournament
Jennings has no regrets despite 2nd-place finish is an interview with the second-place finisher
Link to Game Show News Net is a fansite and does not meet WP:V

Result of first deletion discussion was no consensus for deleting but option to merge. Second deletion discussion was withdrawn. AldezD (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. AldezD (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect. What little verifiable content there is can be mentioned on Jeopardy! which is already an extensive GA-class article, or in the articles of the individual participants. The results and byplay of the tournament are not encyclopedic content that was discussed extensively in third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given that the result of the first deletion discussion was keep and the second nomination was withdrawn as a speedy keep, further discussion is needed to establish consensus for any action on a longtime article which has twice been discussed and found to be kept at AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events per the nominator per WP:FORK and WP:FANCRUFT. There's no need for this elaborate coverage of the topic, which is detailed to the level of fan cruft. The topic is already adequately covered in the List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events.4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 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 Timeline of sexual orientation and medicine. RL0919 (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation and medicine[edit]

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

~~This is not a disambig page. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)~~[reply]

Redirect per Newslinger below. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not a disambiguation page, but perhaps an overview at this title would be warranted. bd2412 T 12:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Well, this AFD is not an argument for deletion. I disagree that the current page is not a disambiguation page. And if there is some criteria that I'm missing, then I'd still make an WP:IAR argument for keeping this. It's clearly useful, and the best ATD would be a redirect to one of the five pages linked from this one. Except that it's not particularly clear which one has a better claim to the redirect... hence the disambiguation page. Hug^syrup 15:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC) I have no issue with a redirect if there is a suitable target. Hug^syrup 09:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
REPLY In this way I can concoct zillions of titles: Donald Trump and medicine, Plato and geography, Spongebob and Mermaid ... Because you can readily find lots of pairs of subjects which overlap in different areas. Neck, there can also be triple overlaps Wikipedia is not a relational database. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timeline of sexual orientation and medicine, which covers the subject matter described by the article title. One of the other linked pages, Homosexuality and psychology, is already listed in Timeline of sexual orientation and medicine § See also. — Newslinger talk 22:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, the history says 21:21, 12 July 2008‎ User0529 talk contribs‎ 9,412 bytes +9,412‎ Content split from Sexual orientation and medicine , so that makes sense. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Newslinger. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Newslinger. Article is hodgepodge as is. Alexbrn (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Newslinger--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:41, 31 October 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. Fenix down (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1906 Wisła Kraków season[edit]

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

Possibly fails WP:GNG as the Poland professional league wasn't really a thing until 1927 at the earliest with some of the earlier seasons being just friendlies. I would also like to nominate these pages for the same reason.

1907 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1908 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1909 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1910 Wisła Kraków season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Professionalism really doesn't have anything to do with season articles - it's all about WP:GNG, so I'm a lean delete without prejudice of recreation if better sources are available. SportingFlyer T·C 03:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably does fail GNG but I would remove them in any case because they are bare statistics only and so fail that part of WP:IINFO. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability per NSEASONS/GNG. Giant Snowman 11:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Sadly no improvement in the five years since they were created, fail WP:GNG, WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Year of Protests[edit]

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

Stub featuring an OR, SYNTH, attempt to create the "political phenomenon" of unconnected protests happening across the world. There's been more than average this year, but that might just be the news showing it more, and it's certainly not a global plan or conspiracy as the existence of this article would suggest. Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: did you already PROD this? Kingsif (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so I did, but another editor removed the prod, as anyone has the right to do. The next step if anyone wants to delete it, is to do just what you did, which is to list it here for a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete might conceivably be notable someday, but theredo not seem to be enough references yet. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not an article, please write more than one sentence before submitting to mainspace. Per nom, I don't see a coherent connection between these. List of protests in the 21st century could be made into a table or something but a split of this sort is not necessary. Reywas92^Talk 05:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article contains hardly any information. Vorbee (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This right here is the problem with anyone being able to create a Wikipedia article. Trillfendi (talk) 15:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. There is a clear consensus that the topic is notable in its own right; merge, remerge or demerge requests should take place on the article talk page. (non-admin closure) ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Milat[edit]

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

The subject of this article is the perpetrator of the backpacker murders. Per WP:PERPETRATOR, "a person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". He is not notable beyond the backpacker murders, and everything that needs to be said about him can be included in that article.

This article was created after Milat's death, and is just a cut-and-paste from the backpacker murders article. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as Australia's most notable serial killer. Worth noting separately as he always maintained his innocence and may in the future be found not guilty even after his death. 58.179.159.63 (talk) 01:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I realise that this comment is in the nature of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but clearly some perpetrators do have their own article, eg Martin Bryant, Anders Behring Breivik, Jack the Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. Ivan Milat is frequently called the most notorious Australian serial killer (eg The Guardian obit is titled "Ivan Milat, Australia's most notorious serial killer, dies aged 74" [23]; the ABC has "Secrets of the forest: Ivan Milat, Australia’s most notorious serial killer, is dead. How many more murders remain unsolved?" [24], and the BBC article starts "Ivan Milat, who died on Sunday, is one of the most notorious serial killers in Australia's history." [25]). So the question seems to be, what does "not normally" mean, and when is it not normal? I'd suggest that the most notorious serial killer, or even one of them, probably is "not normal". RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not all serial killers deserves separate articles. But only the worst of the worst and those with plenty of third party reliable coverage. Such as Milat. Plenty of coverage throughout to justify separate article. Also per WP:NCRIME and WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 02:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my view his notability or notoriety does in fact extend beyond the murders and his trial. As with Martin Bryant and others, an article with greater detail about Milat's life seems appropriate and not so appropriate in the Backpacker murders article. Yahboo (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is one of most notaries serial killer in Australia and sources from independent, reliable sources are presented. I dont see anything else but a keep. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the bolded comment by the nominator that this article was created after Milat's death, and is just a cut-and-paste from the backpacker murders article: an article about Ivan Milat was merged into the backpacker murders article in 2008, after discussion on the Talk page among 4 editors. Whoever created the separate article is in effect proposing that the articles be un-merged, and this deletion discussion is serving as a way to develop consensus on whether it remains a separate article. There is certainly precedence for articles on notorious killers separate from the article about their crimes, as I noted above. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen. Bookscale (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranx the Sentient City[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be non-notable fancruft per nom, sourced entirely to the comics._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable, secondary sources appear to exist discussing this character-city in much detail beyond plot summary. Alternatively, it could be Redirected to Sinestro Corps, as its major appearances were as a member of that group and it is already mentioned there. Though, that really depends on how salvageable other editors think that page is - it suffers from a similar lack of reliable sources, and its "Members" section, where Ranx is described, is a pretty big mess. Rorshacma (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality of Santos Dumont[edit]

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

Although the subject is deceased, I think this falls under WP:NOTGOSSIP. This article appears to be a collection of rumors written in an unencyclopedic tone. The main Alberto Santos-Dumont article doesn't mention his sexuality at all, and I'm not sure if anything in the nominated article should be merged there. — Newslinger talk 01:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 01:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do think a couple sentences on the topic could be added to Alberto_Santos-Dumont#Private_life, but not enough to call it a merge. This is undue weight as a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 05:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be speculation with no hard evidence, a bit of 2+2 =5. MilborneOne (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salvage nothing. None of it is worth saving, and would be undue gossip in the main article. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as tasteless gossip. Eostrix (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crass and distasteful; more importantly, unsubstantiated gossip being given undeserved prominence. This is not encyclopedic material. Gross. Madness ^Darkness 23:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dletereally, we are going to start speculation because someone was "well groomed"? And considering how many people who were married there has been speculation about their sexuality, this is all rubbish, as well as presentist bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not believe this nominator knows what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Janelee Chaparro[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do not believe this nominator knows what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anea Garcia[edit]

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

Notable Evrdkmkm (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:11, 28 October 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. Based on the discussion, it seems like there is a split between people who regard this as an exercise in original research/POV-pushing and these who think that it is a coherent notable topic, with at least one editor stating they were fluctuating. But it seems like the "exercise in original research/POV-pushing" side has gone into more detail when analyzing the topic - the keeps by contrast have not really provided a detailed source analysis - and has also the superior numbers. Thus delete - but if people want to reuse the content or sourcing (as some folks have hinted at) they can ask at WP:REFUND Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theosophy and science[edit]

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

This isn't an encyclopedic topic, it's an essay more suitable for submission to an academic article. The SYNTH is borne out in the works cited as well, which rely way too heavily on primary sources and on entirely unreliable sources--just look at how many of the publications come from the Theosophical Publishing House, besides a bunch of websites. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the page is more than WP:SYNTH as it has a coherent and encyclopedic focus on the topic, contains many sources other than theosophical, and contains adequate balancing criticism. Although theosophy isn't a religion, this article is similar to pages such as Christianity and science, Buddhism and science, Hinduism and science and others. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article is filled with issues and does need some serious attention however the subject is notable and it does not warrant a deletion. EvilxFish (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creator of this article SERGEJ2011 has created about thirty other Theosophy articles (Theosophy and visual arts is another recent example), they are mostly unreliable articles sourced to Theosophy publications and riddled with original research. This user has been using Wikipedia to dump his own private research on Theosophy which reads as synth. This has been going on for several years. There are two previous concerns about this on the Fringe theories noticeboard. User creating articles on countless Theosophy books and Theosophy and Science. One user there described this as a form of WP:LONG (long-term abuse). I believe that is accurate. This idea seems to be to use Wikipedia as a dumping ground for Theosophy related topics. The creator of these articles often links to the Theosophy Wiki as a valid source. 81.147.137.6 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also see my recent comment here [26] 81.147.137.6 (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment having skimmed through many of the article's independent sources, I don't think that SYNTH concerns can be entirely dismissed. While the article does include criticism of theosophy, the attached sources appear to often be either general criticisms of theosophy, or general criticisms of esoteric groups' approaches to science, but rarely do they appear to directly concern themselves with theosophy's approach to science, which is the actual subject of this article. The first citation in the "Criticism of Theosophy" section only briefly mentions science, merely highlighting Theosophy's hostility to it, but not really unpacking its relationship. The next citation only mentions Theosophy and science together in the introduction, and then only to say that theosophy comprises a vulgar pseudoscientific mythology, which isn't really an examination of the subject at hand. Given the absolutely sprawling bibliography, it might help if keep voters identify some sources that do comprise significant coverage of the subject. As it stands, I think it may be most appropriate to selectively merge the article into Theosophy (Blavatskian) (an article which I note at one point claims that there is a dearth of scholarly literature about Theosophy). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV spam. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Partial merge to one of the main Theosophy articles - although I would hate to have to sort that out. Reading through that article, I found myself bouncing between "this seems a nice summary of existing analysis" and "this is pulling together a boatload of primary sources to make a point" - back and forth, several times. This is really meandering along the line between acceptable summary and unacceptable synthesis, and I think it spends too much time on the wrong side of the tracks. Much of it should go in the light of our synthesis guidelines, and I don't believe the remainder would stand up too well as a separate article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, and WP:FRINGE: a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. I believe this article and others like it exist to promote Theosophy. What the IP says in their delete vote above should be taken seriously. Some more info can be found in this FTN section, as they linked to above. Rosguill's comment also makes some excellent points, ones which, to me, point towards deletion.
Don't let the high number of sources and the intricate formatting fool you - my own look at the sourcing finds that many, perhaps most, are poor. Very many are sourced to Theosophical publications (hence evangelistic and self-promotional), and many others are in Russian and hence pretty much useless to almost all of us. Theosophy Wiki is even used several times.
Granted, there may be some snippets that could be saved, maybe merged. Realistically though, are any of us going to actually wade through all this? I believe our content should "first, do no harm" - on net, this article is misleading our readers about Theosophy and about science. It needs WP:TNT. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:51, 2 November 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] ttp://royalties-ecobranding.com/

[2] "Designer tweaks famous logos to use less ink". CNN. November 29, 2017.

[3] "Eco-Friendlier Versions Of Brand Logos That Save Both Your Money And Earth". Design Taxi. September 14, 2017.

[4] "Ecobranding: Famous Corporate Logos, Redesigned To Use Less Ink". Fast Company. September 25, 2017.

[5] "Inside One Designer's Plan to Make Brand Logos More Eco-Friendly". Adweek. September 26, 2017.

[6] ttps://ecobranding-design.com/

[7] ttps://www.behance.net/ecobranding

[8] ttps://github.com/ecobranding

[9] ttp://ecobranding.foundation

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]