Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 18 July 20 July >

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mikko's Phylogeny Archive

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

Subject does not meet the notability guidelines. In addition to not being notable, subject is a website that appears to have once been upkept but is no longer reliably updated and as such is not reliable. Wikipedia is not an index of every amateur website created; this has no notability and no references other than the website that is the subject of the article. Paisarepa (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the article, the website’s author ‘points out that the site is a private project, is not peer-reviewed, and should not be used as a scientific reference’ so there is no reason for it to have an article here. Mccapra (talk) 04:51, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are mentions of this site in Google Books. Apparently the site, despite being run by a private individual, has been a pioneer in the field having started in 2001. So atleast it should merit some investigation. --Pudeo (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I found six books with the search, and while one of them is published by Routledge, four of them are Wikipedia clones and one was published in the 1980s. -kyykaarme (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Apparently, the National Center for Biotechnology Information at the United States National Library of Medicine considers this a "high-quality" resource suitable for inclusion in their LinkOut program. [[1]]. It's a niche article to be sure, but it does have signs of notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no coverage in secondary sources about the site, and it is not referenced in peer reviewed papers on taxonomy. It seems to be "random dudes personal phylogeny opinions"--Kevmin § 16:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 23:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Being included in a list of links is not significant coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 11:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As already stated, there do not appear to be any coverage in reliable, secondary sources, thus failing the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article, it's not notable itself.Forest90 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Live from Maida Vale

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. A limited edition release for Record Store Day, just 1000 copies worldwide, and featuring two old songs by the band and two cover versions, so it contains no new songs either. No reviews anywhere, and obviously with so few copies, it never charted either. Article has been redirected twice to The Used but the creator insists on reverting it back, despite the fact it still has no good references. The BBC reference simply proves the songs were recorded for a BBC session, but no evidence of notability... bands all over the world record live sessions for radio stations, this is nothing out of the ordinary. The other references are links to social media and the Record Store Day website where you can buy this record. There are almost no online references, even unreliable ones, for this record. Richard3120 (talk) 22:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wholly un-encyclopaedic. RobinCarmody (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't improve upon the nominator's reasoning, as the album was ignored by the outside world after a few copies were dribbled out for Record Store Day long ago. A redirect will probably be reverted yet again so deletion is the way to go. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Doomsdayer520. Meeanaya (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ,per nom. Alex-h (talk) 21:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. Limited edition EPs are typically run of the mill recordings by bands. Bearian (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would normally be a fan of redirect here but this album is too niche even for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.Forest90 (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Disregarding the person associated with the company, there's only one, and "weak", keep opinion here. Sandstein 05:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PolicyGenius

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

The references provided do not substantiate that the business is notable Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Nor are the founders (who are given considerable weight as a reason for the article), notable. The content of the article would apply to any business. 1) We sell stuff. 2) Some people started the business. 3) We got funding. 4) And, BTW, here's a link to our consumer website where the single-focus of the home page is to promote the stuff we sell. Wikipedia is not meant to be a Yellow Pages listing for run-of-the-mill business entities.

Blatant conflict of interest (the author is self-admittedly employed by this organization as a media marketer).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 12 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Note: I have properly completed steps 2 and 3 of the AfD process on behalf of the nominator. On the merits of the nomination I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Obvious WP:COI and WP:NPV issues. However, those warrant clean-up rather than deletion as long as the subject of the article meets the notability threshold. Neutral regarding deletion, for now. Paisarepa (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: What have you found notable that keeps you neutral? Eliminate the WP:COI and WP:NPV and there's nothing left. No notability in the content, and every reference leads to a sponsored page. You can find dozens of common, similar businesses that sell insurance online. If like PolicyGenius, they sell something, have founders, and received investments, then they are surely missing out on Google page reputation by not having a Wikipedia article about them that links back to their site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The company was profiled by Forbes, for one example of significant coverage by a reliable, independent secondary source. Additionally, the company was the primary focus of the articles by Lifehacker, Investopedia, and Venturebeat. The notability threshold is that the company must have been "the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". It appears to me that the references support its notability so I am leaning towards keep. How are you determining that the references are sponsored pages? I'm not seeing indications that they are native advertising, but I could be missing something. Paisarepa (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An analysis of the references (some also mentioned by Paisarepa above) in the article as follows:
Venturebeat article specifically fails WP:ORGIND as it relies entirely on information provided by the company/founders and contains no independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and/or fact checking.
Fastcompany article - same as above.
Forbes article contains no "independent content" relevant to the company, relies entirely on quotations/interview and fails for the same reasons as above.
Investopedia article(wayback version) fails for the same reasons as above.
LifeHacker article has not been written by a staff writer (possible RS concerns) but the article itself only gives a brief overview of how to use the website with a screenshot and contains no information about the company itself, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
Xconomy article is based on an company announcement about succeeding in getting funding, fails WP:ORGIND.
WSJ Blogs article fails as blogs are not accepted as RS. Also fails ORGIND for the same reasons as the Xconomy reference above.
LinkedIn article fails for the same reasons as above.
Techcrunch article fails for the same reasons as above.
All in all, none of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and I am unable to locate any articles that do. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 16:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: We understand that our Policygenius Wikipedia page hasn’t been updated in a while and included only basic information, but there’s a lot that has happened since that original version. We’ve included information below that will help provide credibility and can be used to clean up what is currently displayed on the page. First, some insights around our co-founder and CEO, Jennifer Fitzgerald:
She is the Ernst and Young Entrepreneur of the Year New York 2019, one of Fast Company’s 100 Most Creative People in Business for 2018 and is one of only four women founders in Fintech to raise more than $50 million in funding. Jennifer has shared insights in major publications including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg and more.
Features in credible and authoritative news outlets:
Inc: How This Founder Overcame Hundreds of Rejections to Finally Raise $52 Million
Inc: Starting a Business? Ask These 5 Essential Money Questions First
Entrepreneur: This Entrepreneur Shares How to Name Your Company — or Fix a Bad Name
Forbes: One Of The Five Female Fintech Founders To Have Raised Fifty Million In Funds
MarketWatch: Short-term health insurance plans are dirt cheap for good reasons
Goop: Understanding Life Insurance — And Getting the Best Policy
Other awards and accolades of Policygenius:
EY Announces Winners for the Entrepreneur Of The Year 2019 New York Award additional source
Inc Best Places to Work 2018 and 2019 additional source
Fast Company The Most Creative People in Business 2018
100 Women Making Money, Creating Jobs and Changing the World — Top 100 Female Founders List
2018 Entrepreneur 360 List
In addition to the insurance marketplace, Policygenius also produces the Policygenius Magazine, which is editorially independent and regularly publishes content. The magazine received an honorable mention for best content series in Nov. 2018 and also regularly produces annual surveys on topics from health care to how couples and parents manage their money.
These surveys have been covered in major publications, including:
CBS Moneywatch: Deadline looms for Obamacare Open Enrollment
Houston Chronicle: Obamacare enrollment opens, but fate remains uncertain
Bustle: Couples Aren't Communicating About Money, New Survey Finds
Forbes: How to really save money on car insurance
The Knot: The One Thing You Should Do Postwedding for a Happier Marriage
Brides: The Financial Pros and Cons of Keeping Your Money Separate From Your Partner
FOX Business: Parents reveal how much they'd be willing to pay to stop their child's temper tantrum — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoisdelame (talk • contribs) 22:50, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Thank you Francoisdelamefor spending the time to put together these links in good faith. One issue is that the *volume* of links doesn't matter for the purposes of establishing notability - all that is required is a minimum of two links that meet the criteria. Your (and our) time would be much better served by providing links that met the criteria for establishing notability. Please read WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH to understand the weight placed on in-depth significant and "independent content". The last one is often misunderstood but is summarised nicely in WP:ORGIND: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.
In summary, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 12:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: HighKing Thank you for your insights and guidance here. We’ve read over the notability requirements and now we’re sending along a few sources we believe meet these guidelines.
New York Times
Wall Street Journal
New York Times Francoisdelame (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Francoisdelame, the best advice I can give you is to look for articles which talk about the company and which don't include quotations/interviews from the company/founder. For example, if you read any of the last three articles and ask yourself "What has the *journalist* said about the *company* (not the founder, etc) that comes from their own opinion/analysis/investigation?", you are left with next to nothing. It doesn't matter that the source is the NYT or WSJ if the journalist is simply printing soundbites from the company - this is not considered "independent content" for the purposes of establishing notability as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 19:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Company is no more notable than any other online insurance agency. The products they sell are commodities. Nor is the business model novel. (Given that, an independent expose about how they wrangled $50 million in venture capital would make the founders notable to me. Note that although Thanos posited an innovative product to attract their investors, it is now notable only for the expose.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kcornwall (talk • contribs) 23:31, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete As per Highking, there are no reliable sources, most of the references are blogs or written by freelancers/contributors. Fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I agree with Paisarepa that it has serious WP:COI and WP:NPV issues and there are some WP:GNG issues with some of the references but that these issues should also take into consideration of other references that prove notability. This means that it needs to be rewritten by a non-COI editor or two to get this article up to scratch ASAP. It seems to me that enough of the reference articles do support noteworthiness and dont have GNG issues, from what I can see from a cursory glance, such as the Wall Street Journal article or the TechCrunch article or the New York Times article. In short I think that deletion might be a bit cavalier, but then again I would say that as I am more of an inclusionist then a deletionist by default.--Discott (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TWA media (non-commercial)

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

Advertorialized article about a film and video production company, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced as passing WP:CORP. As always, companies are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, but rather they need to have reliable source coverage which verifies that they pass a defined notability criterion -- but none of the sources here are support for notability at all. #1 was printed by a self-publishing print-on-demand house; #2 is just tangentially verifying a stray fact about generic film production roles in a source which isn't about this company at all; #3 is a directory entry; #4 is a general news story about a censorship controversy which fails to mention this company at all in conjunction with it; #5 is the company's own self-published website about itself; #6 is a web media startup which does not have a well-established reputation as a reliable source. Which means none of them are even relevant to getting this company over CORP criteria, and the company isn't exempted from having to get over CORP criteria just because its own web presence technically verifies that it exists. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Didn’t want to break any rule. I am totally OK if it’s deleted without further discussion since it seems to violate rules that I was not fully aware of. I’m sorry and will be more cautious in the future. OnSpeech (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No convincing sources to pass WP:CORP. Not a deletion comment, but this non-notable article can also be confused with Trans-World Airlines (TWA). AmericanAir88(talk) 13:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the subject doesn't seem notable and also fails WP:GNG.Forest90 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was move to draft. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyx stream

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

WP:TOOSOON, certainly fails WP:NASTRO and probably WP:GNG. One preprint paper, no popular coverage, wouldn't even be notable if the preprint is peer-reviewed. Telling that it is an orphan. Lithopsian (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounded important to me, worthy of a harmless stub article. I agree it is important to get news coverage. Tom Ruen (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • draftify A new stellar stream sounds important. But... There seems to be no one citing that preprint, it is just so new. So I would suggest putting this back to a draft state to await some secondary overage, or other papers appearing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Userfy — there's nothing intrinsically wrong with the content, really, but one not-yet-reviewed arXiv item isn't enough to build an article upon. When the paper gets officially published and/or attracts some citations and commentary, then mention can be made at, e.g., List of stellar streams (depending on how much there is to say about it, it might not need a stand-alone article). XOR'easter (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify The subject is interesting but the article, right now, does not give the reader much information. So I agree with the above that it needs additional work, but not to be deleted. Alex-h (talk) 10:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:G12: unambiguous copyright infringement. North America1000 02:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darul Huda Islamic School

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOOL, looks like someone wrote an "about us" article for their school. creffett (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Seems consensus that it was the coverage at the point and time after annoucement that generated notability, rather than impending unknown future coverage. Arguments that a stated change to what it is supposedly an OS for is irrelevant in notability terms as notability isn't temporary. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hongmeng OS

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

During the last AFD, users chose to maintain this article, despite the fact that it is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL because Huawei has not yet made any specific statements about what this operating system is, when it will be released, and so on, besides the fact that it exists. None of my concerns have been addressed since, and the entirety of this article is based on speculative statements.

In addition, Huawei suddenly stated that "HongmengOS" isn't an operating system for smartphones, but a low-latency operating system for industrial equipment, and that they do not intend to replace Android on its phones with it. The narrative is confusing, and this premature article will only make it worse once I inevitably have to add said detail to it (as, based on their statement, it is now factually inaccurate). It can be handled better in summary style on the Huawei article. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per previous deletion request opened by you. The fact that the story suddently changed does not mean the OS is not longer notable, and the article does not meet the definition of WP:CRYSTAL, as high Huawei personalities (Richard Yu, Liang Hua and Catherine Chen) declared about the product (in different circumstances), and the article has almost 30 references.
Then, the article should mention the OS as the past declarations claimed its past purposes (a replacement for Android), in addition with the conflicts between Donald Trump and Huawei, as well as the current plans (an OS for embedded devices), and the future ones (add Android-compatible layer to HongMeng in order to be used with smartphones). Even, the article mentions clearly the begins of the OS, and an embedded OS for the IoT could be perfectly adapted for smartphones (and adding Android-compatible layer is part of the plans). --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite conflicted on this one, on the one hand, like the proposer said, it is WP:CRYSTAL, on the other, it has soon became a high profile product to justify an article thanks to Trump. I'm pretty sure most of these information are somewhat rumors as indeed the product is never released, on the other, there are enough news report on it so that people would be interested in the title. I should suggest merge to some article about Huawei's role in the trade war, however that article does not exist yet afaik, so I'm inclined to keep on this one until a merge target surface. Viztor (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some of the info in the article does seem to fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL, but contradictory info from the company itself can be reliably documented and isn't a case of "speculation and rumour". If the article's at risk of being out of date then that merits something like a {{Current related}} notice and not deletion. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 22:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if never goes public is part of history.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hongmeng will become history, even if it's never released. Pancho507 (talk) 07:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Huawei's license to source components from the US will expire soon, so Huawei can't use android in the future. Even if it doesn't end up being called hongmeng we can just move the article and talk about how it started life and how it's used by then. Pancho507 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 20:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Igbafe

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

I can't find any SIGCOV on Google or Google News, nor any evidence that NPROF is met. MrClog (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete. A legit historian with a decent number of citations but seems not to meet NPROF. Fair to compare with other Nigerian historians like Saburi Biobaku or Adiele Afigbo which Google Scholar finds far more citations for. I searched for book reviews but didn't find enough to really move the needle here. Haukur (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, striking my !vote as per the work below. Haukur (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- (1) It seems clear that "Professor" is used in the British sense, not the American one as a synonym for lecturer. (2) He has a significant body of published work. I do not know Mindex, but the other books are with major publishers. (3) "Chief Commissioner" is probably a status equivalent to minister at the state level, and probably also qualifies him as WP notable. He appears to have retired in the 1980s before the arrival of the Internet; certainly before it significantly penetrated Nigeria. Accordingly the lack of web citations does not concern me. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (as nom - withdrawn request) per Peterkingiron. I wasn't aware of the usage of academic ranks outside the US. Pinging Haukurth, if they also find Peter's argument convincing, they may strike their vote so this AfD can be closed as speedy keep. --MrClog (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure I understand the argument. Not all full professors are notable. The books may well qualify him but I'd like to see some reviews on them first. I'd like to keep this open a little longer and see if some of the regulars on academic figures chime in. Haukur (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I found reviews for the two London-published books but not for the African-published ones. I don't know whether that reflects a greater impact for those books, a different culture of book reviewing between Europe and Africa, or a disconnect between the African-published scholarly literature and the internet. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He appears to be a prominent scholar of the region, his books have multiple reviews, and he also served as a cabinet member in a state-level subdivision of Nigeria. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The reviews found by David Eppstein seal the deal. I don't find the comparisons made by Haukur convincing. We don't demand that an American or British or any other Western academic should be among the top few in their country, so we shouldn't demand that of a Nigerian academic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A healthy collection of reviews to count towards WP:AUTHOR and probably holding a rank equivalent to a US "distinguished professor", as well as his political service. XOR'easter (talk) 20:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. And salt (see Billy Carson). Sandstein 05:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Camrick Carson II

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

Promotional piece that does not indicate notability per WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Sources provided are iffy to say the least. ... discospinster talk 17:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to have extensive coverage and passes notability as TV Host and music producer per WP:AUTHOR guidelines. Peter303x (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed reference to his being a TV host as it was not reliably sourced. I've trimmed the text around his music producing as much of it could not be reliably sourced. What's left, I've tagged as needing verification as it's paywalled. Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source on the page for his "bestseller" is Amazon.com. NOT a WP acceptable source for "bestseller" claims.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Nom is very generous when describing the sources as iffy. Scraping below the bottom of the barrel. Vague waves above have not identified any specific sources that are good. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have tried doing some clean-up of the article. This has mostly entailed deleting material that is not sourced or where citations fail WP:RS. There was lots of blogs and WP:FRINGEy stuff, and lots of citations not saying what was claimed. More could probably be cut on similar grounds. Bondegezou (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are any of the sources WP:SIGCOV? He doesn't come up in a proquest news search, not even a mention. The NYTimes article on the page is about a high school basketball player whose father is named "Billy Carson", even if it is the same Billy Carson, having a daughter who shoots hoops doesn't make you notable. One of he "sources" [2] in something called the London Post : [https://london-post.co.uk/about/}, which looks like a press release reposting service.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His contributed science and history should make him notable under WP:ACADEMIC. His music has made it onto multiple Billboard 100 listing which clearly fulfills Wikipedia requirement for WP:SINGER and WP:Music which state "had a single or album on any country’s national music charts". Demandchange (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)(Note that Demandchange is the article creator.[reply]
Note that Demandchange created the article. There is nothing in the article that remotely meets WP:ACADEMIC. Claims in the article pertain only to producing singles that have charted and WP:MUSIC would only apply to the artist, and I was unable to verify those claims. Two of the citations given made no mention of the songs concerned, so I removed those. Bondegezou (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly cannot find such. Notability is not sourceable,as far as I can tell.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sources show up. Haukur (talk) 23:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I cannot find any SIGCOV of this subject. Also subject is not a NY Times Best Seller, so misleading lead. WP:TOOSOON Lightburst (talk) 01:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how he is notable under WP:ACADEMIC? I can't see anything remotely fitting WP:ACADEMIC. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for WP:UPE. MER-C 16:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nearly everything in the article that establishes any notability comes down to two citations, London Post and Middle East Headlines. Both look pretty dodgy to me, as in not satisfying WP:RS, but I've given the article the benefit of the doubt and left them in for now. If we can pin down a decision on those, I think the notability or not of this article would be clearer. Bondegezou (talk) 10:25, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bondegezou: If someone buys a cut-rate online PR package, London Post is one of the outlets where the "news story" shows up. A London Post citation is a giant blinking sign that says "This BLP is promotional". Bakazaka (talk) 05:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I literally can't verify anything in this BLP. Assuming it all was true, being a produder, even of a rap hit, is run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comment We've pinned down the music production side of things a bit. He co-produced an album that made some Billboard sub-charts, e.g. #32 on the Independent albums chart, but not the main chart. I believe that doesn't pass standard music notability criteria, although it's a better claim to notability than anything else in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Me again. Yes, as per WP:GOODCHARTS, it's only the main Billboard chart that qualifies for notability, so this is insufficient. Bondegezou (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

S.B.V. No.2, Palam Enclave

S.B.V. No.2, Palam Enclave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable references for this primary+secondary school; the one given doesn't mention the school. [3] is the best I could find and is probably about the same school. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Chamber of Commerce

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

Created by now-blocked WP:SPA User:Guelphchamber, used as WP:OSE excuse by AfC candidates, relies solely on information from the organizations website (fixable), and there are definite doubts about its notability per WP:NORG. At the very least, hopefully this discussion can clarify notability around Chambers of Commerce in smaller cities, states and provinces. Bkissin (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - (to Guelph) nom beat me to it, an OSE example that immediately warranted nomination for deletion. I also don't think that notability is established per NORG. I don't think any actual specific consideration is needed - each of them has to pass NORG, and some will and some won't. While it's an unlikely search target, it's possible (there is some coverage within the Guelph article) and it retains the history and is no great loss. Worth watchlisting in case the SPA comes back. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and/or redirect). As established many times in other AFD discussions, the problem with chambers of commerce is that they exist in virtually every city and do basically the same things everywhere, so they don't all get an "inherent" notability freebie just because their own self-published website offers technical verification that they exist — just like all other organizations, chambers of commerce still have to meet the notability test of having enough reliable source coverage in media to clear WP:GNG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Bearcat (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is another page, similar to Udaipur Chamber of Commerce, lacks WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's well-established that CoC's are run of the mill and to be notable must be proven to be notable by significant coverage. I don't see how the consensus would change soon. This is a relatively small city, not a major tourist or convention draw like Toronto or Niagara Falls. Bearian (talk)
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. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blayqe on a Horse

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

Orphaned article about a film without any references and without any references to be found on a search I tried. With a budget of $50 and no notable people involved, there are no other reasons to assume that it might be notable in any way. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 16:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. SoWhy 16:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NFILM. I can't even find a release date. I'm wondering who A Crutch is/was. I can't turn up anything for them in a google search. MarnetteD|Talk 16:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Speedily if there is a criteria that fits. Looking into it, this was a ten minute long, amateur YouTube video that somebody created, and then wrote a Wikipedia article on. It fails every possible criteria for notability. Rorshacma (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not sure if A11 applies, but certainly does not pass WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a complete article,does not meet WP:NFILM Alex-h (talk) 22:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Encorps Drum and Bugle Corps

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

While there is a story about the drum and bugle corps in a drum and bugle magazine, there is no evidence of notability in the article and no additional sources to support a claim were found in a Google search. Yes, there are articles that exist for other drum and bugle corps, but many of those are just as weak on notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this day and age, almost anywhere in the world, merely the successful entry of a new drum and bugle corps is notable. (With the possible exception of Indonesia, which has seen more than 600 corps come into being in the past decade.) GWFrog (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maximilian Schäffler

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

Subject does not meet WP:NHOCKEY. Only 120 games played in DEL and 200 is needed to pass #2, no preeminent honours to note in DEL2 so fails #3 and never played for Germany in the top pool of the IIHF World Championship so fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 05:53, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somayeh Mohammadi

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

Does not meet notability for WP:BIO or WP:EVENT or WP:GNG. Article about a Somayeh Mohammadi who joined a political group, her parents saying that she's been held hostage, and Somayeh denying this and filing a lawsuit against her parents. Article has also a lot of unimportant and repeated information. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 14:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was nominated for deletion once and as a result was polished by several editors. I think it has enough sources to meet notability.--Kazemita1 (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to which policy unimportant and repeated information is the reason for deletion, I don't see such reason into related policy or Can't we remove duplicated material rather than deletion? Anyway, There are lots of RSes supported the notability of Somayeh Mohammadi:

  • The opinion of Somayeh about her parent's effort to meet her was reported by thenational
  • How did she join MEK and her parent's effort to meet her and her letter accusing her father of being an Iranian intelligence agent was reported by guardian
  • Somayeh has published her whole story in a book available in Persian and English which reported by tirana times
  • Stories have emerged of how MEK paid many media outlets in the country in order to buy their silence regarding the abduction of Somayeh Mohammadi which reported by Fars news
  • Brief and complete description about Somayeh specifically her parent's effort to meet her is presented by Spiegel
  • her parent's efforts to find her in Albania was reported by independent
  • She stated her opinion about the documentary film “An Unfinished Film For My Daughter.”(about her life narrated by her father). Also At the time, Mohammadi provided her response by writing a book, “The End Of A Conspiracy.” Which was reported by thebaghdadpost
  • Websites backed by MEK published articles about her, mek-iran and mojahedin... In the article, The National’s Gregg Russell interviewed MEK member Somayeh Mohammadi, The latest effort of Mostafa and Mahboubeh, Somayeh’s parents, is to come to Albania and file complaints against the MEK, Somayeh Mohammadi MEK member now living in Albania
  • Also, there are sources in Albanian such as TPZ, lexo and balkanweb about her and her parent's effort to meet Somayeh
Comment Saff V. is the author of this article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 21:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This has become a long lasting repetitious story. 38-year-old Somayeh Mohammadi is not a “kid” and does not need her parents’ permission to travel or to have her own political beliefs.
    When moving from Iraq to Albania, all members of MEK had to go through multiple checks and interviews by different institutes such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), as well as by government security agencies in Iraq and Albania. Their belongings were checked item by item just before they left Iraq. It does not seem that any “under torture hostage” could pass over all these checks.

    Further, Somayeh Mohammadi, herself, has repeatedly announced to impartial parties that she is with MEK on her own free will and that her father is persecuting her on a mission from Iranian Regime’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS). [1][2][3]
  1. ^ Iranian-Canadian father, mujahedeen daughter clash over Albania-based MEK
  2. ^ Somayeh Mohammadi, Iranian accusing his father as an agent: We are facing psychological torture
  3. ^ Intervista/ Somayeh Mohammadi: Jam me muxhahedinët me dëshirë, s’jam peng. Ja e vërteta për babain tim
This is a baseless article. The encyclopedic values of Wikipedia should not be allowed to be misused by Iran’s misinformation campaign. Alex-h (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In these two sources (tiranatime and balkanweb) which are introduced by you, her father was accused to be in relation with Iran's Intelligence service. In other words, according to sources, it is just allegation, but you presented it as a fact, which source does support her father's mission? In other hands, while there are reports about Somayeh in guardian and independent and Spiegel, Is it can be baseless or Iran’s misinformation campaign?Saff V. (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You (Alex-h) make an argument for possibly making changes to the article, which belongs on its talk page, but no argument for deleting it. In fact the sources that you listed attest to the notability of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My argument for deleting this article is that it's not based on anything that is notable, but instead looks like part of a disinformation campaign agains the MEK (see this for example). The article is about parents that allege that Somayeh Mohammadi is being held against her will, and Somayeh Mohammadi saying this is a false claim. Which of Wikipedia's notability guidelines does a subject like this meet? None. Alex-h (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allegations of something that according to Somayeh Mohammadi has not even happened does not make for a notable incident. Alex-h (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG depends on significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The many sources for this subject, including those that you provided, show that this subject has received such coverage. You are still arguing about the truth or falsity of certain claims, which are article content, rather than article existence, matters. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think Alex-h is digging himself deeper, the more he discusses the clearer the notability of the subject becomes. @Alex-h: What do you mean by saying the article "looks like part of a disinformation campaign against the MEK"?Saff V. (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Somayeh Mohammadi says this herself: My father was a supporter of the MEK, I told him I want to live with the MEK in Ashraf. In 2004 I heard he's working with the Mullah's regime in Iran. He said too much lies, he said Somayeh has been kidnapped by the MEK. I have his passport too, to show he came from Iran to Irak . He then came to Albania to say the MEK has kidnapped me, but this is not right because I'm in a free country here; I go outside, to doctor, shopping, anywhere, I can go. And if I want to chose to leave the MEK, I can, but this is not my choice because I want to live with the MEK. All things that Mustafa said in Albania is wrong and not true[4] Alex-h (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what on Earth does that have to do with article deletion? Yet again you are arguing about the content of the article, not giving any policy-compliant reasons for us not to have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The subject's testimony says that the incident that this page is about is a WP:HOAX, and that Somayeh Mohammadi is notable only for this one event only (WP:BLP1E). Alex-h (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is missed. @Alex-h: What do you mean by saying the article "looks like part of a disinformation campaign against the MEK"?Saff V. (talk) 05:46, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: while just 2 weeks are past from the first nominating of the article for AFD, it was closed by this result: "this leans more to a keep than a delete, but I'll play it safe and deem this a "no consensus".Saff V. (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: It fails WP:BLP1E and GNG. Article about a non-notable person involved in a single non-notable event (an event that the subject of the article itself says is untrue). Barca (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As RSes such Guardian and Tirana Times reported, she is not only a notable person but also there are a lot of events to make her more notable such as:
  1. Her membership in MEK: Somayeh Mohammadi is one of about 2,300 members of the MEK living inside a heavily fortified base that has been built on 34 hectares of farmland in north-west Albania.
  2. How she joined the group: Somayeh flew to Iraq to attend a summer camp and to visit her maternal aunt’s grave. She never came back.
  3. The previous activity of her parents: Her parents, who were once supporters of the group
  4. Her parent's effort: The couple has spent the past two decades trying to get their daughter out of the MEK, traveling from their home in Canada to Paris, Jordan, Iraq and now Albania
  5. The role of MEK in her life: The MEK insists Somayeh does not wish to leave the camp
  6. The letter published on Albanian media: she has released a letter in which accuses her father of working for Iranian intelligence
  7. A documentary film, “An Unfinished Film for My Daughter, Somayeh”, narrated the life story of Somayeh and her family.

... and etc. Saff V. (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Also per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Unreliable sources aside, the little coverage this incident has received in reliable media spans from November 2019 to February 2019, making this about a single event that lacks ongoing coverage. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly keep the Article, it's obviously notable and also pass WP:GNG. That's weird, the article nominated for deletion just 3 weeks ago and now nominate again... This sources covered the subject that proves it is a notable one, 1, 2, 3, 4. And about the WP:BLP1E, the article subject has covered a full story of a living person and it will expand more in future.Forest90 (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt Per WP:Advocacy. Nothing pointed out by Saff V. here, (including the "documentary" produced by the MEK's political opposition), is notable. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, is it even an AFD rational? Also, I think you need to see Notability since you're using it in a wrong manner. Deep coverage of the subject by reliable sources is a clear indication of notability. --Mhhossein talk 11:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Except that there isn't "deep coverage of the subject"; there is some coverage in limited reliable sources, which do not confirm the incident as actually true, just testimonies by Somayeh's father, and Somayeh saying the whole thing is a fabrication. If this qualifies for a Wikipedia page, then any allegation on a news outlet should get its own Wikipedia page. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
YOU think there's not "deep coverage of the subject". See my comment for a more detailed response. --Mhhossein talk 15:03, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have to notice that mek-iran and mojahedin are RS to release MEK position, as well as Iranian news agencies, are RS to publish Iran positions about her.Saff V. (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After the first AFD closed by Jo-Jo Eumerus with a note describing it as leaning " more to a keep than a delete", this new nomination seems like an awkward attempt at removing a notable life story, at any price possible, be it throwing irrelevant guidelines and arguments; Among the comments one may see self-contradictory arguments, in contrast to their will, further proving the notability of the subject (See conversation between Alex-h and Phil Bridger). Also I was astonished by comments starting with 'strong delete' and even 'delete and salt'!!!, the latter citing WP:Advocacy!, which may already signal how the case is important.
    Anyway, I don't know if I have to repeat my keep already given in the previous AFD, but instead would like to remind that, despite what some users try to show here, we're not talking about the role of a girl in an event, rather the article is describing a life story! Yes, Somayeh's membership in MEK and her parents following here every where to take her back home and the events occurring to them, have made a life story which is covered by numerous reliable sources. She was approached by multiple journalists, her story was covered by multiple reliable sources and was documented in 'An unfinished movie for my daughter Somayhe' which also received reactions from people like Masoud Behnoud. That's why I believe the article needs to be kept. --Mhhossein talk 12:12, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh this one again. Well I for one haven't changed my mind [5] --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last month's AfD was closed as 'no consensus' and that is the current position on this AfD. In the circumstances it seems best to allow more time in the hope that a consensus one way or another forms.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG non trivial coverage exists in the secondary sources already present Iran Times, The Guardian, The Baghdad Post and in foreign press. Lightburst (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless if you believe this is a Iranian disinformation campaign, or she really has been kidnapped and brainwashed, this is a notable story, more so in Iran but enough for Enwiki. The article has a lot of cleanup work needed - repetitions, grammar etc.. -- GreenC 23:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When you don't get the result you want at an AFD you shouldn't nominate it again 12 days later. Now then, if the article was renamed to show it is about the event not just the person, that would probably solve some of the problems. It is getting media coverage in news media around the world. This is clearly a notable situation. Passes the general notability guidelines as others have already pointed out with ample examples. Dream Focus 00:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 17:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bijan Zamani

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

No RS, nothing significant can be found to create a page, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories have been edited and corrected. Most of the sources are reliable sources such as MehrNews, TehranTimes, Jamejam, EverybodyWiki, Tabnak, ILNA and AsrIran and all of these sources have their own wikipedia page and are well known popular news agency websites. Blake44 (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Most of sources mentioned by you, are not reliable, unfortunately!Hispring (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete interviews do not add to notability. Also, most physicians need to be notable as academics, which he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have added more reliable and non-interview sources from Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper) and the physician part being removed, is it possible for you to change your vote? Best - Blake44 (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no doubt that he is a notable entrepreneur. There are many articles with reliable sources that talk about him other than the interviews, about the physician part I agree with John Pack Lambert so I think he should be mentioned as Iranian entrepreneur only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.73.122 (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC) .[reply]
N.B. This user is using a confirmed and now blocked open proxy. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Pack Lambert. Most likely a WP:PROMO article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have added more reliable and non-interview non-promotional sources from Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper)... is it possible for you to change your vote? I also believe I can work on this and make it better. Best - Blake44 (talk) 15:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Comment The article was poorly referenced and poorly formatted therefor I edited the article with new references and details. The writer of this article probably used the interviews to write the Wikipedia page and didn't know the Wikipedia should NOT be based on interviews. According to my research Bijan Zamani has been in notable and in the news for his work for the last 12 years, I found news archives from him that goes back to 2007. Please note that due to U.S. sanctions and relations many American websites do not cover the work of Iranian entrepreneurs but that doesn’t make this article less important. Many of the sources in this article are older and more reliable for Iranians than sources like “The New York Times”, “Huffington Post”, “Business Insider” or “Entrepreneur Magazine” or other sources that Wikipedia article creators’ usually reference to for entrepreneurs. I found many sources in Persian language but I tried to gather English coverage as much as possible for this article. By removing this article you are removing true and notable information. I have set aside the interviews at the end and all the links in the references that are connected to the main article purpose are all according to Wikipedia’s guideline and it’s based on notability and importance of the person’s work. Also to comment on users point of view dear John Pack Lambert the article is not about him being a physician at all and I think it was the article creators mistake at first, the category of the article was set for Iranian_People then you changed it to Iranian_Phycisians and his career or awards was never about his profession as physician. I see that the original writer removed the physician part which is the right move and I’m not arguing in that part. Dear Meeanaya according to Wikipedia page that you reference to WP:GNG and RS which I believe you mean Reliable Sources please note that all the references and details are more than “Reliable”. All the sources are secondary sources and the Interview links has been moved and now are not connected to the main article if needed the interview links can be removed or moved to External Links. In my point of view this article has more notability and reliable sources than many other entrepreneurs that have an article in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia’s List of Entrepreneurs (21th century). Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake44 (talk • contribs) 14:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can Comment as many times as you want but you only have one vote in an AfD. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are so unique and famous personality I have no problems with my biography page.Alexkia1399 (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)Blocked sock. Bakazaka (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have serious concerns that this is a possible WP:SOCK situation, as I did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reza Bahram (another article created by Alexkia1399). Outside the creator's keep vote, the other two are by a now-blocked web proxy and an account that has made only one edit outside Bijan Zamani and this deletion discussion. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reply to GPL93, I don't think it is wise to start editing or voting for Wikipedia pages without fully understanding the rules, guidelines, possible outcomes and the environment. That's why I'm reading, studying and monitoring not just this article but 2 other to see according to guideline how the editors and administrators work. I'm not connected to the creator or other editors. I don't think me and the creator have the same English skills and as I see his/her comments and writing, I don't think he/she should be even credited for creating this article as I did all the research and editing. I would like to suggest GPL93 to stay on the subject and comment about the reason(s) you feel this article's information and source doesn't meet the notability guidelines in Wikipedia and please do not violate Wikipedia's rules such as "address the arguments, not the person making them". I'm sorry Alexkia1399 and GPL93 if I'm being straight forward, I just want to be clear, professional and respectful to Wikipedia's rules. Best, Blake44 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see potential in several Wikipedia articles like this one and I will work on them if they get accepted and make them more complete and useful. Best, Blake44 (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per recent article improvements. He is in multiple mainstream sources and won national awards which clearly meets WP:GNG. According to its [1][2][3] sources half the population of his country is using his services. Easily passes notability guidelines. The "Delete" opinions were based on interviews but now the references have changed and interviews not used I don't see any reason to delete this article and I don't see any new comments about this matter from negative voters after recent improvements either. - Jacobz1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just googled the name of his "startup" in Persian: "Mihanpezashk" which is a copy of Zocdoc. Just found some minor results on non notable news websites:
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And here is his name (Bijan Zamani) in Persian:

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

So I doun't think that the subject is notable enough, fails WP:GNG.Farhikht (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Farhikht please look at the articles references the sources are from Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper) which they are not "non notable" sources, please check the sources and references in the article and if it's possible change your vote? I believe I can make this article much better and work on it Best - Blake44 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reply to Farhikht your vote must be voided and you are wrong please look at the references of the article. Editors should not vote in Wikipedia if they don't have the necessary knowledge. The first reference is from MehrNews here is their Wikipedia Mehr News Agency the second source is from Tehran times here is their Wikipedia Tehran Times the third source is from IranDaily here is their Wikipedia page Iran_(newspaper) and many other from Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper) ... if these are not notable news website then what are? , Best - Blake44 (talk) 11:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Report Note to administrators: I have serious concerns that this is a possible WP:VANDAL situation. Looks like users Farhikht and GPL93 have issues with the creator Alexkia1399 as they both voted on his/hers other creation and instantly down voted this article too without any reason and the other user Farhikht says no notable news website which is a total lie as I explained and showed on the previous comment. I also might not like the creator (Alexkia1399)'s activity but It is not right to take it to this article as these are not connected to each other at all !, Best - Blake44 (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but how exactly is expressing concerns about sock puppetry after notice votes from a proxy (immediately blocked by Malcolmxl5) and newly created accounts that have only contributed to articles and the AfDs involving the same editor Vandalism? Farhikht made very salient points but now his vote must be voided because you don’t like it?? Originally I believed that you and Alexkia1399 we’re not connected after your initial response, but this statement leads me to think that May not be the truth. GPL93 (talk) 13:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote "per John Pack Lambert. Most likely a WP:PROMO article. Best" here is your first comment and the second one about sock puppetry was related to the creator's other article that you commented on 18:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC) and right after on 19:10, 15 July 2019 (UTC) you commented on this article and Farhikht did the exact same thing, I'm not arguing on whether the creator made any mistakes or not and I don't care but this is a different article and I worked on it and added notable and high profile sources in reply to your first comment. Voting and judgement of the entire article as an editor based on another users activity on another article is not very professional and I call it Vandalism as you are deliberately intending to obstruct the article based on creator's activity not the article itself. You are saying you believe that me and the creator are not connected but before I opened this dispute it looked like you believed it and your comments made it look like that. Farhikht did not make a very salient point at all not because I don't like it because based on TRUE EVIDENCE like showing exact sources with their notability in my comment showing what he is saying is a total lie and should be voided. I showed and linked the sources and I asked are these high profile and notable sources or not ? I'm asking you too, read my last comment and look at the sources, are these "non notable news websites"? I will write here too are these "non notable news websites" Mehr News Agency, Tehran Times, Iran_(newspaper), Iranian Labour News Agency, Crunchbase, Jam-e Jam (newspaper)? , Best - Blake44 (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like me to expand on my vote, even after reviewing the new sources you have added I do not see notability. Firstoff, Crunchbase is an online database so it doesn't really contribute to notability. Also being mentioned in listicles, while better than nothing, also aren't great because the coverage is not generally in depth or significant (WP:SIGCOV) for one specific subject and interviews, while a source for adding content onto an article, generally don't establish notability either. Overall, I do not see the sustained and in-depth coverage necessary for an WP:GNG pass. I also stand by my earlier assessment of a WP:PROMO violation as well given the tone of the article. I hope that I have better explained my vote. GPL93 (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/147573/The-digital-health-startup-that-is-improving-healthcare Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news media Mehr_News_Agency Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/438058/Successful-Iranian-Entrepreneurs-You-Should-Know-About Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news media Tehran_Times ~ The article mentions the subject in a list ~ Partial
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/436733/Interview-with-MihanPezeshk-founder-Dr-Bijan-Zamani Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news media Tehran_Times Yes The article mentions the subject in details ✔ Yes
https://irannewsdaily.com/2019/07/why-startups-fail-and-what-you-can-learn-from-them/ Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news media Yes The article discusses the subject directly ✔ Yes
https://www.asriran.com/fa/news/676753 Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news media (Page in Persian Wikipedia added on left side) ~ The article mentions the subject briefly ~ Partial
https://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/906349 Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news media (Page in Persian Wikipedia added on left side) Yes The article discusses the subject directly ✔ Yes
http://www.iran-daily.com/News/255778.html Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian government agency Iran_(newspaper) Yes The article discusses the subject directly ✔ Yes
https://web.archive.org/web/20080414173309/http://www.webna.ir/news/?id=62034100 Yes Yes The source is the Iranian Website News Agency website (Archived) ~ The article discusses the subject briefly ~ Partial
http://jamejamonline.ir/online/3771896778105568423/ Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news agency Jam-e Jam (newspaper) Yes The article discusses the subject directly ✔ Yes
https://www.ilna.ir/Section-medical-10/770899-interview-with-young-entreprenuer-bijan-zamani Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news agency Iranian Labour News Agency Yes The article discusses the subject directly ✔ Yes
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/146299/Dr-Bijan-Zamani-talks-about-an-easier-way-to-find-a-doctor Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news agency Mehr News Agency Yes The article discusses the subject directly ✔ Yes
https://click.ir/1398/04/23/best-digital-healthcare-startups-in-iran/ Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian technology magazine (Alexa Rank: 365) ~ The article discusses the subject in a list ~ Partial
https://arga-mag.com/360861 Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian technology magazine (Alexa Rank: 43) ~ The article discusses the subject briefly ~ Partial
https://www.alodoctor.com/articles/details/48485 Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian health magazine (Alexa Rank: 281) Yes The article discusses the subject directly ✔ Yes
https://profile.iwmf.ir/website/mihanpezeshk.com Yes Yes The official website of Iranian Web & Mobile Festival ? Unknown
https://www.crunchbase.com/person/bijan-zamani Yes ? Crunchbase As explained in their Wikipedia page members can also add information but the ranking and rating are done by moderators only. ? Unknown
https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/mihanpezeshk#section-related-hubs Yes ? Crunchbase As explained in their Wikipedia page members can also add information but the ranking and rating are done by moderators only. ? Unknown
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

There are other sources which I didn't know how to write them in this table. If anyone knows and thinks this needs editing please complete this table. If the article gets accepted I'm sure I can find more details and reliable sources. Best - Blake44 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I just found more sources and can make this article much better if there is still time to work on this as today is decision time from an administrator. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blake44-just as some advice. Interviews and reports of interviews are considered primary sources and therefore don't count towards WP:GNG. Also, some of these sources go into depth more on the subject of his startup or startup culture in general than Zamani himself. It's possible that his company is more of a candidate for notability than he is. I know sourcing and where notability lies can be confusing, especially when you start out editing. Also, I don't think that you need to rush to find sources by the end of the day. I'd be shocked if this discussion isn't relisted to be discussed for another week to generate a clearer consensus, so you have more time than you think-the week long period of discussion is not a hard deadline. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice GPL93 it's very helpful as I'm still learning, although I have a question specially in new sources I found out that what if the person (Zamani) has more than one startup and in a news agency or magazine website they talk about him and his other works, should each company or business have a separate page? or instead have this page and relate other companies or startups to this page? Because as I researched entrepreneur's in List_of_entrepreneurs this page many of them (example: Jeremy_Levitt, Phiwa_Nkambule, David_Karp) have one or maybe two works related to them but the businesses doesn't have a page or if they have the founder has the main page. can you give me a little insight about this as you said it's confusing. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the wp:WP:BLPRS is not satisfied with used sources.Also as WP:BLP1E say, Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article.Hispring (talk) 18:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reply to Hispring, the article is not about an event, your vote is voided. What you are saying does not apply to this article at all. Please read WP:BLP1E the conditions and rules carefully. Best - Blake44 (talk) 19:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Blake44 You do not get to unilaterally void Hispring or any other editors vote. We only void the votes made by sockpuppets. Secondly, WP:BLP1E applies to biographical articles about persons who's media coverage is limited to a short period of time, usually confined to someone being famous to one event. His main argument was about the sourcing if you actually read his statement. Please do not accuse other's of not following Wikipedia policy if you do not yourself fully understand per WP:CIR. Finally, at this time I'm going to ask that you disclose if you have any personal or professional connection to Bijan Zamani per WP:COI. GPL93 (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just noted that the article has been speedy deleted two times in Persian Wikipedia in July 2019 by two separate admins.Farhikht (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reply to GPL93, I might be a little furious but it's due to discrimination that I see in Wikipedia and No, I don't have any personal or professional connection to Bijan Zamani at all. I have many information about entrepreneurs and startups all around the world as I follow their news every single day. I have read every single article and their references in Wikipedia’s List of entrepreneurs (21th century) as I mentioned before along with many other biographical pages in Wikipedia and I can name more than 20 pages that have less reference and notability than this article. Secondly, this article has 19 references and 10 of them are not related to any news website they are either magazines or festival websites and I’m sure WP:BLP1E does not apply to this article at all. Finally, I have sent messages to editors in this article to seek their advice and opinion on how to improve articles on Wikipedia but no one answered, but when it comes to negative voting and negative comments everyone just rush into it. Maybe I don’t understand the Wikipedia’s community so I don’t think my contributions are helpful therefor as my last contribution to this article I added 2 new references and made a source assess table as well. Personally I’d be shocked to see this page deleted. – Best
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/147878/Biography-of-Bijan-Zamani Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news media Mehr News Agency Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/438396/Bijan-Zamani-s-Success-Story-as-an-Entrepreneur Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news media Tehran Times Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Blake44 (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC):[reply]

Comment: Both of them published today. Again two major Iranian media Tehran Times and Mehr News. By the way, Tehran Times article is somehow a copy of this one.Farhikht (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but how? this link that you provided the article is about why startups fail and startups in general then briefly talks about Bijan Zamani but this new article is about Bijan Zamani's life and success... how are they the same? I think you have a personal problem with Bijan Zamani or me maybe because I questioned your vote that was not related to this article. I don't want to be dragged into this game and will not answer to your replies. Just let an administrator make a decision. Blake44 (talk) 13:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: New source added with assess table:

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://en.isna.ir/news/98043116474/Meet-the-first-Iranian-doctor-programmer Yes Yes The source is a major Iranian news agency Iranian Students News Agency Yes The source discusses the subject directly and in detail ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Keep: Seems notable to me. Just need a little more editing Zinzoo01 (talk) 09:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)— Zinzoo01 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as obvious WP:PROMO. This has all the hallmarks of a promotional package in which a press release is pushed to news agencies, interviews are offered, and online reputation/PR firms try to get a subject into Wikipedia. The cited sources are interviews and churnalism. As for the sourcing, well, somehow we've got this far without mentioning that Mehr News Agency and Tehran Times are the same company, which is odd. I'm sure the closing admin will give the socks and SPAs exactly the amount of consideration they deserve. Bakazaka (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Absurd and suspicious comment by Bakazaka. The article has more than enough in-depth coverage necessary for an WP:GNG pass from reliable sources. Out of 22 sources only 2 are interviews and they were discussed before on top of the page. No promotion is visible in the article if it is please remove the promotional part. The news organization that you talk about is almost a 70 year old organization with very high reputation. News agencies in the world will NOT publish a press release or promotional news without mentioning that this is a promotional article or sponsored content or not written by our editors. Mehr News Agency and Tehran Times are from the same company and so is many other news organizations in the world, as an example Postmedia Network own more than 30 newspapers and magazines and many other companies that have the same situation in the US, UK. Plus this article has many other sources such as Iran_(newspaper) which is the official daily newspaper of the government of Iran. Jam-e Jam (newspaper) is a daily newspaper published in Iran owned by the National Iranian Radio and Television. Iranian Labour News Agency, Iranian Students News Agency and many others. I'm sure the closing admin will consider the facts and sources only and not the suspicious game that some editors have started here. Please consider that this article has sources from the most reliable sources in Iran and has enough in-depth coverage necessary for an WP:GNG pass. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 … - Best Blake44 (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is the argument? That the sources are not "notable"? According to Wikipedia these are “NOTABLE” List of Iranian news agencies in Iran and accordingly this article has at least 6 references from these notable sources. There is no denying that the sources in this article are very notable, reliable and independent. Other sources also have their own Wikipedia page and they are the most reliable notable sources in Iran. Some editors talked about interviews and without even reading the article itself and the comments that were made in this page and with closed eyes they made FALSE comments. On 14 July 2019 this issue has been resolved before relisting. At first yes, the original creator used interviews as main source then on 14 July 2019 I edited the whole reference and sources with non-interview sources such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 … Any editor is most welcome to remove the only 1 or 2 interview links that were listed as they have no influence in the article at all. In my evaluation according to Wikipedia rules and according to Wikipedia lists of notable sources this article has enough in-depth coverage necessary for an WP:GNG and probably will have a lot more sources and coverage in future. - Best Blake44 (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the article. As I can see the above table, its a well sourced article and its sources are reliable. The subject looks notable, too.Forest90 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that there aren't enough independent, reliable sources available to support an article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel Abadilla

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

Fails GNG THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 08:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - although article is unsourced, the subject appears to have also been (besides his role as the only Ambassador to Ireland from the Philippines) a senior civil servant at a national level within the Philippines government under Presidents Aquino and Duterte (including as an Undersecretary for Civilian Affairs and Security in the Department of Foreign Affairs in or around 2016-17 - the Undersecretary role seems to be an equivalent to a Deputy Secretary in a US Govt department) (for sources, see e.g. here, here, here). This article does seem to fit in with WP:POLOUTCOMES Bookscale (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even for ambassadors and senior civil servants, the notability test is still not just the ability to offer technical verification in the government's own self-published primary sources that the person held the claimed roles — the notability test remains the depth and range and volume of reliable source coverage the person did or didn't receive in media. Regardless of the notability claim being made, the notability test for people always remains dependent on the quality of the referencing that can be used to support the notability claim, but nothing that's been shown either in the article or in this discussion adds up to notability-making sourcing. Yes, these would be notable roles if he could be properly sourced for them — but no, they aren't "inherent" notability freebies that exempt him from having to have any reliable source coverage just because he exists. Bearcat (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: The state of an article (including lack of referencing) is not a reason for deletion necessarily - and only one of the sources I cited above is a Philippines government post. Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's true that only one of them is a Philippine government post — but a second one is a post from the US embassy to the Philippines, and is thus still a government source rather than a notability-building reliable source. And the one that's actual media just namechecks his existence in a list without being about him to any non-trivial degree, and thus isn't a notability clincher all by itself if it's the only non-governmental real-media source you can show. And while it is true that a poorly sourced article can be spared the guillotine if it can be shown that the necessary type and depth and quality and range of reliable sourcing exists out there to improve the article with, that only comes into play if genuinely notability-supporting sources are actually located and shown — it is not true that any person gets exempted from having to have any notability-supporting sources just because the article claims something that sounds like it should be notable. The quality and range and depth and volume of sourcing that a person can show to support the notability claim is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hugsyrup (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Presumably, it doesn't have sufficient level of notability; particularly by paying heed that it doesn't possess any/enough reference(s) to cover the article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: Why presumably? Have you checked? Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - have any Philippines-based editors checked this guy's notability? It would be good to get some input from them. Bookscale (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 05:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no WP:RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - raising again whether any Philippines-based editors can make more-informed comments about the notability of the subject (all commenters involved to date are foreign, including me)? I've left a message at the Philippines-based noticeboard about this and would appreciate the AfD not being closed until a reasonable time has elapsed to allow anyone to comment here. Bookscale (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's entirely possible that the lack of Philippine-based comment is itself a form of comment, such as "none of the Filipino editors who have seen this feel strongly enough about it to disagree with the existing comments". Again, notability is not a question of what the article says, it's a question of how well the article references what it says — so it's entirely possible that Philippine-based editors just don't actually have anything new to add because the sources that would change the equation here just don't exist. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't buy the "argument from silence". I thought it was worth asking because there may have been more local (or probably more importantly, local language) sources that might refer to him more closely that we international editors are not aware of. From the comment below it seems there may not be, which is fine - asking the question was clearly worthwhile. Bookscale (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As a Filipinx editor, I can assert that there isn't enough "Significant coverage" for this official. It's possible there'll be more coverage in the future, but he seems to have been elevated to senior posts too recently to have picked up coverage. - Koakaulana (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Koakalauna - appreciate you contributing to this. Bookscale (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2019 Tacoma attack#Suspect. Sandstein 17:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willem van Spronsen

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

This article is in clear and blatant contravention of WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME as the subject is a private citizen known only for having been shot by police during an encounter where they're suspected of a crime. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the RS that published he was a supporter of antifascism, or the antifa movement or its cause. The info is verifiable as published in The Guardian, Seattle Times and AP News Wire, all of which include Deb Bartley's statement about her friend of nearly 20 years, describing him as an "anarchist and anti-fascist." His manifesto further verifies his support. Antifa has no central organization - just supporters, most of whom remain anonymous; however, they do have a centralized fund called The International Anti-Fascist Defence Fund which utilizes fundrazr (not unlike Go-Fund me) for monies that are to be used to provide immediate support to anti-fascists and anti-racists anywhere in the world, whenever they found themselves in a difficult situation as a result of their stand against hate. Although, sadly, Spronsen will not be needing any bail money. Atsme Talk 📧 17:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these sources mention antifa. And while some refer to the subject as being anti-fascist, various conservative editors have repeatedly explained to me that the antifa ideology should be treated distinctly from general anti-fascism. The last source is of questionable provenance as it's a primary source with no validation as to accuracy in a non-public facing area of a media website.Simonm223 (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Simonm223, stop the disruptive bludgeoning and do not alter my comments with inline templates. Antifa is simply an informal moniker for anti-fascism. One does not have to be a member of a specific antifa group to be anti-fascist or a participant in the antifa movement in the US. Stand down and allow the AfD process to work without further disruption. I will not engage further in this discussion. Atsme Talk 📧 13:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They do have a centralized fund was what you said. "They - have - a - centralized" pretty clear what you're trying to imply with that WP:CIVILPOV push. And frankly it's the same POV you've been trying to insert into the Antifa article for a while. I've run out of patience with this comportment. Simply put, your sources don't ever even use the word antifa. Not once. Not in any of them. Except for that highly dubious link to a document you claim to be his manifesto. Simonm223 (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update - WaPo clearly states that he claimed association with antifascists known as antifa: A man fatally shot by police Saturday after allegedly throwing “incendiary objects” at an immigration detention center in Washington state was an anarchist who claimed association with antifascists — known as antifa — according to new details released by police. And there's more: WaTimes: In a three-page document posted on Seattle TV station KIRO’s website, Willem Van Spronsen cited popular left-wing historian Howard Zinn, said that “i am antifa,” criticized the Electoral College and accused the U.S. of running “concentration camps” on the border. Your argument has been satisfactorily debunked now stand down, stop bludgeoning, gaslighting, NPA, and let the process work. Atsme Talk 📧 14:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Washington Times is not a reliable source, and the best that you could use WaPo for is that he claimed an association. That does not support notability on the Antifa page as you contend. And you REALLY need to stop claiming people are gaslighting you every time they tell you that you need to find better WP:RS. Simonm223 (talk) 14:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirecting is functional because people are likely to search his name and the information they are searching for is available at 2019 Tacoma attack.A.Jacobin (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Simonm223, this looks like it would have been an uncontroversial redirect as borne out by the above comments. If you don't oppose the redirect, you can withdraw the nomination and we can do so with little fanfare. czar 23:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar: I have very serious WP:BLP1E concerns about this article existing at all, especially as the subject is a deceased person only notable for a crime that they will never have an opportunity to mount a defense regarding. As far as I'm concerned, this page existing in any form, even as a redirect, may make it problematic to prevent it from becoming a WP:BLP violation like this on a regular basis. As such, while I recognize many people have voted at the AfD for a redirect, I would mention that AfD is not a vote and my WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME concerns about this article existing are a serious, legitimate and accurate read of the appropriate policy. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common practice to redirect an individual's name to an event with which they're clearly associated, and this discussion is clearly going to be closed as "redirect" but if you'd prefer to wait until the end of the listing period, that's your prerogative. czar 02:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2019 Tacoma attack (assuming it is kept). The BLPCRIME angle is a borderline, what is more relevant is BIO1E/BLP1E - the subject isn't notable outside of the context of the event. Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and indefinitely block article author. Clearly WP:BLPCRIME (he died while committing a barely notable attack), and the article author uploaded the photo of him that he took on FaceTime – we don't want police investigating this wiki article – and he also has spam links on his userpage. wumbolo ^^^ 12:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2019 Tacoma attack. THE DIAZ userpage • talk • contribs 19:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:CHEAP. No need to give him posthumous notoriety that will encourage copy-cats. Bearian (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 17:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Tacoma attack

2019 Tacoma attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON for the most part. As of yet, there's no evidence of WP:LASTING coverage. Some day-of coverage in national press, and then only routine coverage in local press. This doesn't meet the notability requirements of WP:NCRIME or WP:GEOSCOPE. In addition, the article is subject to WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLP requirements as the principal subject is recently deceased. Simonm223 (talk) 13:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Flatly untrue nominating statement. In fact, news coverage has been ongoing in local and national sources. The Washington Post has another story up today - not a wire service story, a reported story. As does the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. And that's just soe of what is published today alone.A.Jacobin (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to provide evidence of this? Because the only Washington Post article I saw was a day-of piece of coverage. In addition, it's worth noting that I asked A.Jacobin for evidence of just such sources for two days prior to filing this AfD and they were unable to provide them. Simonm223 (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a very persuasive argument. The Washington Post does not send reporters to write follow-up stories about minor crimes in Washington state. I have added multiple reliable sources, published since the initial wave of coverage, and will continue to add more. A.Jacobin (talk) 19:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep broad coverage: The New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, The Guardian, USA Today. You can't get much more WP:DIVERSE coverage than that. Also, no critical WP:BLPCRIME concerns because the suspected perpetrator is named in these reliable soures. --Pudeo (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment NYT - July 13. Washington Post - July 13. BBC - July 14. Guardian - July 14. USA Today - July 13. Every bit of national or international coverage was day of or the following day. No follow-through. Thus WP:LASTING and WP:TOOSOON - let's see if anybody cares outside Washington on August 1 and then maybe there's a case for an article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E wholly applies, unless one can expand significantly on Van Spronsen's biography, which doesn't seem likely. --Masem (t) 14:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll also add this is exactly what WP:NOT#NEWS tells us not to include. A local event by a nobody with no other injuries beyond the killing of the perp, and with clearly no lasting impact. We do not cover every local crime that happens to catch attention upstream, unless it as a clearly long tail of news. --Masem (t) 14:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is connected to the recent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement#Criticisms. As the New York Times wrote: The episode happened the morning after Vice President Mike Pence visited migrant detention centers in Texas, and thousands attended “Lights for Liberty” demonstrations. More than 700 were planned in hundreds of cities around the country, including at the Tacoma center. The episode happened one day before ICE is scheduled to arrest thousands of members of undocumented families. --Pudeo (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really. As the guy's dead and we can't figure out his motives, its completely guesswork if the attack was meant to be related to the proposed ICE arrests. It's likely possible, but its absolute guesswork. --Masem (t) 16:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For starters: WaPo,Buzz Feed News, News.com.au, Fox News, Business Insider Atsme Talk 📧 14:04, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like an argument for keeping the article, and mention at Antifa, rather than a forc3 choice between them. Qwirkle (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that, too, Qwirkle. I simply prefer to avoid potential claims of WP:POV fork. I'm of the mind that this incident, the Ngo incident and a timeline of other violence & destruction belongs in a separate section in Antifa (United States). I will also add that the source I used in this example, TDW, is arguably a RS, but partisan and to use with caution (like all clickbait news sources). In this case, the timeline is verifiable and cited to CNN, WaPo and others (that may also be partisan and take things out of context) - so it's important to comply with WP:NEWSORG and we should be fine. Atsme Talk 📧 16:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pudeo 80.111.42.123 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well-sourced article on incident drawing national attention and coverage.A.Jacobin (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Solid sourcing, continued coverage, implications beyond mere local common crime. No reasons to delete beyond the obvious bad ones. Qwirkle (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - good sourcing, national and international coverage. per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Redacted) 69.197.76.99 (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:NCRIME as there has been significant news coverage on a large scale. Article is well cited with reliable sources. Highway 89 (talk) 02:33, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be one event by the person, lacking enduring historical significance, and a routine news event considering no one but the protester was injured. It certainly hit the news for a day as anything related to ICE detention centers is news at this moment. But will we remember him tomorrow? Doesn’t get close to WP:10YT, and doesn’t even belong in the antifa article as there is no actual evidence of any relationship to antifa. O3000 (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RAPID. Widely covered, on-going national level coverage - e.g. WaPo on 19 July. Icewhiz (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify first choice, Keep second choice. It wouldn't hurt to see if there is any ongoing coverage of this before having an article, but it is well enough cited that I don't see a reason (at least not given on this page) to delete it. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meet WP:RAPID.Also meet WP:DIVERSE and as numerous international sources wrote about the attack for example BBC [7] --Shrike (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV covered in press in BBC as well. WP:NTEMP Once notable-always notable Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I sympathize with the argument that this is too soon, but the coverage is national, ongoing, and arguably can be connected to larger social developments using statements by journalists. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The principles of WP:RAPID are passed. Also meets WP:RS. AmericanAir88(talk) 13:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closer A summary here is that WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E are unambiguously for removal while WP:RAPID and WP:SIGCOV support retention. There are more keep !votes, but this isn't a vote - so I'd ask when this is eventually closed, unless new arguments are brought forward, and regardless of which way the closer chooses to act, that they are clear about these four policies, how they interact and what should be considered when WP:BLP1E conflicts with WP:RAPID in a news-related article. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply as its not "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities" also it meets WP:DIVERSE and hence WP:EVENTCRIT .WP:BLP1E doesn't apply either as the article is not about subject but about the event --Shrike (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NCRIME makes it pretty clear WP:NOTNEWS can apply to a crime. Simonm223 (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, from WP:EVENTCRIT Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. (added emphasis mine) Simonm223 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    But I will say thank you for reminding me where to find that policy. I'd been looking for the correct link everywhere since I started this AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP1E applies because it is about the person. Nothing actually happened in the event other than the death of the person. O3000 (talk) 14:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nothing" happened except that an antifa activist who had previously been arrested for physical violence against officers of the law during political protests wrote a remarkable manifesto and, armed with an assault rifle and firebombs, attempted to set fire to a government facility. Incidents like this are kept because, unlike ordinary crimes, they continue to be discussed well after they occurred.A.Jacobin (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Ethan Van Sciver. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberfrog

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

Minor comic character that contains only promotional references. Fails WP:GNG and potentially DePRODed by a sock (first and only edit to contest prod). Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 15:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:21, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Way too long for a stub and doesn't have the notability for all that text. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - have to agree with all of the above MaskedSinger (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ethan Van Sciver, which has a enough information about the comic to inform a reader. The series received some print attention in the mid 1990s (referenced here), and with the upcoming new material, it could be restored with some better sources in the future. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a character page, Ethan Van Sciver does not explain the character in any way and does not elaborate on the publication history. I will Edit Cyberfrog to include a short character bio.

EDIT: 'Cyberfrog:Bloodhoney' is the highest grossing crowdfunded comic to date, which makes it of note. There is no shortage of coverage of Cyberfrog's publication and sales (as you have brought to my attention by correcting me about Ethan Van Sciver's bibliography) I have added to the sales information for 'Cyberfrog: Bloodhoney', and will add sales information for the original Cyberfrog publications as I find it. The only thing that is not accurate about the 'sales' figures is that the number of backers is less than the number of units sold (because several perks give you 2 or more copies of the book). There are 3 crowdfunding campaigns for Cyberfrog: Bloodhoney (for variant covers)and all of them are listed in the references of the page but I'll add them more clearly. I don't feel like there's any way to argue that Cyberfrog is not, now more than ever, highly notable. I also fail to see how an indiegogo page, which clearly shows the book people paid for, how many people paid for it and how much money was raised isn't an independent source? User:JerseyDevilYoutube Comment moved and sig added by Argento Surfer

    • If you look at the Bibliography section of Van Sciver's page, there's a list of all the Cyberfrog comics he's made, including the publisher, length of run, and publication dates. Your additions, while well-meaning, do not address the concerns raised here. You need to find evidence that Cyberfrog is notable, such as detailed reviews or coverage of its publication and sales. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Highest grossing crowdfunding may be a claim of significance (which only avoids a speedy deletion). Moreover a crowdfunding page is not an independent source, which are required for articles. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure how you added sales data for a book that, as of twelve days ago, wasn't published... I also revised the information you added to the article - you said "nearly $1 million", but the sources you provided say "half a million" Argento Surfer (talk) 23:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 13:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Dream Focus 01:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ethan Van Sciver for now, with no prejudice against restoring it at a later date if its revival leads to more notability. As it stands now, none of the sources can be considered substantial coverage in reliable, secondary sources. There is a decent chance that the comic could garner more substantial coverage in the future, however, and a Redirect would allow the article's history to be retained. Rorshacma (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep all. No support for deletion. Some were open to merging to a combined NBL awards page while voting a generic "oppose", but it was not clear if that was a primary or secondary choice. Determing if there is consensus for that type of merge can be done outside of this AfD. While guideline WP:Notability says that notability does "not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page" and guideline Wikipedia:Article size also allows for merging of small articles, both leave it up to consensus on a per-case basis.

While the nomination mentioned multiple pages, WP:MULTIAFD was not followed with notication on only NBL (United States) Rookie of the Year Award. However, given that the page creator participated and there is a quorum, it seems reasonable that there is consensus to keep all the pages. Nomination of List of NBL (United States) season scoring leaders was withdrawn too late. —Bagumba (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NBL (United States) Rookie of the Year Award

NBL (United States) Rookie of the Year Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article, along with a few others, were collectively splitoff from parent article but does not meet WP:SPINOUT requirements. DA1 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main article in question is, in its original state, less than 35,000 bytes, far below the approx. 100k recommended for splitting. The article nominated here is roughly 4k bytes. Other articles I am also proposing be deleted are:
The spinouts are unnecessary, unconcise and make readability difficult and tedious by being spread across several short articles. DA1 (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose – These mirror similar NBA award pages, and the NBL is a direct predecessor to the NBA. I completely disagree with the "unconcise" comment; they're independently much more concise than many other sports' award and honors list articles. It's not difficult to navigate, either, considering Category:National Basketball League (United States) awards exists. Furthermore, every single player who appears on any of these nominated articles has direct blue links in their infoboxes to them (see Bobby McDermott for example), and deleting or redirecting these would create hundreds of "false advertising" redirects on those players' articles. I see absolutely no reason to delete or redirect these articles, as they follow exact standards by hundreds of other sports' award list articles. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment – Having independent articles on these awards allows for fuller depth on facts, statistics, and context. Not to mention some of the lists that were in the parent article were factually inaccurate (I cleaned up a slew of mistakes when creating the articles). SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you plan to expand the articles on Rookie, Coach and MVP? The company has been defunct for decades. If there shall be more content added, then please create the articles when there is extensive content, not before it. DA1 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, this is a "would-be, could-be" argument. It does not actually address the issue at hand: many or most of the spinoffs do not meet WP:SPINOUT, and IMO does not conform to WP:AVOIDSPLIT and WP:PAGEDECIDE:

If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate article, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list. It is not uncommon for editors to suggest that articles nominated for deletion instead be merged into a parent article.

There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic [...]
Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page (as at Music of the Final Fantasy VII series). Other times, when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it (as with Category:Restaurants in New York City).

I would like others to address these concerns related to existing guidelines, and not only share anecdotal points. DA1 (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per SportGuy789. Under no circumstances should these be placed in the NBL parent page. Now if they should be merged they should be in a list of NBL achievements, but I oppose that as well.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@UCO2009bluejay: They were already merged in their original state. Do you genuinely think NBL Rookie, NBL MVP and NBL Coach, which are articles of roughly a small table each (between 3000 and 7000 bytes), deserve their own articles? We could have an article for scoring leaders but I see absolutely no reason why readers must click through 3-4 additional articles just to read those 3 tables earlier mentioned. I have dealt with this myself in the past where I wanted to seek some information and ended up going through several articles (and then clicking back and forth, just to compare said information); it was frustrating. This is inconsiderate to readers and only serves to satisfy editor egos (of creating New Articles or maintaining stylistic choices). DA1 (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so the root cause of this assault is you being frustrated in the past and didn't like it. Also funny how you somehow think this pertains to editor ego, which is not at all a veiled insult directly at me considering I'm the creator and pretty much only editor of these. Since you're a mind reader, what am I thinking about doing this coming weekend? SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @SportsGuy789: The NBA being a predecessor to NBL isn't an adequate argument for why the Wikipedia article on NBL should be broken up into sub-topics. They do not meet size requirements to be SPUNOUT whereas the NBA topics obviously do. You're making a stylistic argument there, to maintain consistency between the two completely independent articles. But the fact is: this mass-split makes the topic needlessly difficult to read. They were all in the same article, and that article was not long or difficult to read to warrant a split (Have you seen just how long various Good-rated articles are, especially in Bios and History?). I can see an argument for having an article for scoring leaders but not the others which are absurdly short. DA1 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're making a stylistic argument, too, considering the SPINOUT is a guideline and not a mandate / requirement. We're not talking about Good-rated articles, we're talking about the threshold of notability in which an award or honor article should exist, and users can always be bold to expand them. Just because these are not as long as the NBA articles does not equate to them being merged into a parent article. SportsGuy789 (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to keep in mind is that SPINOUT does not preclude shorter articles from being split; it merely says that beyond a certain length, it is suggested to consider splitting them even if there were other stylistic reasons not to do so. SPINOUT leads with [v]ery large articles should be split into logically separate articles, but nowhere does it say that articles that aren't very large can't be split for other reasons. The closest it comes to that is in the size table, where it says that for articles less than 40 kB, [l]ength alone does not justify division. This clearly implies that there may be other valid reasons to split an article of this length. SportsGuy789 has made a stylistic (not length) decision to split them, so we should concentrate our discussion on those stylistic choices and their validity. CThomas3 (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I read WP:SPINOUT as guidance on spinoff articles, while these are lists. Seems to me that these meet Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists which indicates one of the criteria for creation being “Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers. The inclusion of items must be supported by reliable sources.“ These lists seem to satisfy this. Rikster2 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and this probably should have been a merger discussion, not an AfD, based on the proposal of the nominator. The only reason to delete in this case would be for failing WP:GNG via WP:LISTN for stand-alone lists. While some of the above lists are currently lacking independent sources, based on the age of the topic and the independent sources that are there, they probably exist in print in the cities that had teams sufficiently enough for each to meet LISTN. (Maybe someone with a Newspapers.com subscription can provide more evidence.) However, as each list is quite small, if someone were to suggest merging all of them into a List of NBL awards article, I also see no problem with that using the WP:SIZERULE and it would seem to almost definitely meet GNG as a topic of NBL awards. Yosemiter (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Votescam

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

This is a very strange article about a book that might be notable. However although there may be multiple and probably independent sources, I’m seriously doubtful about their reliability.

For the most part the article appears to summarise the content of the book, but then veers into what seems to be original research with a blow by blow account of phone calls made after the book’s authors were dead.

The sourcing is mostly to a single publication, ‘Hidden History’ which looks to me like a collection of conspiracy theories. I can’t see the Gore Vidal citation or the Miami Herald one, though the date of the MH ref indicates that the piece was written nearly a decade before the book was published. The ‘Grand Theft 2000’ source is only a passing ref.

Turning to the talk page I see a long explanation from another editor about Alex Jones’ interest in the book and how we shouldn’t expect to see many mainstream sources because the MSM are part of the conspiracy ‘and therefore, other Wikipedia editors working for the corrupt groups involved will see fit to suppress knowledge of this book.’

I hope my cheque is in the post. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 08:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not meet WP:NBOOK, have been unable to find reviews in reliable sources (does Hidden Histories actually discuss/review it or just summarise what is in the book?), note: I am not part of the WP/Corporate world conspiracy ...... or am I? (cue ominous music). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither. It devotes one word to the book, "blockbuster", then discusses the brothers and the daughter. Uncle G (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of reviews by reliable sources means it doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Disclaimer: I am definitely part of whatever conspiracy is being alleged here. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For all the reasons above. Also, we need to bury the truth before the normies find out. Cosmic Sans (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is regurgitating conspiracy theories in Wikipedia's voice, and a single book discussing it is insufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NBOOK.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 16:09, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Dominic Washington

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

Article makes no claim of notability. Subject is a NN college footballplayer, realtor, businessman. Much of the article is about a conviction for selling "medical marijuana". This appears to be soley a routine local issue with some press coverage only in Montana - WP:BLP1E. MB 16:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. College football does not pass WP:NSPORT, nor does a conviction establish notability except maybe perhaps WP:ONEEVENT. (Also, might be undue weight which would be iffy w/ BLP). (Also, immaterial to this discussion, but the "career" reads an awful like a resume). – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable local businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 10:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are RSs, but they are covering a single event, which is not sufficient per WP:BLP1E. Other than that single event, the individual would not meet the WP:GNGs Hugsyrup (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as likely paid-for spam created in violation of the Terms of Use. I have blocked the author for this. MER-C 15:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable former college athlete running a non-notable cannabis operation with a non-notable real estate agent career on the side, non-notably convicted of a drug offense. I note the only "Keep" voice is the editor who created the article, who is, as MER-C suggests, likely an undisclosed paid editor, judging by their edit history on this and other articles. TJRC (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 16:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Giuseppa Robucci

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

Article and sources do not assert notability beyond reaching an advanced age: she was born, had children, got very old, chopped wood, broke a hip, and died. This lady's placement in our List of Italian supercentenarians is sufficient (with a redirect on her name). — JFG talk 23:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, as an WP:ATD, I advocate a redirect to the Italian list without merging any trivia about her life. — JFG talk 19:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sustained significant coverage over the course of 15+ years. It doesn't matter why she's notable, just that she is notable. Once she is deemed to be notable, then a basic biography of her life is warranted, and there's more than enough info for a stand-alone biography. schetm (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2019(UTC)
She did NOT have "15 years" of WP:SIGCOV. There was one short feature for her 100th birthday, as is extremely common, and over 10 years later she got some WP:ROUTINE oldster coverage over a few years. There is nothing notable about her that doesn't fit snuggly in a list entry. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a lot of room for interpretation of WP:NOPAGE and WP:ROUTINE. Even though it is common for subjects like this to receive coverage on their 100th birthday, reaching 100 is extraordinary.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvng (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ http://www.genealogyintime.com/GenealogyResources/Articles/how_many_people_live_to_100_page1.html
  • Delete or Redirect to appropriate list per WP:NOPAGE and WP:PERMASTUB. Sources are routine birthday articles and don't tell us much more than the usual longevity nothingness of born, got married, had kids, got old, died. Entry on a list is enough. CommanderLinx (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Schetm. 71.161.233.35 (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing of encyclopedic value here. And while I hope (but don't expect) to live to a hundred, that's not a claim for notability. In my eyes, there's no notability, but even if there were, WP:NOPAGE comes into play, because there's nothing of interest to present that cannot be presented in a list article. Remember, notability is a necessary condition for having a stand-alone article, but it's not sufficient. --Randykitty (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would be inclined to favor a keep, considering her age of 116 and her coverage on the media. Garlicolive (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guideline that the "oldest x" is notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV. 45.228.209.44 (talk) 08:24, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Agreed it meets WP:SIGCOV. "Once she is deemed to be notable, then a basic biography of her life is warranted, and there's more than enough info for a stand-alone biography" as per schetm. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Italian language media coverage from WP:RSs provides further information of a notable nature - at the time of her death was the oldest person in Europe (so more than just a very old person) and was in 2011 the oldest mayor of an Italian town.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy or guideline that the "oldest x" is notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although the majority support keeping this article (along with one merge) it is clear we have no consensus, nor are we likly to get one. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I spoke too soon! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thyroid UK

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

Article is currently mostly sourced to the charity's own website/social media accounts, plus a couple of primary sources. I've looked for independent coverage, and found some passing mentions in news media, but nothing that told me anything significant about the organisation. Seems to fail WP:NORG GirthSummit (blether) 10:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 10:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 10:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the nom says, it's very hard to find anything beyond a representative being used for a quote in occasion articles about Thyroid conditions. Not enough for notability. Hugsyrup 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only that the subject fails WP:NCORP, but also the article reads very promotional in nature (which is against what Wikipedia represents per WP:PROMO). Nothing to find in my searches either (the best thing that comes up is a passing mention at [13]). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Argonne National Laboratory. Consensus that independent notability isn't established. There's already a v.short summary of the MIC in the Argonne article, to which editors can add further from the page history as they wish. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Integrated Center for Computational Materials

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

This is a division of Argonne National Laboratory. There is no indication that it is separately notable. DGG ( talk ) 09:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:53, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - I agree with everything that DGG says, but surely a redirect is the more obvious solution than deletion - unless there is something I'm missing? Hugsyrup 10:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kämmerer (modern)

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

The article seems hopelessly confused. As I understand it, Kämmerer according to the linked German article, and their article on de:Kammerherr. is the variant term for some regions of German for de:Kammerherr, roughly equivalent to our chamberlain, a specific position, or person holding that position. It is not the term for a government bureau on office, for which the general German word. is Kammer. Ref 1 seems totally irrelevant; Ref 2 defines other terms. DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Darquier

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

Non notable individual. She has only attracted tangential attention as a daughter of a notorious individual; relationships do not confer notability. Zerach (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:27, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - no claim of importance of significance, and "tangential" describes the coverage which is primarily about Louis Darquier de Pellepoix. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. seems uncontroversial. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Louis Darquier de Pellepoix. All the sources used are included in that article on her father, and she is mentioned there: that's sufficient. PamD 15:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to meet notability requirements on her own. Dunarc (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Implausible

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

Non-notable TV show that had one series and aired once in 2006. Very little online which leads me to believe this isn't worthy of an article. Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notability established, could only find a few mentions in reliable sources. Personally seems like it would have made for a good PROD. 2 equally viable redirect targets, so couldn't specify 1 target. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TVSHOW, the fact it aired on Sky One means nothing if there aren't sources, which links back to WP:GNG which requires significant coverage in reliale sources. Unsourced article (WP:V policy applies), nothing to be found in searches besides the casting info. Obvious delete. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Identity and Democracy#History. Any desired content to be merged can be accessed from the page history. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 16:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

European Alliance of Peoples and Nations

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

European Alliance of Peoples and Nations was only a working title for the Identity and Democracy group--ElTres (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination, with apologies - I didn't find the book reviews and the additional information found by other contributors to this discussion. Thank you for your work. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edward H. Clarke

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

PRODed with the following explanation, which still holds true: A summary of an interesting but, as far as I can see, non-notable career. I can find almost no sources beyond a brief obituary which, despite being in the very WP:RS Washington Post, actually appears to have been written and placed by family or friends. Otherwise, does not meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc.

Prod endorsed by TonyTheTiger

Prod removed by Andrew Davidson (no explanation provided) Hugsyrup (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Google Scholar says that the subject's paper "Multipart pricing of public goods", of which he is the sole author, has been cited 3650 times. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I improved the sourcing, including finding multiple reviews of his book and a scholarly obituary that confirms that he was shortlisted for the Nobel. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley G. Ellis

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

This subject is non-notable because they do not meet WP:BASIC. Coverage found in WP:BEFORE searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to a couple of name checks, very minor passing mentions and primary source quotations from sermons. Furthermore, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which do not establish notability. North America1000 07:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yunshui 雲水 07:47, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per WP:GNG found non-trivial coverage in the Deseret News, The subject is notable as an elder in the Church (LDS) and there is non-trivial coverage of the subject in that realm. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Lightburst: The source you provided is essentially a primary source, consisting mostly of quotations of a sermon the subject performed. The source provides virtually no biographical information about the subject, and is essentially a rehash of a sermon. Furthermore, multiple reliable sources that provide significant, independent (non-primary) coverage is required to establish notability, not just one source. North America1000 19:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source has editorial oversight WP:RS. The subject of this article is a prominent figure in LDS. I admitted this subject is borderline which is why I said weak keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's also important to note that there is no presumed notability for LDS leaders or prominent figures. North America1000 22:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The linked source is actually Church News, an official church publication that is included in Deseret News. You can tell because the byline says Church News. It is not an independent source. It is literally the church's coverage of itself. Bakazaka (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bakazaka Thank you, Yes I called this subject a weak keep. I have seen this source used for articles previously. I will keep searching. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, Church News is an entirely primary source. Per the Church News article, the publication is "owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)". The source cannot be used to establish notability. North America1000 03:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the discussion above, the sourcing appears to be primary, and nothing from WP:RS is present to suggest notability per WP:GNG. --Kinu t/c 21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with most of the rationale discussed above. One clarification: most/all of the sourcing is not independent of the subject, (and since no other sources exist, this fails WP:BASIC) but I disagree with the assertion that they are primary sources. The authors of, for example, the church news, would not be the subject of the article and therefore this would be a secondary source. However, since it is not an independent source, that is where it falls short. Rollidan (talk) 01:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find any independent coverage of this person (although it's possible that there might be some in Brazilian sources). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

United States v. Camacho

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

There is no presumption of notability for US appeals court cases, nor is there an SNG for them to help guide our assessment. Therefore we must rely on GNG to determine whether this case is notable enough to require a standalone article.

I can't find any indication that this is an especially notable case. I've checked GScholar, GBooks, JSTOR, Newspapers.com, HeinOnline (via Google since it requires login to search), Questia, and basically found no substantial discussion of this case. The hits are muddied by two other cases, an 11th circuit case from 2001 also called United States v Camacho and a 6th circuit case from 2010 called United States v. Camacho-Arellano. Even adding +2004 to the search didn't turn up anything more substantial.

Given the lack of later references to the case and/or critical commentary about it, I don't think this meets our standard for encyclopedic notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage from reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. Also checked WP:NEVENTS to make sure. William2001(talk) 19:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is an appeals case, I suggest changing the name to reflect exactly that circuit and/or year. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Coffeeluvr613, I've noticed you making a significant number of comments on AfD discussions within the last hour, and it seems like you may be going a bit fast and not properly reading the nominations. As I specifically called out in my nomination, appeals court cases are not inherently considered notable, so the simple fact of being an appeals case is not in itself a reason to keep. The name of the article has nothing to do about whether or not it ought to be kept as a topic. Can I gently suggest slowing down and familiarizing yourself with our policies and practices, perhaps making some edits to articles, before continuing to speed-vote on other nominations? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Premeditated Chaos This is a 250 word stub that checks out on open jurist and is written in neutral tone. There's no advertising, no promotion, no links to someone's website. Obviously it's of importance to someone. If it went on and on then I'd say that you're making an issue more notable than it is. But it's only 250 works, which is smaller than this discussion, it is 100% factual, and written in a neutral tone. So what is the point of removing it? It makes our encyclopedia better. And yes I move fast, if you drink some coffee you might move faster too. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that we are not an indiscriminate collection of all possible information. We rely on independent secondary sources for information, and if there are none (and I'm reasonably confident that there aren't), then the subject isn't notable and we have no business maintaining an article about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find three scholarly mentions of the case, one in Thomas K. Clancy, "2008 Fourth Amendment Symposium-The Fourth Amendment at the International Border", 78 Mississipi Law Journal (2008-2009), another in Yule Kim, Protecting the U.S. Perimeter: Border Searches Under the Fourth Amendment (2010), p. 16, and another in "Investigations and Police Practices: Warrantless Searches and Seizures", 40 Annual Review of Criminal Procedure 44 (2011). All of these mentions are fairly brief. The case has also been cited as a precedent in a dozen other court opinions. bd2412 T 03:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY if and only if all the sources found by BD2412 are added to the article. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know that I would say that the sources I found demonstrate notability. Each is a passing mention, and these three, collectively, are the only mentions that I could find for the case. Perhaps a better solution would be to merge this into a broader article on the application of the Fourth Amendment to border searches. bd2412 T 23:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that the redirect recommendation by PMCspades above might be smart, but I will try and add some references to the page before we determine one way or the other. Looks notable enough for a mention elsewhere, even if on the brink for its own location. OhioShmyo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I added the references to the page, giving it at least enough oompf for placement on a related topic with a useful redirect, which I endorse maintaining. My failure to secure more coverage makes me unsure it passes WP:GNG, if the mentions are relatively short like mentioned above. OhioShmyo (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. As in, not delete. A merger can continue to be discussed on the talk page. Sandstein 09:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ballerina (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG - listed references are written by people involved in the language creation, or sponsored to be written. Charmk (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This language is developed at (WSO2) and all references comes from them (Primary Resources). This reference is written by Sanjiva Weerawarana (WSO2), one of the Ballerina team (primary resource) and this reference is sponsored by WSO2, and this reference is written by Tyler Jewell (CEO of WSO2), and this reference is a trival mention that doesn't show significant coverage. Also this reference is written by Anjana Fernando (WSO2) Charmk (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does look like there is some mention of this in the tech press: https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballerina-a-language-of-integration-of-technology-and-the-arts/. I added a citation to the article itself. Bjornredtail (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Given that Ballerina is effectually a product of WSO2, the content could be shortened and merged into the main company article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.246.246.253 (talk) 19:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Consensus is the topic is likely notable per NHOCKEY #3 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Watkins

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Highest North American league played was the ECHL which doesn't grant notability unless preeminent honours are achieved, and the subject has none, so fails #3. EPIHL First All-Star does not qualify for #4 and never played in the top pool of the IIHF World Championship with Great Britain which fails #6. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He twice won the British Netminder of the Year, which is presented to the the top goalie regardless of the league. He won it while playing in the EPIHL over goalies who played in the top tier EIHL, twice. That appears to me to satisfy criterion #3 but I am not fully convinced. I will wait for others to chime in before I am persuaded one way or another.18abruce (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Based on 18abruce's description, I would interpret Watkins as meeting #3. It is clearly an odd situation, but if he was officially recognized as the best goalie in the country in competition with EIHL goalies, I'd have to give him credit for pre-eminent honors. Rlendog (talk) 16:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am comfortable with saying that he meets criterion 3 but I recognize that there is some ambiguity.18abruce (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided I agree with 18abruce that it would be reasonable to claim criterion 3 is met, but I have some concerns. First, does he look good to the writers because he's playing against lesser competition? Second, if he's better than all of the goalies in the higher league, why didn't any of those teams sign him? I'm inclined to think that the people who run hockey teams for a living are better judges of talent than local sportswriters. Just saying. Papaursa (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep Djsasso makes a good point below. I also think the fact that he won that award twice is important, otherwise I might be inclined to cite WP:BLP1E. Although the article doesn't cite sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, it seems like that award should have generated some coverage. That he meets WP:NHOCKEY shows that this is another example that most of our sports notability criteria don't set a very high bar for notability. Papaursa (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thing to remember is that WP:NHOCKEY isn't about skill, its about how likely the player is to have news coverage. So does winning that award make him likely enough to get enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. -DJSasso (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, as I think it can be argued that he ought to meet WP:NHOCKEY #3, albeit barely. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:59, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paweł Urban

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

This page should be deleted because of lack of its relevance to Wikipedia. (I am completing the nomination on behalf of the user editing from IP address 180.177.1.164. I have as yet no opinion myself.) Phil Bridger (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:NACADEMIC. This person has invented a couple of techniques that have been confirmed by secondary sources. Seems notable to me. William2001(talk) 19:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree he meets WP:NACADEMIC, but this is way too promotional. Take out all this "popularizing" and "numerous" promo crap and I'd change my vote. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disagree that there is evidence here that he is a notable academic. There has been substantial editing of this page (and others) by Urban himself (or someone close to him; see User:Natriumchloratum) as promotional material. For example, there's little evidence that Urban's techniques "fizzy extraction", "Micro-arrays for mass spectrometry", and "Time-resolved mass spectrometry" are themselves notable, but they are used as evidence on Urban's page of his notability. All any of these entries do is showcase a bunch of citations to Urban's own papers (and those of his colleagues). This whole pack of articles just seems like a giant promotional circle jerk. Being on a handful of editorial boards doesn't make you notable, esp. for mega-journals like Scientific Reports, and I don't see any evidence of him receiving any major awards that would make him notable. Bueller 007 (talk) 01:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Five publications with over 100 citations each in Google Scholar is enough for WP:PROF#C1 for me. However I removed the routine and self-sourced section on his accomplishments; all academics publish and we can only include that sort of material if we have published secondary sources by other people that go into non-trivial detail about their significance. The keep is weak because what remains of the article is very minimal, and because the evidence of COI editing is problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG Charmk (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Again not notable to the length it goes on but would be a nice stub. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC) sock vote Charmk (talk) 09:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I think it's clear this is a valid AFD. I'd say it's a pretty bad sign when a page about a computer language that has no historical importance doesn't bring any one to actually defend it. However, doing the Google News search, CBR Online (link blocked?) has an overview, SDTimes has several small pieces on Crystal updates, InfoWorld has a couple articles that go into some detail on Crystal as part of roundup of new languages. Pragmatic Bookshelf published Programming Crystal (ISBN 9781680502862) by Simon St. Laurent and Ivo Balbaert, neither of whom are developers. It's not far, but it seems over the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crystal is niche, but not an esolang. It's been in active development for a number of years, accumulating 13558 stars on GitHub. There are currently 4605 libraries registered for it. It's significantly more popular than e.g. Elm. It's taught on Exercism.io. It seems to be tracked on the TIOBE index. Describing the authors of Programming Crystal as not being developers appears to be false. As a programmer, it's hard to imagine the criteria by which one could reasonably exclude Crystal from Wikipedia. Tenebrous (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia cares more about works published about the subject by third parties than usually any form of intrinsic notability. I wasn't referring to the authors of Programming Crystal as not being programmers, but rather as not being developers of Crystal, and thus independent of the subject. (In this set of DRs, there were specific mention of that, IIRC, that I was responding to.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what exactly is meant by, "To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history" if this is meant to exclude any form of intrinsic notability? Tenebrous (talk) 01:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 08:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuneiform (programming language)

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

Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it fails GNG. I checked all of the references in the article, All of them by Jörgen Brandt (The language author) so they are primary resources. Also I can't find secondary resources for notability. Charmk (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Charmk (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's enough secondary sources to justify keeping this well written article, but it needs to be shortened. This is an encyclopedia, supposed to contain articles based on notability not the entire sum of knowledge humans have on the subject. 8 pages is silly for this minimally important language. Coffeeluvr613 (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC) sock vote SL93 (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting speedy keep per User:Stifle at User talk:Charmk#User warning: Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. To properly determine the value and notability of these programming languages, we need experts in the specific application fields as well as language design and history. However, the many nominations of the same type at present do not allow careful research in the given time, so it's better to keep a weak article than to accidently lose a notable one just because someone was WP:POINTY.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Agree with above comment. Sneakerheadguy (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Canley (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glicko rating system

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

Does not appear to have notability, at least in terms of having a standalone article. Searches on Google just lead to its official website and some blog and forum posts discussing it. This could be salvaged by expanding the small section on the chess rating system that already exists for it with whatever actual sources can be found. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. None of the "no delete" arguments have offered rationales grounded in policy or even guideline. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nyein Chan Ko Ko

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

No RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did fix the link to the article in question as it was pointing to a redirect and performed added the indent for the SPA's vote. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 02:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Put on article Dont Delete Reference Good — Preceding unsigned comment added by DawSanlay (talk • contribs) 03:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Seems like the consensus is that notability isn't demonstrated due to concerns about the reliability of many sources. Bearian's comments did not get much commentary, but it doesn't seem like they'd be sufficient by WP:NPROF standards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Brown Emeagwali

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

I'm not really sure what to make of this one. The subject doesn't seem near meeting WP:NPROF, and the awards claimed in the text don't seem like they'd normally indicate notability. I don't have access to the first ref (Encyclopedia of World Scientists) but from the GBooks search it looks like she really is included in that. Is that enough to meet WP:GNG? I'm not sure. As a caution there is some weirdness about her spouse's tendency to extreme self-promotion. Not sure how that influences coverage (or how much we care), but figured I'd warn you before you start Googling the family... Thoughts? Ajpolino (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The other ref is this from blackpast.org, which seems to draw from an encyclopedia.com article, which is pretty intensely praise-y, but says it got some of its info from the subject herself... so I don't know... Ajpolino (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:46, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: she is included in the African Americans in Science: An Encyclopedia of People and Progress (Carey ref, to which I've now added link and isbn), and this ref I've just added shows her being held up as a role model for schoolchildren. PamD 16:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to have doubts. The article was created, complete with references and wikilinks, by an editor who contributed nothing else before or since. I can find no trace of a "Scientist of the Year" award from the "National Technical Society": the National Technical Honor Society honours students, not academics, but currently has no award of this name, and googling for "scientist of the year" national technical society doesn't show other people getting this honour. A lot of this article begins to look strange. I'd really like to see a reliable 1996 source for that "Scientist of the Year" award, if anyone can find one through Internet Archive or whatever. PamD 17:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the source which Carey provides as "References and further reading" is apparently a self-published biography (which I can't find in the Internet Archive): I got as far as this page which invites scientists to send their own biography. PamD 17:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- She is also included in Contemporary Black Biography (see [28]). Problems with formatting or tone can be fixed through editing (and discussed on the talk page). Thsmi002 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thsmi002: Yes, I saw that as well. I'm not familiar with the source, but something isn't quite right with it. Unless she publishes under some other name (besides her married or maiden name) she just isn't a "renowned microbiologist". She's a long way from meeting the notability guideline for academics, so should we include her biography here per WP:GNG? It seems odd to say "she's a notable academic because sources call her a renowned microbiologist", even though we can see clearly she is not. On the other hand, the whole point of WP:GNG is that we follow the sources. So I'm not sure. That's why I brought this here. Thanks for your input. Ajpolino (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is weird. The entry in African Americans in Science: An Encylopedia of People and Progress similarly sells her as someone who has made huge contributions to microbiology and cancer biology, when I just can't find any evidence that's true. I'm not sure these sources are reliable. Sorry for all the text. Thoughts from anyone else, or do I just have a screw loose here? Ajpolino (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a confusing situation for sure but there is ultimately no evidence that the subject is anywhere near meeting WP:NPROF. Not by publications and not by awards. A keep on GNG grounds would put us in an impossible situation. Haukur (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - her career trajectory, if anything, makes her unusual - she started at UWyo, and rose to much more prestegious universities. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Something does not smell right here. There are substantial claims of scientific achievement, but the sourcing goes to a dead link. Cannot confirm claims through a quick search of the primary scientific literature. Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Found the paper in GS on her main claimed discovery in S Parvulus listed under an earlier name (that paper is also in the WP source list in this article). This paper from 1980 has 21 citations. It appears the notability of her work is overstated and suggests that the write-ups in works like African Americans in Science are unreliable. Agricola44 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A quick look does indeed strongly suggest that these specialty encyclopedia articles are unreliable, eg. this one from "Black Past": In 1986 she and her collaborators proved that S.parvulus, a strain of Streptomycetes, synthesized isozymes of kynurenine formamidase. This discovery helped to change the field of microbiology... Besides getting the year wrong, ~20 citations on a paper from the 1980s is far short of changing the field of microbiology. It appears there is a large literature overstating the contributions of this individual. Agricola44 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how any of the article content suggests that the subject meets the notability guidelines at WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. For example, all four scientific publications listed in the Selected Works section are from years when Emeagwali's role is described as either "research associate" or "assistant research scientist". In those roles, a scientist is essentially contributing to their supervisor/advisor's research program. Accomplishments described in the article are consistent with those of a staff scientist rather than of someone in a scientific leadership role. Deli nk (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sandstein 08:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrews & Arnold

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

Lacks major RS, fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 06:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 06:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A small UK ISP which never-the-less attracts significant independent third-party attention, thus making it notable. For example, multiple sources (including the BBC) covered their experiments to provide a broadband connection over a piece of wet string, The Register covered their honeypot trap of nuisance marketeers, the UK IPv6 Council acknowledge they were the first UK ISP to offer IPv6 and the UK Government consults with them on parliamentary business. Dorsetonian (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dorsetonian, agree with but really only these sources are not enough to make A small UK ISP notable. Meeanaya (talk) 07:30, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should elaborate! I provided clear evidence that WP:NCORP is met, you agree, and yet you still say the company is not notable. Dorsetonian (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are famous in the field, have been mentioned in the house of commons, and have attracted significant press interest for their protection of e-rights, as alluded to above by the previous poster. Landak (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Famous in geeky circles perhaps and without a huge trove of material that would qualify as GNG. However, they are well-known within those industry circles and generate coverage in the relevant trade press. Shritwod (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chennai Swaggers

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

Non-notable reality television cricket team. Fails WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - unfortunately WP:CRIN isn't very helpful on teams and is poorly written. This type of team would not be automatically included, as I read it, but would also not be automatically excluded. WP:NSPORTS makes no ruling one way or the other, so we come down to WP:ORG. There is clearly some coverage of the team in the Indian press. That coverage is more than just routine mentions in lists, but I'm not convinced that I see enough in-depth coverage to meet WP:ORG. Although it's close. I would suggest a total rewriting of WP:CRIN - the teams section at least - would help to add clarity to this sort of situation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To apply WP:CRIN to a reality TV cricket team is not judicious. Agree with @Blue Square Thing: that the correct criteria for deletion that applies is WP:ORG not WP:CRIN. The subject matter meets - even if marginally - all WP:ORGCRITE criteria. Correct remedy is to attach tags to improve, not delete.Deccantrap (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not enough coverage for the notability. Störm (talk) 07:14, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of Guatemala

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

not a good idea--insuffiecnt information for an article and not even worth a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is extensive precendent for this type of article (see Borders of India, Borders of Russia, Borders of Israel, Borders of Spain, etc.) Can this article be fleshed out rather than deleted? Paisarepa (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly a notable subject given Guatemala's well-documented and long-running territorial disputes, as well as other border issues. The most prominent one of these is of course the Belize dispute, and if this were the only one then I would favour simply redirecting to the article that covers this. However, Guatemala also had a long-running territorial dispute with Mexico and had a brief conflict with Mexico in the 1950s related to border crossings. There was also a dispute with Honduras. In fact the only border which I was not able to find anything notable about was the one with El Salvador, which for some reason has an article. There is also the ongoing crisis of people crossing the Guatemala-Mexico border to reach the US, which is obviously a notable subject. Obviously some (not all) of these subjects are covered on other pages, but there's enough here for a stand-alone article on Guatemala's border in general. PS - WP:WAX is a bad argument to keep and I don't endorse keeping simply because other countries have similar articles. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There - added all those references and a few more to the article, which, frankly, the nom should have done. I also think that WP:GEOLAND might well apply to this article (the borders are after all legally-recognised localities). FOARP (talk) 09:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now, as FOARP has expanded it to make a useful page. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FOARP - multiple border disputes mean that there's no redirect target, and the expansion makes this a decent article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable subject with further scope for expansion.Dimadick (talk) 22:51, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A notable topic, per a source review. North America1000 05:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dušan Stojanović

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

Promotional article with a lack of reliable sources to satisfy WP:NBIO. Searches turn up non-independent sources such as speaker profiles and interviews. There is a duplicate article at Dušan Stoiljković (investor) which I am bundling in this nomination. – Teratix ₵ 04:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 04:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, the sources in the article are all either interviews, promotional, or irrelevant - and a search doesn't turn up anything better. Definitely doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. MDDevice talk 09:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After another look I found an article from The Economic Times [29] which is OK, but it's the only half-decent source out there. – Teratix ₵ 10:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to be a run-of-the-mill businessperson. While the subject has accrued some coverage in reliable sources, most of this coverage is tangential or veering towards WP:PRIMARY. In addition, the subject does not inherit undue notability from more notable companies/entities they are affiliated with; sources would be needed that explicitly imply the subject is notable when separated from their investments. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Live and Let Die (film). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Lane (actor)

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

Non-notable actor. I removed the references to imdb and Fandom, but I can't find any reliable sources to replace them. Previous attempts to draftify and prod this were contested by the author. – bradv🍁 02:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Has not received significant coverage (I couldn't find anything other than lists of his appearances) and has not been nominated for or won any notable awards. Even the one source in the article (#90 on list) describes his (arguably most notable) role in Live and Let Die as "Not much to see here. Moving on." SamCordesTalk 04:21, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:07, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Lane's Live and Let Die character Adam is a significant presence as he participates in three attempts to assassinate Bond (high-flying airplane; crocodilians; boat chase). Adam instigates the boat chase, and as a participant he remains in pursuit well after everyone else has wrecked or been left behind, forcing Bond to devise a spectacular death for him. Tony (talk) 19:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Angilbas: Which article do you propose redirecting to? The character Adam may be notable in Live and Let Die, however the character itself is not notable and fails WP:GNG, with James Bond-related wikis the only content I could find on him (here). SamCordesTalk 03:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Live and Let Die (film) as his most known role and a significant minor role, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, redirect. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per the arguments provided that the sources are inadequate, although one might try to write an article on the fire. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Living Waters Christian Assembly

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

I found no significant coverage for this church. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article is completely unsourced aside from the church's website. The 2017 fire does have some news coverage but I don't think the church itself is notable enough for an article. Highway 89 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep significant coverage, here, here, here, here, here, and here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first reference is about someone named Colleen Noble regaining her faith and the church is only mentioned twice very briefly. The second reference is about someone named Jutras being converted with the church only mentioned one time very briefly. The third reference is about Ottawa families spending time together on Easter with one brief mention of the church. The fourth reference is about the fire that burned down the church which is irrelevant to notability per WP:NOTNEWS. The fifth reference is about that same fire. The last reference is again about the fire. SL93 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (with some regret) Delete -- This has the feel of a fund raising webpage. The church's most notable news is that it was burnt down, presumably accidentally (I have not investigated), but that is itself NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify (already draftified). Already moved to draftspace by it's author. Closing as it is a orphaned AfD. (non-admin closure) Masum Reza📞 04:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Async++

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

Since PROD didn't work, taking this to AfD. The page is just someone making a Wikipedia page for their GitHub project. Not at all notable, fails WP:GNG, and considering that it was released about a month ago it's WP:TOSOON. creffett (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:50, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - a new Github project with no independent coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was unable to find independent sources for this library, so it fails WP:GNG. Without any independent sources, there is no verifiable material to preserve per WP:ATD. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:38, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails GNG. Borderline A7. Masum Reza📞 15:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been moved to Draft space and so I have removed the AFD tag. Liz Read! Talk! 03:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kapil Jangir

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

Non-notable musician. I cannot find any additional reliable sources about this person, and of the 4 sources in the article, 3 don't even mention him. – bradv🍁 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – bradv🍁 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – bradv🍁 00:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's possible I'm missing something in the Hindi language source because I can't even run it through a machine translator, but given the sparseness of coverage elsewhere I'm doubtful. I'll happily strike this vote if someone can find reliable coverage in Hindi (or any other language). signed, Rosguill talk 03:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG, but would echo Rosguill's note about the difficulty in searching for Indian-language sources - if better sourcing can be found I'd happily change my view. GirthSummit (blether) 13:05, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 05:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Encef

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

The only mention of Encef is on the disambiguation page. Leschnei (talk) 00:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:58, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a valid disambiguation page. Also used as a trade name for Cefixime [30] [31]. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after adding these trade names, sourced, to the respective articles - both seem to include several unsourced tradenames in infobox, not sure what the best way would be to add this content with a source. Then strip the refs out of the dab page. PamD 15:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: perfectly valid dab page disambiguating between two articles, with more to be added. – Uanfala (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electrolab

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

I can't find any use except Electrolab S.A. and Bell Electrolabs (which doesn't really need disambiguating). Leschnei (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there’s not even one notable subject named Electrolabs, much less multiple subjects and the need to disambiguate. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ixfd64 (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alyssa Quilala

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Not sure if this is worth a redirect to Chris Quilala, given that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of sourcing. Adam9007 (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:03, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the one role actually done isn't significant, and the other would be a crystal ball issue. Obviously lacking sourcing on top of that. I don't think the redirect would be particularly beneficial Nosebagbear (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sourcing and notability issues abound. A redirect doesn’t seem to fit here. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 14:35, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she is mentioned on the page of her husband Chris Quilala, but since the only mentions of her I can find are a tiny number of blog posts, I don't thnk we need to refirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_July_19&oldid=1142613908"