Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 7

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 6 June	8 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KA Tun Azizan

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

Non-notable ship. This has only local news sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references are national Malaysian reliable sources. "Local" means a single community, not a country. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is clearly, per the sources, an important part of Malaysia's naval infrastructure. The nominator seems to be confusing the words "local" and "national". Phil Bridger (talk) 08:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There also source from official website of Royal Malaysian Navy in this article. (see reference number three).Tomahawkarf (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Naval vessels from whatever country are considered notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly, per the sources, the references are national Malaysian reliable sources. --MA Javadi (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, big boat (its a ship coola!:)) is notable, nice if mopper closed this snowy (or the nominator could be nice and withdraw:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah San Fernando

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

Non-notable student politician. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 23:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable student politician, per nom. Hugsyrup (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since I was the one who suggested it. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 01:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student regent at a university is not a WP:NPOL-passing political office, but the sources here are not getting him over WP:GNG — it's referenced two-thirds to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and one-third to a one-off glancing namecheck of his existence in an article whose core subject is something else. As always, getting a Wikipedia article is not just a matter of having had your name printed in a newspaper once — we test for the depth, range, volume and context of the media coverage, not just for the existence of text-matches on the person's name. Bearcat (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep – invalid reason for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Flaming Idiots

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

insufficient number of references, or poor reference sources. Pcourteau123 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources, including Variety and The New York Times, as well as a home-town regional newspaper. Multiple means more than one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 June 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 keep – invalid reason for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Macdonald (filk musician)

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

insufficient number of references, or poor reference sources. Pcourteau123 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:04, 7 June 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 keep – invalid reason for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poxy Boggards

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

insufficient number of references, or poor reference sources. Pcourteau123 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:05, 7 June 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 keep – invalid reason for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Gunn

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

insufficient number of references, or poor reference sources. Pcourteau123 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:40, 7 June 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 keep – invalid reason for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Forsberg

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

insufficient number of references, or poor reference source. Pcourteau123 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:07, 7 June 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 keep – invalid reason for deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brobdingnagian Bards

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

insufficient number of references, or poor reference sources. Pcourteau123 (talk) 21:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 23:09, 7 June 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luba Pashkovskaya

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

Claim to notability: included on a Forbes list. No other significant coverage. Based on current BLP practice, that doesn't cut it on its own. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:30, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Forbes is the only actual source (the Belarusfeed.com article is only reporting on the Forbes coverage) and much of it appears to have been copied uncritically from whatever the subject claimed, e.g., "The founder says the company ... makes $30 million in annual revenue." (emphasis added) Searching, I could find no additional usable sources. Lacks the multiple reliable independent secondary sources necessary to establish notability under WP:GNG and fails to meet any alternate criteria under, e.g., WP:ANYBIO. Msnicki (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Blumpf (talk) 02:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mazonicism

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

Wikipedia isn't the place to be publishing original ideas. – Uanfala (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per criteria A11. This really did not need to have been brought to AFD in such an obvious case of meeting a Speedy criteria. Rorshacma (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A11 - I just removed the link to the OneDrive account contained in the article's content. As I was doing so, the author overwrote the page with a redirect to draft space with the following edit summary "Maj Zore moved page Mazonicism to Draft:Mazonicism over redirect: Avoiding deletion". This is the second time it's been pulled from mainspace to draftspace in the past week. Rather than having to restart with an MfD, can we please just delete this and SALT it? Orville1974 (talk) 21:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed another dubious website added by the author into the article's content (in his plea not to delete the article). Orville1974 (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article is now located at Draft:Mazonicism - Due to author moving it back to draft space. I've requested a CSD (R2) on the redirect from mainspace to draftspace and an A11 CSD on the draft article since the author keeps inserting dubious links. I'm removing a third insert now. Orville1974 (talk) 22:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BookFi

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

Notability of this site appears to rest on having been slapped around by Elsevier (together with Sci-Hub, whence the coverage). However, that's the only time it appears in the news, and also appears to be only thing worth stating about it. I don't believe this is sufficient coverage and notability for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nom. The only coverage I found was of the site being blocked because they're pirates, e.g., here. Per WP:ILLCON, coverage of one event in which it was determined that these guys are criminals does not do it for me. WP should not be offering them free advertising. Msnicki (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While NWEB doesn't deal with the 1 event nature, I don't think its criteria in anyway support this for notability. Certainly no indication ofpassing NCORP. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renaud Dumora

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

Coverage of this businessman appears to consist entirely of press releases (plus one dead link - ref 1 the title of which - which also sounds like PR material). WP:NBIO not satisfied, IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Yolanthe Sneijder-Cabau. As it hasn't been contested, I'll go with the argument that the sources provided are too short to establish notability for the film Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Turkse chick

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

Another short film I'm trying to find notability for. I have not found any sources-outside of ones mentioning the main actress in the film. And I don't think this short film seems to pass notability. Wgolf (talk) 20:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-unlike other shorts I have AFD this one MIGHT actually have some sort of notability, it seems to have a high page view, it's just lacking sources and I have yet to find any online, maybe some exist in Dutch? (The Dutch wiki is basically the same) Wgolf (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, found this review in Dutch here, translated it and it seems to be a professional review criticising the film, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dutchie here. Not sure if this short is relevant for English readers. As for notability i think it meets the GNG. Reasons 1) Yolanthe Sneijder Cabau is a very famous dutch actress, 2) It shows a scene of her having sex, 3) The whole media kept talking about it and how she shouldn't have done the scene. Sources (in Dutch) are [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The short has been made, has a famous actress, has a controversial scene in it which got the film media coverage. Is this relevant and notable enough for English wiki? I'm not sure. My two cents. HM Wilburt (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-well it could be a redirect to her. (Granted I never heard of her either, but she seems to be the only one that has a page on here) Wgolf (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what grants the creation of an English wiki. I am convinced it meets standards for a Dutch one. What's reason why the English one was made? HM Wilburt (talk) 00:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No clue-it has been here since 2011 though! Wgolf (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I vote redirect to page Yolanthe Sneijder Cabau. Without a famous actress this page won't meet GNG. Most of the notability is about her and the sex scene in the film. Maybe create a subheader on her page about it. HM Wilburt (talk) 00:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Yolanthe Sneijder Cabau looks like the sensible way to go, only a line or two should be added, if at all, to ensure the balance of her atricle is retained. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect without prejudice against recreation to Yolanthe Sneijder Cabau. WP:NFILM is the relevant bit here, which requires more than 1 high quality review. I've found a couple of other reviews but all are non-reliable (other than the dutch one up above). The other sources are all about the individual's stripping off, and don't spend more than a couple of lines on the film itself. Redirect leaves it open to reconstruction if another review can be found. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buka Entertainment

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

Did a WP:BEFORE search, and didn't see a great deal. There is potentially something here, but link is broken and this in Russian, however it's hardly super notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, I am the original creator of the article, but that was back in 2006, and I haven't touched it since. From what I know, Buka is one of the larger video game publishers in the Russian market, so it should be theoretically possible to find enough tertiary sources to establish its notability, but most of them would be in Russian, and I am honestly cannot be bothered to search for them at this time. --Koveras (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited this source in the article. If someone can find more like that notability will be demonstrated. It's difficult searching in Cyrillic, at least for someone whose Russian is as rusty as mine, because there are loads of false positives for "Бука". Phil Bridger (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Phil Bridger:, I think the article need more expanding too. I found this link and I don't know they are useful or not. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. I hope be useful.Forest90 (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considering the fact I have heard about this publisher a lot, I am surprised to see that the company fails WP:NCORP. It requires that it has "been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." And I don't see that here. There is a great coverage of the subject by Tinybuild as cited by the nominator, but the problem is...it isn't independent of Buka, since they worked with Tinybuild (and a lot of websites citing that article). In my searches I can only find WP:ROUTINE announcements of investments, their games, name drops in books or Koch Media distribution press releases. The russian wiki article is sourced equally bad, with Vedomosti source only being salvageable and going in depth about 1C Company acquiring Buka. Which also can be just covered in 1C article, like it is. Analyzing the sources posted in the article (both users being completely unsure that even helps for the notability speaks enough):

Phil 1. "In 1993, Buka Entertainment entered the video game market and became not only a distributor of video game consoles from SEGA, Nintendo and Sony, but also a manufacturer of it's own games" and the page 443 after that repeats the same (with games they released) is not WP:SIGCOV.

Forest 1. Press release. Says so in the article plus in the url. Not independent from Buka.

Forest 2, 3. and 4. Collecting all these in one place, because each of those serves as a passing mention of Buka (mentioned only by it's name) in a bigger picture of them publishing Redeemer (video game). Not WP:SIGCOV, and from a glance 2. and 4. do not seem as reliable either.

Forest 5. Besides the fact this doesn't seem like a reliable site (I don't see editorial policy here despite the staff listing), Buka is not mentioned, not even once. Probably posted by a mistake.

Forest 6. Like I mentioned above WP:ROUTINE press announcement of Buka-Koch publishing. This article also relies on what Buka and Koch PR's said, making it not independent of the subject.

Forest 7. Literally source 6 repeated again. Same thing here as well. Clear fail of WP:NCORP. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And what about page 443 of the Wolf source, a book published by MIT Press? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have said it already. First sentence repeats the Page 440. "In 1996, Buka created it's first video game, Russian Roulette....and on" paragraph until the IT Territory segment is all "they released this in that year" (which is not related to Buka but to the games they made, which WP:SIGCOV clearly discards, and I would add WP:NOTINHERITED as well in the mix). The only usable thing out there besides the foundation date is the Bukashka part and the fact their first game was in 1996. So, even if we do count this as WP:SIGCOV by some marginal weak case (probably not thanks to WP:CORPDEPTH which requires much more than that), 3 facts that can be collected from Page 443 is certainly not enough to write an article separate from 1C Company. And as we have seen, re-redirecting it back has no purpose as it will be removed again just like it was removed this time. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If redirection is the right thing to do then that is what should be done. The fact that at editor chose to undo redirection before is no bar to reinstating it, and, if people then edit against consensus, protection or blocking are the appropriate admin tools to use, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is, at least not until the entry in 1C Company's article gets expanded. Currently, it just exists is a name drop there, so it would be vulnerable under WP:RFD#DELETE criteria 10 whereas "target article contains virtually no information on the subject". Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Noting also that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clann An Drumma

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

~~No indication that this fulfils WP:BAND.~~ Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. They get non-trivial coverage in Culloden: (Cùil Lodair) published by Oxford University Press. There song "Sgt. MacKenzie" gets a lot of coverage due to the soundtrack of the film We Were Soldiers and I have left some sources for that on the AFD for that article which I won't repeat here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinningspark (talk • contribs) 16:17 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Two sentences. There is no indication they fulfil any of the other notability criteria for bands. I've also responded re Sgt. Mackenzie at that talk page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes at least criteria 10 of WP:NMUSIC with their music on two notable films Atlantic306 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To note, that criterion recommends redirection to the article for the film when this is the song's sole notability. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BADGER, and you can't redirect to two notable films at the same time. SpinningSpark 14:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're a charmer. I'd hope we're all here to find the most suitable resolution to the issue under discussion and I'm pointing out a perfectly pertinent aspect of that criterion. Don't warn me off. The validity of your point about the difficulty of redirecting to two targets should have been quite enough. My point is valid, your response is valid. Away and have a word with yourself; what is your accusation but the badgering of another to shut up? Hardly the way to win someone over to your viewpoint. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Atlantic306 FOARP (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - I am persuaded now to withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article.

With the mentions in reliable sources, whether passing or otherwise, of the inclusion of a recording by this band on the soundtrack of two feature films, under criterion 10 of WP:NMUSIC, there is scope in this encyclopedia for mention of that recording. As mentioned, this criterion recommends redirection to the article for the film if this is the only claim to notability but, as has been pointed out, as it appears in two films, that can not be the resolution here.

I would therefore suggest that a way forward would be to retain this article on Clann An Drumma but, with the song being the only element of significant notability regarding the group, to focus this article on that song’s inclusion in the films (not the song itself unless notable and reliably sourced material is evident) and remove the current unsourced and non-notable material. Sgt. MacKenzie would be redirected to Clann An Drumma, with the merging only of pertinent and reliably sourced material from the former to the latter. That would entail a considerable trimming of the material currently at the song article, which is largely uncited (possibly from unattributed primary sources) or non-notable. The additional sources noted in the two AFD debates could be added.

I note with disappointment yesterday's attempt, above, to stifle debate. Casually sling out ludicrously premature, inappropriate, sledgehammer characterisation like that to anyone who isn’t immediately won over to your viewpoint and you’re more likely to get fellow debaters digging their heels in. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Asia featuring John Payne. Sandstein 09:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extended Versions (Asia album)

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

Contested PROD. This is not a notable recording. There is an AllMusic entry, but it did not chart and other than fan-zine entries, I can't find any write-ups about it. I suspect that my quick Google search may be missing some entries from good sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Asia featuring John Payne as preferred WP:ATD ~Kvng (talk) 16:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Redirect if not notable - how would this ever be a delete? Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really an obvious redirect. It's not a likely search term as it has the disambiguator in the title. It's more likely to be found by hitting Extended Versions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Debatable. Try Googling "Asia extended versions" or try typing "extended versions" into the wikipedia search box at the upper right of each page. Also WP:CHEAP. ~Kvng (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since subject fails WP:NALBUM. And Walter Görlitz is obviously correct about trying to fashion a redirect out of this. -The Gnome (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the issue with redirecting this to Asia featuring John Payne? The unlikely search term rationale does not seem hold water. What am I missing? ~Kvng (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that if a reader wants to find the album, they will likely search for "Extended Versions", not "Extended Versions (Asia album)", right? Even if you don't, if you use the search field, it will auto-complete for you and when you see that there is an Extended Versions entry, you might want to try your luck. If you find an entry on that dab page, you'll go there rather than try your luck with a second search. What doesn't hold water for me is that someone is actually going to try to do a full search for "Extended Versions (Asia album)". That's just improbable when other options present themselves earlier. All links from articles related to John Payne's Asia should either not link anywhere or should link to the section in the article where it's discussed. If there are no links, and someone adds a link, do you really think their first thought is going to be to try to link it to "Extended Versions (Asia album)"? Again, I suspect that most new editors will try to link to "Extended Versions". If they're not diligent, they'll get a warning from the bot that tells editors that they just created a link to a DAB. If they do have a link to Extended Versions (Asia album), in my scenario, they'll have a redlink and will have to fix that (which will present a warning). If we leave a redirect, it will look like a valid, blue link, and they may not go further to investigate. So, a full delete seems like a win all around, unless you can show actual search metrics from Wikipedia that shows people are actually searching for "Extended Versions (Asia album)". Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR. No disrespect intended but if you have to use that many words to overcome WP:CHEAP you have clearly not succeeded. Did you try to Google "Asia extended versions" or try type "extended versions" into the wikipedia search box? If you're looking for the Asia version of this album, both lead you pretty directly to this title. ~Kvng (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can only rely on CHEAP your logic is flawed and you have not succeeded. I have no problems with creating a redirect at Asia Extended Versions, because that is a logical search term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a short explanation of why you think an Extended Versions (Asia album) redirect is bad? Thanks for your patience. ~Kvng (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No reasonable individual will type that in as a search term. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have already answered this and we're not listening to each other so I'm about done - But they will type "Extended Versions" and the Wikipedia search box will list, as they type, "Extended Versions (Asia album)" as an option (along with all the other "Extended Versions (artist name here)" options) and they will see that and click it. A similar thing happens using Google. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm listening and responding to you. The first term is "Extended Versions". When this particular redirect doesn't show up in the lists of searches, the DAB will be enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - An inexperienced Wikipedia would likely not use the disambiguator, but experienced Wikipedia users may well know to use a disambiguator for a search term like this. I certainly have done so in similar situations, so I can see the redirect having value. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Even if only a very small number of people find the redirect useful, that's enough reason for it to exist (see WP:R#KEEP no 5) and I see no particular reason to delete it. It's not controversial, non-neutral or likely to cause confusion. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Although a page move should be considered Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jugal kalita

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

Does not meet WP:NPROF. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that the subject meets WP:NACADEMIC. DrKay (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly relevant work, high h-index of 33 and dozens of papers with 100+ citations. hroest 13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record is enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and while our article currently is thin and badly sourced, this profile (while useless for adding notability) has enough substance about him to source a better article. I was unable to find reviews of his books but Network Anomaly Detection: A Machine Learning Perspective, at least, is well-cited. And I'm not sure whether this is actually a reliable source on his first book, but it might be. This Telegraph India story about the subject's Assamese music internet radio station also seems potentially relevant. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, the article will need to be moved to Jugal Kalita per WP:TITLE. Narky Blert (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic cascading style sheets

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

Contested PROD, but no improvement in the weeks since. Unimportant technique, with extremely sparse sourcing. Technically this is not a popular technique because it's just not a good idea to do it (it's of little use, and it breaks the REST model that efficient use of the web generally relies on). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given how it mentions less and scss (which are not dynamic), it does show that there should be something written about CSS preprocessors somewhere on this wiki. If we stretch the term hard enough those awful hacks can probably be seen as their spiritual (like... NodeJS/JScript type spiritual) precursors. --Artoria 2e5 🌉 22:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less and CSS pre-processors are not dynamic CSS though.

Dynamic CSS is one of those ideas which sound like a good idea, until you think through the details. If the stylesheet(s) become dynamic, then they break a couple of the assumptions which we normally rely on to make the web efficient. Stylesheets which are stable and do not have temporal dependencies on their associated page can be cached and shared between many pages. Using dynamic CSS breaks that. As a result, it never became a popular technique, or relevant to us here. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 03:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so it's a terrible idea, like self-modifying code from an earlier generation, and not many folks are foolish enough to try it. That doesn't mean it's not a thing, nor that it hasn't been tried, nor that it might not even be a notable topic in its own right, perhaps. It needs to be mentioned, described, and dismissed with suitable citations somewhere. If that means merging it to the CSS article (probably), or even developing and citing the article, so be it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But is it a notable thing? It doesn't become one unless it's a technique that is discussed in secondary sources, and as a technique of so little use, it never achieved this.

Merging it into CSS would be an even worse situation, giving a false impression of UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It may be a dumb idea, but it is found in the literature;
- Henrik Stormer, "Personalized websites for mobile devices using dynamic cascading style sheets", International Journal of Web Information Systems, 2005.
- Nick Heinle, Bill Peña, Designing with Javascript: Creating Dynamic Web Pages covers it over six pages starting on p.139 (and they seem to think it is a good idea).
- Jason Cranford Teague, DHTML and CSS for the World Wide Web devotes a chapter to it, and also seems to like the idea.

Stormer might be the originator of the idea (I don't know) but he is cited by several others. SpinningSpark 17:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy O'Shea (business executive)

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

Does not appear to meet wp:gng as the coverage is not significant. Most sources are primary, and those that are not amount to an obituary in the local section of an admittedly major paper, and a passing comment about school board elections in the same paper. Net result, a couple of reliable sources but a lack of significant coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup (talk) 10:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Nation's Business article about him sounds significant. I cannot access the article, but I am inclined to accept good faith by the article's creator. While I was [6] searching for the article, I found a citation to it at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrm.3930120104 ,(Google indexed the full text, which is behind a paywall ) also suggesting that the coverage is significant. The Washington Post obituary is also much more than a passing mention. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:40, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. The Nation's Business story can be found (via some CIA database) at https://archive.org/details/CIA-RDP89-01114R000100020072-5/page/n9 . It covers the subject nontrivially, and I assume (not being able to get through the paywall) that the Wapo obit does as well. But, after reading both our article and the NB story, I'm left at a bit of a loss for what impact he left on the world, except for his name on a high school theatre. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 600 (number)#620s. Sandstein 09:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

620 (number)

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

No claim to notability, no references. Fails WP:NUMBER. UtopianPoyzin (talk) 17:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete the Article. I think no reason needed but it's not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest90 (talk • contribs)
Merge with 600 (number)#620s. Probably there, rather than at 620 (number). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback to its original purpose as a redirect per Arthur Rubin. The page has virtually no information on the number, there is more at the redirect target. The only other purpose the page serves is to disambiguate 620 film which would be better served as a hatnote to 620. SpinningSpark 00:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 600 (number)#620s. Per nom, this fails WP:NUMBER, and I don't see what content there is to merge into the intended target, considering that an entire section consists of a link to the intended target without any standalone content. ComplexRational (talk) 01:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley F. Cox

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

Local politician who fails WP:NPOL. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vero Beach FL is not large enough to hand its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing, but the references here are purely genealogical rather than notability-supporting media coverage in reliable sources. FamilySearch census records and Find-a-Grave do not make a person notable, folks. Bearcat (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carlo Kemp

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

Un-notable or not-yet-notable amateur football player. His current top honor is finishing 13th in tackles for Michigan in 2018. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH and WP:GNG. Ostealthy (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:57, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Kemp may become notable as a starter for Michigan this coming fall, but does not yet meet the standards applicable under WP:NCOLLATH. Also, I am not finding significant coverage in multiple reliable sources of the type needed to pass the WP:GNG bar. Article was created in 2016 by a new user when Kemp was a highly-touted recruit. Still premature at this point. Cbl62 (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no coverage exists that I can find to suggest passing WP:GNG and the article doesn't suggest that it could be found. Subject may achieve notability in the future so no prejudice to re-create at that time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cbl62....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOLLATH, per Cbl62. No prejudice against recreation if he meets those (or other) guidelines in the future. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Jean Hayes

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

Not every TV presenter-publicist-New Age author is notable. Failed WP:NCREATIVE on basis either of author or of television career. Even basic biographical details like birthplace are self-sourced which isn't a disqualifier alone, but not a good sign for notability in general. I've done a lot of trimming of PR-style writing from this article, so evaluators might want to see [7] for more sources originally added by the article creator. ☆ Bri (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bri I have done some additional trimming to remove PR-style writing from this article, and have added new reference sources of this person's work as an author and writer. Wikiver23 (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Wikiver23 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikiver's idea of "fixing" this was adding that Ranker once included her in a "the 25 most famous people named Penelope" listicle — which is (a) not relevant to her notability at all, (b) not even a mildly interesting fact, and (c) not a reliable or notability-making source in the first place. So what I've learned here isn't that Penelope Jean Hayes is notable, it's that Wikiver doesn't understand what we're looking for. Even with that fluff removed, this is still written much more like somebody tried to convert her résumé into prose than like a proper encyclopedia article — and it's not referenced to substantive reliable source coverage about her, but to glancing namechecks of her existence in coverage of other things or people and primary source contributor profiles on the self-published websites of her own employers. These are not notability-making sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please help improve article. Bearcat is correct; I don't fully understand what you are looking for. Being a hobbyist editor I'm learning from this discussion. I do not work for any person or company in which I have updated information on articles; completely unpaid. I am a literary fan and have contributed to several articles of publishing houses and writers when I've learned about them in news articles and yet the Wikipedia pages did not reflect all that is publicly known. I'm interested to improve articles, become a knowledgable editor and I enjoy being part of this community. Thank you Bearcat for helping my understanding of notability-making sources. Don't know if you also noticed these newer additions to sources, hoping these qualify as reliable or notability-making source: ^[1] and ^[2] and ^[3]. I'd like to propose an alternative to deletion, this person is an author, has a column in a popular spiritual magazine, and she been on national TV shows: Noteworthy, yes, but may I ask for further guidance here regarding editing to the correct standards? Wikiver23 (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What we require is reliable source coverage which is about Penelope Hayes. Being an author, having a column in a magazine and being on national TV shows are not, in and of themselves, notability freebies that guarantee her an article as long as you reference the facts to just any random web page you can find: those things only get a person into Wikipedia if they have resulted in her becoming the subject of reliable source coverage about her in books and magazines and newspapers. You don't make a person notable by referencing her own work about other subjects to itself as verification that it exists, you make a person notable by referencing her work to journalism about her which was written and created by other people as verification that reliable sources have paid independent attention to her work.
For example, you don't make a writer notable by referencing the existence of her book to an online bookstore or a press release from its own publisher or a directory entry on GoodReads or WorldCat: you make a writer notable by referencing the existence of her book to evidence that other unaffiliated sources have paid independent attention to the book, such as by actually reviewing it in their books sections, or by publishing a journalist-written article about her in the news or arts sections, or by reporting as news that it won or got nominated for a major literary award.
You don't make a person notable as a contributor to the Huffington Post by referencing it to her "our contributors" profile on the Huffington Post — you make a person notable as a contributor to the Huffington Post by referencing it to evidence that other unaffiliated media outlets have paid independent attention to her work for the Huffington Post, by producing journalism or critical analysis about it. And by the same token, you don't make a person notable as a magazine columnist by referencing the fact to her own columns — you make a person notable as a magazine columnist by referencing it to reliable source journalism or critical analysis about her work as a magazine columnist.
You do not make a person notable as a television personality by referencing her television appearances to video clips or transcripts of the appearances — you make a person notable as a television personality by referencing it to evidence that other unaffilited media outlets have done journalism or critical analysis about her work as a television personality.
You do not make a person notable as a publicist by referencing it to a photograph of her holding a chart, or a soundbite from her in an article whose primary subject is one of her past or present clients — you make a person notable as a publicist by referencing her work as a publicist to journalism which has her as its subject.
And on and so forth: the notability test is not that her work metaverifies its own existence, it is that other people who don't have a vested interest in promoting her have independently paid third party attention to her work in reliable sources. Journalism being done by other people about her (which is not the same thing as journalism about other people which happens to mention her name); book reviews being published by other people about her books; somebody writing and publishing a full-on book length biography of her; and on and so forth. That's why none of the sources you've been using are helping: they're all just primary source verification that she exists, not reliable source coverage about her that would bridge the gap between "existence" and "notability". Bearcat (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:TOOSOON. I don't find any coverage about her. Her only book has a publication date of 2020, and the only coverage about it is a promotional article from the publisher. RebeccaGreen (talk) 02:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Libelle (toy)

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

After 10 years of a notability tag (and 4 years of an unreferenced tag) this unsourced stub has no indication of notability Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find anything on a basic WP:BEFORE except some manuals (not even sure if they are the same product) and Wikipedia mirrors. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources to establish notability. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, a gsearch brings up nothing useable for this toy or the company, did find this so toy did exist, no article in German WP for this toy (see here) or the company Scheny (see here) so appears to be quite an obscure toy and company. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sgt. MacKenzie

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

~~Fails WP:NSONG.~~ Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets GNG. It is discussed in Music in American Combat Films: A Critical Study on the linked page and several other pages starting on page 108. Also substantial coverage in Hymns for the Fallen: Combat Movie Music and Sound After Vietnam and a few sentences in The Martial Imagination: Cultural Aspects of American Warfare. Not much in the way of WP:BEFORE going on with this nomination. SpinningSpark 15:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These are fairly passing mentions of the song and it would be stretching it to say the song is the subject of the material. Even were one to regard this as satisfying notability "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged...". This material would barely give you a stub. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are not passing mentions in my estimation. Decker devotes about two-thirds of a page to the song, and even the shortest coverage, in Bryan's book, is 85 words by my count. In any case if you wanted a merge, you have come to the wrong place, you shouldn't be proposing deletion per WP:ATD. SpinningSpark 17:17, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It follows that if there is no notable article to merge to (per my AFD nomination for the band's article) a song article that could only ever be a stub would thus be deleted. A few lines at the top of a page then a further few half way down does not consitute two-thirds of a page. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This comfortably fails WP:NSONG. The subject of the song might be notable, which is why contributors to the article have managed to elaborate so thoroughly on it, but the song itself easily does not meet the necessary criteria. Perhaps someone would want to start a draft of the Charles Stuart MacKenzie bio. -The Gnome (talk) 13:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the two sources for the article, I'm unclear as to any indication that the individual has any significance distinct from the association with the song and if, as I agree, the latter is not notable then neither is the former. The external links given are a primary source (the band which wrote the song) and the individual's listing in a site of all war graves. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...the subject's siginificance to the composer being in large part that he was a relative. Mutt Lunker (talk)

@The Gnome:. My keep was based on GNG and the coverage in books, not on NSONG. But I would argue that this goes some way to meeting NSONG criterion #3. Besides the release by Clann An Drumma and it featuring in the soundtrack of We Were Soldiers, it has also been covered by Heather Rankin, (+edit) the band of the Royal Regiment of Scotland [8], and the band Alternative Ulster [9]. Not sure about the notability of the last one, search results are getting swamped by the song of the same name by Stiff Little Fingers, and to some extent also by the magazine Alternative Ulster. SpinningSpark 15:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Spinningspark. Are you referring to "coverage in books" about the song or about the subject of the song? -The Gnome (talk) 09:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: The books coverage I cited are about the song. I agree with Mutt Lunker, the person (Sgt. McK) has no notability except as the subject of this song. SpinningSpark 12:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has been used in a notable film and other productions which is one of the considerations for recordings at WP:NMUSIC, also has reliable sources coverage as described above, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Spinningspark FOARP (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SpinningSpark. Easily meets WP:GNG, although I agree that the individual has no notability seperate from the song. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - I am persuaded now to withdraw my nomination for deletion of this article, with an inclination to redirection to Clann An Drumma, merging only reliably sourced content regarding the recording of the song’s inclusion in the two feature films mentioned. The full rationale is given here, at the AFD for the group. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have, of course, no objection to a Redirect towards Clann An Drumma. -The Gnome (talk) 08:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

!Vote Clarification Query - @Mutt Lunker: - could you clarify your !vote. If you are !voting redirect then it isn't really withdrawing your nomination (you can't actually do that with Gnome's !vote, but I get what you mean). However your change of vote seems to read more like a merge (with some conditions). Could you clarify? Nosebagbear (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll first note that this is a discussion towards a consensus and so nobody has a vote; I'm also unclear what you are saying that I have done that I "can't actually do".

To clarify, I made this nomination for Afd, I have withdrawn it, so in regard to this discussion, that could be it from me. I noted above what I was now contemplating as a preferred resolution. Were I to resolve to that (which I now have), I had been intending to deal with that as a separate merger proposal but I understand from Wikipedia:Merging#Merger_as_a_result_of_a_deletion_discussion that this can be proposed here as an alternative to straight deletion. If I'm correct that this is appropriate, per above I suggest "redirection to Clann An Drumma, merging only reliably sourced content regarding the recording of the song’s inclusion in the two feature films mentioned" since that is what the two existing sources for this article, plus the various new ones noted in the discussion above address. This article would thus be a redirect. Do others agree? Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yemi Davids

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

Simply doesn't pass WP:GNG. Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Less than a 3 passing mentions from reliable source and nothing more. Lapablo (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a pastor is unlikely to be notable when his church apparently is not (no article). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oskar Friberg

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

The subject was not notable as a soldier, boat builder or fisherman. Being the oldest resident on an island of population 415 is also not notable. He fails all criteria for notability. WWGB (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 14:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article shows notability. Sjö (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. /Julle (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to DBLP. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ley

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

No evidence of any notability. Clearly a minor academic but sources are very weak. None convey notability . Even the award is way below any notability level. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF or WP:GNG. According to [10], he is one of five research assistants working under a professor. --Tataral (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DBLP. Already mentioned there and no independent notability is apparent. According to his Google Scholar profile (ignoring the top-cited publication that appears not to be by him) all of his top-cited works are about DBLP. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dulcie Younger

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No evidence of established notability. AmericanAir88^(talk) 13:11, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of passing WP:MUSCIBIO or WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV and only one album released since 2004. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS's. The only thing I turned up was a genre blog, which noted after the failure of the sole album release--a self produced effort--she quit pursuing music and moved out of the country and pursued a different life. That was 12 years ago. ShelbyMarion (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dremo

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

Does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. The listing relies heavily on unreliable sources such as YouTube and on vanity sources. None of the titles listed in the discography are themselves notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very weak sourcing, majority completely unreliable. The only reliable source in the article is this interview ref #6 but as a typical interview to lifestyle section of an online newspaper it cannot help to establish any notability. I cannot find sources in any reliabe media about his life and he does not pass any of the 12 points listed at WP:NMUSICBIO.– Ammarpad (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:PROMO intended solely for publicity purposes and prohibited by policy. For those who don't know the history, the article was created by the artist's label (now blocked), maintained by sockpuppets (now blocked), and deleted multiple times. IP and sockpuppet editors also repeatedly attempted to add this artist's name (with redlinks) into other artist articles. Whether this is coordinated out of an PR office building somewhere or just coincidentally done by a bunch of different enthusiastic fans, it's still clearly intended for publicity purposes, regardless of tone. As WP:PROMO says, Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Looking at the sourcing and online searches, which amount to PR puffery and interviews in which the subject says anything he likes about himself, this subject clearly falls into that category, and the article should be deleted as a matter of policy. Bakazaka (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Firm consensus that NAUTHOR is satisfied with a well-covered single major work. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Dettmann

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

Does not appear to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR, as there is a single, notable book, and all the press comes out of that book. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:50, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This author is published by a major publishing house, has been on national and international tours and is highly regarded in her genre. The fact that she’s only published one novel so far is irrelevant. She has extremely notable people backing her work and the Daily Telegraph has tipped her as “Australia’s next Liane Moriarty”Locochoko (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A google news search shows her work has been reviewed in the Sydney Morning Herald, Daily Telegraph (Sydney), Law Society Journal of New South Wales, interviewd by ABC News. There also seems to be some reviews in German, but I do not read German, so can't check them out. Seems to pass WP:GNG and/or WP:BASIC. Netherzone (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Criteria 3 of WP:NAUTHOR does not requiere for multiple notable works. Authoring a single book that has been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews seems to fit that requirement. I also feel WP:GNG is met as there is also non trivial coverage about the subject in some of those sources focused on the book. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sanity (demogroup)

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

Fails to meet WP:GNG (I'm not sure what other guidelines would apply here, if any). The most notable mention (and only mention) I can find in any publication is in a book specifically about the history of the demoscene. A PROD was created by Aeternus back in 2014, but this was subsequently – and I would argue wrongfully – removed just before it expired. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 09:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Redirect to the Amiga demos article would be my first choice. However, target article is in so bad shape (NO references!), I´m shy to even propose that. Pavlor (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Baltic Committee of Sydney

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

Apparently completely non-notable (though presumably worthy and well-meaning) immigrant organisation in Australia, does not begin to meet the requirements of NCORP. No hits on GNews, no verifiable hit on GBooks; there may coverage in languages that I regret I have never learned to read. Restoration of the redirect to Lia Looveer has been repeatedly attempted, most recently by me, and as often reverted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has slightly more sourcing as "Joint Baltic Committee". It's unclear whether the newsclippings listed at [11] are of the organisation, or of relevance to it. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this organisation meets WP:NORG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NZXT

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

A couple of product reviews, but fails WP:ORGDEPTH. Deleted several times before. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Articles like Cooler Master, Thermaltake, Antec, and Fractal Design are not any more notable but have no problem being kept up. I did a quick Google search too, and found plenty that weren't reviews. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 02:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, a majority of the search results are reviews, but in my opinion many of them meet WP:PRODUCTREV anyway. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 02:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist, because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article . . . " See WP:OtherStuffExists. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case it would only make sense to nominate those articles for deletion too. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 03:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails ORGDEPTH. It seems we keep having to address this company being re-added, too. Orville1974 (talk) 20:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google News results, there's plenty of articles that aren't reviews Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 03:27, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What are these articles, if not product reviews? Ads? Do they actually describe the company in any depth? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it, Delete. None of the sources talks about this organization as a company. They are reviewing its products. If this outfit was WP:Notable, then some WP:Reliable source would say so. None has. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Lilly, Paul (2018-08-01). "NZXT buys Forge and expands reach into gameplay capture and sharing". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Allan, Darren (2017-06-06). "NZXT will now build you a PC just for the games you like". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Fenlon, Wes (2017-06-06). "NZXT aims to revolutionize how we buy custom-built PCs with BLD". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2018-07-18). "NZXT is taking another stab at power supplies with help from Seasonic". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Biersdorfer, J. D. (2008-08-27). "A Mouse to Aid Warriors in Their Arena of Choice". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Kan, Michael (2018-11-09). "Why PC Builders Should Stock Up on Components Now". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Nelius, Joanna (2019-02-19). "NZXT introduces an Overwatch-themed case". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Leather, Antony (2015-09-07). "An Interview with NZXT". Bit-Tech. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Mai, Terrence (2017-04-15). "The eight ugliest PC gaming cases we've ever seen". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Dingman, Hayden (2018-01-10). "NZXT's debut motherboard is one of the most breathtaking motherboards ever". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Chacos, Brad (2015-01-13). "NZXT's $100 Doko box aims to kill Steam Machines and HTPCs". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Chacos, Brad (2018-05-22). "NZXT H500i review: A $100 case loaded with premium features". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2017-12-06). "NZXT H700i". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Gulick, Josh (2018-06-18). "NZXT H500i". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2016-03-01). "NZXT Manta". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2016-11-03). "NZXT S340 Elite". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Burek, John; Van Winkle, William (2015-01-29). "NZXT H440 Designed by Razer". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Burek, John (2014-07-15). "NZXT Phantom 240". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Van Winkle, William (2014-04-18). "NZXT H440". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Portnoy, Sean (2015-01-27). "NZXT Doko is a $100 PC streaming device for your living room". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
King, Rachel (2010-01-29). "NZXT busts out Phantom full tower chassis; $139.99". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Mai, Terrence (2019-04-14). "NZXT HUE 2 Review: NZXT's latest lighting ecosystem declares no such thing as too much RGB". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Nelius, Joanna (2018-12-06). "BLD By NZXT Review: You pick the parts. They build it and ship it". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Mai, Terrence (2017-12-27). "Case of the Year: NZXT H700i. Functional and stylish, the NZXT H700i is the standout case. Now with intelligence". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2017-10-18). "NZXT unveils three new cases and they all look dapper". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.

Sources with quotes

Lilly, Paul (2018-08-01). "NZXT buys Forge and expands reach into gameplay capture and sharing". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
NZXT is best known for its computer cases and other gear, though it may have aspirations of branching out beyond PC hardware. The company announced it is acquiring Forge, makers of a free app for capturing and sharing gameplay videos, and we have to wonder if NZXT is up to something with its CAM utility.
The announcement is big on hype and short on details. NZXT mentions it is a proponent of the "smart PC" through integrated software, which is what its CAM software provides, but stops short of saying how Forge ties into it all.
...
Outside of CAM, NZXT has mostly been involved on the hardware side of things. There was a time when NZXT made some garish cases, like the Nemesis Elite, but it has grown and adapted with the market over the years. These days it constructs some downright excellent enclosures, and offers cooling products and power supplies as well. More recently, it unveiled its first (and so far only) motherboard, the N7 Z370 with a customizable color scheme.
Allan, Darren (2017-06-06). "NZXT will now build you a PC just for the games you like". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
NZXT is famous for its PC cases and related accessories (such as cooling solutions), but the US-based manufacturer has just kicked off a new project offering custom-built gaming PCs with a newbie-friendly approach to picking components.
...
So, with NZXT BLD (yes, its phobia of vowels continues), the company is introducing an entirely new approach to a PC build. You simply pick out your favorite games (presumably the ones you want to play on the new rig) from a list, stipulate your budget, and NZXT will recommend one of its machines.
Fenlon, Wes (2017-06-06). "NZXT aims to revolutionize how we buy custom-built PCs with BLD". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
When new employees start at NZXT, they build the PC they're going to use at work. Some get a little help from a build-savvy coworker, but it's a spirit I appreciate: it's obvious, from talking to founder & CEO Johnny Hou, that building your own PC is as big a deal for NZXT as it is for us. But not everyone has the time to research what they should buy and how best to build. For them, NZXT has come up with a new way to order a custom-built PC, called BLD, that puts games first.
Instead of picking a system build based on name, or size, or components you know you want, you pick the games you want to play. BLD, which launches today, is built on top of years of game performance data collected by NZXT's CAM software. The idea is that you pick a popular game, like The Witcher 3 or League of Legends, then pick an approximate price point, and BLD puts together a system for you, with a guarantee that you'll hit a certain framerate within 10 percent.
Lilly, Paul (2018-07-18). "NZXT is taking another stab at power supplies with help from Seasonic". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
NZXT is best known for its line of computer cases, and less so for its power supplies, of which it hasn't released a new model since 2016. That changes today. NZXT is rolling out a new digital PSU line, and like some of its coolers and lighting products, the new PSUs offer real-time power monitoring and control through the company's CAM software.
The company has been aggressively promoting its CAM utility for a long while now, so it's no surprise that its newest E Series PSUs are part of that ecosystem. Through CAM, users can monitor their PSU's temps, total power-on hours, and even multi-rail over-current protection (OCP).
Biersdorfer, J. D. (2008-08-27). "A Mouse to Aid Warriors in Their Arena of Choice". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
Adventurous questing and fierce battles are much easier when a player has good weapons on both sides of the screen. Made with the needs of videogame fans in mind, the Avatar mouse from NZXT comes with seven programmable buttons that can be custom-configured for different types of games, including multiplayer online worlds, real-time strategy contests and first-person shooters.
Kan, Michael (2018-11-09). "Why PC Builders Should Stock Up on Components Now". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
NZXT is a popular PC desktop case vendor, but the California-based company recently had to raise its prices.
The reason? The new US tariffs on Chinese imports includes PC cases. In September, the Trump administration imposed the 10 percent duty, which also cover motherboards, graphics cards, and CPU coolers from the country. As a result, NZXT had to introduce a 10 percent price increase on PC cases to deal with the added costs, VP Jim Carlton told PCMag in an interview.
Nelius, Joanna (2019-02-19). "NZXT introduces an Overwatch-themed case". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
NZXT has combined its powers with Blizzard Entertainment to create a special edition case from its popular H500 model, one of the best PC cases, just in time for the current Overwatch League season. Aside from the aesthetics, not much is different about the actual case design. It comes in a black, white, and orange color combination, and both the front of the case and the side are adorned with the Overwatch logo, while the entire Overwatch name is also on the side of the case.
...
This isn't the first time NZXT has paired up with a company to release a game-themed chassis or accessory. NZXT released a limited Nuka Cola Fallout 4 edition case for the H700, and who could forget about the limited edition PUBG magnetic Pan Puck released over the holidays?
Leather, Antony (2015-09-07). "An Interview with NZXT". Bit-Tech. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
As PC hardware companies go, NZXT has been pretty successful in recent years. Its cases rarely if ever disappoint and usually sport modern, even groundbreaking features while it also offers some of the best all-in-one liquid coolers too. We caught up with its founder, Johnny Hou, about the company's past, present and future and also its most successful products.
Mai, Terrence (2017-04-15). "The eight ugliest PC gaming cases we've ever seen". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
The article notes:
NZXT has created some of our favorite PC cases over the years and has certainly developed a reputation as one of the few innovators in the space. But you’d probably never know that if you saw the very first case company founder Johnny Hou designed, the NZXT Guardian. The Gundam-like monstrosity featured glowing LED eyes and a red power LED shaped like a crystal. Even better, it came in a rainbow of colors including orange, yellow and even green. While it looks absolutely ridiculous now, things were a bit different in 2003 when it was made.
Dingman, Hayden (2018-01-10). "NZXT's debut motherboard is one of the most breathtaking motherboards ever". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Chacos, Brad (2015-01-13). "NZXT's $100 Doko box aims to kill Steam Machines and HTPCs". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Chacos, Brad (2018-05-22). "NZXT H500i review: A $100 case loaded with premium features". PC World. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2017-12-06). "NZXT H700i". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Gulick, Josh (2018-06-18). "NZXT H500i". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2016-03-01). "NZXT Manta". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2016-11-03). "NZXT S340 Elite". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Burek, John; Van Winkle, William (2015-01-29). "NZXT H440 Designed by Razer". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Burek, John (2014-07-15). "NZXT Phantom 240". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Van Winkle, William (2014-04-18). "NZXT H440". PC Magazine. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Portnoy, Sean (2015-01-27). "NZXT Doko is a $100 PC streaming device for your living room". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
King, Rachel (2010-01-29). "NZXT busts out Phantom full tower chassis; $139.99". ZDNet. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Mai, Terrence (2019-04-14). "NZXT HUE 2 Review: NZXT's latest lighting ecosystem declares no such thing as too much RGB". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Nelius, Joanna (2018-12-06). "BLD By NZXT Review: You pick the parts. They build it and ship it". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Mai, Terrence (2017-12-27). "Case of the Year: NZXT H700i. Functional and stylish, the NZXT H700i is the standout case. Now with intelligence". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.
Lilly, Paul (2017-10-18). "NZXT unveils three new cases and they all look dapper". PC Gamer. Archived from the original on 2019-05-26. Retrieved 2019-05-26.

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

Cunard (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary post
PC Magazine called NZXT "a popular PC desktop case vendor".
TechRadar called NZXT "famous for its PC cases and related accessories (such as cooling solutions)".
PC Gamer noted that NZXT "is best known for its line of computer cases, and less so for its power supplies" and that NZXT "developed a reputation as one of the few innovators in the space" of PC cases.
Bit-Tech said, "As PC hardware companies go, NZXT has been pretty successful in recent years." It further noted that NZXT "cases rarely if ever disappoint and usually sport modern, even groundbreaking features while it also offers some of the best all-in-one liquid coolers too".
The sources note that the company is California-based, was founded in 2004 by Johnny Hou, acquired gameplay video app maker Forge in 2018, collaborated with Blizzard Entertainment to create a special PC case for OverWatch, and collaborated with other companies to create special PC cases for the video games Fallout.
Cunard (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - Fails in WP:CORPDEPTH. As others have pointed out, there is much trivial and routine coverage, e.g. 'case manufacturer releases case', but these are explicitly listed as not being significant coverage — because what else would they do? The issue isn't verifiability, which is what most of the 'keep' references are related to, it's that the company lacks notability. ogenstein (talk) 07:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. SOurces offered above are passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Run of the mill, business news, reviews and passing mentions of dubious notability. scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More sources:

9to5Mac: "NZXT is well-known in the custom PC world for making quality cases and now motherboards"; Campanale, Patrick (August 9, 2019). "NZXT announces the H700 Nuka-Cola, a Fallout-themed computer case". 9to5 Toys. 9to5 Mac.
PCMag called NZXT "a popular PC desktop case vendor"; Kan, Michael (November 9, 2018). "Why PC Builders Should Stock Up on Components Now". PCMag.
VentureBeat called NZXT a "big-name component manufacturer"; Grubb, Jeff (October 10, 2018). " "Asus, NZXT, and more launch Z390 motherboards for 9th-gen Core CPUs". VentureBeat.
Polygon: "PC hardware manufacturer NZXT, best known for their line of cases, power and cooling products..."; Hall, Charlie (June 6, 2017). "New PC builder promises 60 fps or your money back". Polygon.
AnandTech recently called NZXT a "renowned case and cooling manufacturer"; Bonshor, Gavin (May 30, 2019). "NZXT Refreshes H Series, New H510 Elite Chassis With RGB". AnandTech.
Villas-Boas, Antonio (July 28, 2018). "Here's every part you'll need to build Ninja's gaming PC where he plays and streams 'Fortnite'". Business Insider.
Liao, Shannon (August 9, 2018). "This custom Fallout computer case brings you a piece of the Wasteland". The Verge.

Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 03:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saucy (talk · contribs), thank you for posting the additional sources that provide more analysis and commentary about NZXT! Cunard (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the company exists, and it makes products, and those products have been reviewed. That doesn't address the issue of it failing WP:CORPDEPTH, which has been raised by several people commenting here. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My summary post below the sources I posted address how the company has received the analysis and commentary required by WP:CORPDEPTH. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scope creep wrote and then removed one minute later this comment:
I'm getting a bit annoyed by these source dumps in Afd's User:Cunard, particularly for companies that dont support the effort. It was bad enough that we are now stuck with PureVPN that for the average reader now thinks is a good VPN provider, by a quick glance at the article, when in fact they are absolutely terrible and are known to leak the customers ip/dns addresses, and any quick look at the web will you tell you that. Now that we have the article with a nefarious notability that is less than useful. I admire the fact when your reference research works in others area, where in that instance the work has been truly excellent,and I have relied on it in the past. I think by the addition of these large source dumps within Afd it imposes a kind of constraint on the conversation that wouldn't otherwise be there, and occasionaly it pushes a kind artificial scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I am replying here since I was pinged.
I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PureVPN: "Why am I supporting retention? I believe there is value to the readers in providing an article that summarizes sources explaining how PureVPN is subpar." An editor replied, "But no version of this article, either now or when it was rather longer at the start of April, has 'explained how PureVPN is subpar'. Instead it has all been anodyne corporate woffle." After the AfD closed, to address these concerns I rewrote the PureVPN article to summarize the negative coverage I found. The article's lead says, "The service has been criticized for having inconsistent speeds, being unable to access Netflix videos, and having usability problems." The PureVPN Wikipedia article contains plenty of negative coverage and criticism. It is unlikely that "the average reader now thinks is a good VPN provider" after a "quick glance" at the lead or after reading the article.
Thank you for your kind words regarding "I admire the fact when your reference research works in others area, where in that instance the work has been truly excellent,and I have relied on it in the past.".
During my research for this AfD, I found 25 reliable sources about what NZXT has done and created. I posted my findings here with a collapsed box containing relevant quotes from the articles. How does posting the 25 sources I found "impos[e] a kind of constraint on the conversation that wouldn't otherwise be there"? It is clear from the article titles that they are about NZXT's work. I posted these sources to show that NZXT has received sustained analysis from multiple independent reliable sources about what it has done and created. Dismissing the sustained coverage from these independent reliable sources as being "Run of the mill" or "business news" or "reviews" is not a strong argument for deletion.
Cunard (talk) 06:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: I removed that comment as I thought it was unsuitable and not really called for, as I think reference dumps are a net positive. I never even realised it was posted until I saw it the revision history and removed it accordingly. It must have fired off an event. scope_creep^Talk 11:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reconsidering your position about "reference dumps" and finding these lists of sources to be a net positive. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This needs a bit more discussion of Saucy's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article has reliable sources. CryptoWriter^[talk 12:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a teeny part of the overall criteria for establishing notability. The sources also have to be about the company, in-depth, significant, independent, etc. Can you point to a reference that meets the criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CORP in light of WP:PRODUCTREV. The listed reviews (particularly the ones from reliable sources PC Magazine and PC Gamer) are in-depth, and not the trivial/routine pieces excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH. — Newslinger talk 02:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment *If* the article was about a *product*, then you'd be correct. The guidelines in WP:NCORP are for either organizations *or* products/services. The article is written about the company and not about any specific product/service, therefore the criteria for product notability doesn't apply. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  NZXT is a company with multiple similar products that have individually received in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Under WP:OVERLAP, the articles for these products should be merged into a single article, and NZXT is the most appropriate location for that article. Here, an article on the company (i.e. brand) becomes a broad-concept article under WP:DABCONBRAND, with the articles on the individual products subsequently being merged into the article on the company under WP:PRODUCT and WP:OVERLAP. — Newslinger talk 08:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - The starting point for an article on NZXT is whether the company is notable or not. Your argument that all their products are notable and therefore should be merged under an NZXT banner is not supported by any of the guidelines you've pointed to. WP:PRODUCT starts by saying - If a company is notable .... Well - that's what we're trying to reach a consensus on here and as it stands, there aren't two references that meet the criteria for notability and therefore this topic doesn't pass the notability guidelines. WP:OVERLAP comes into play if there is a large overlap between articles and WP:DABCONBRAND uses the example of the "Microsoft Lumia" phone (and all its versions). My suggestion is closer to this idea - an article on "NZXT Keyboards" which discusses the products (keyboards) and I believe that should pass the notability guidelines even if editors apply a strict view of them. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you really rather have separate articles on NZXT computer cases, NZXT CPU coolers, etc., instead of a single NZXT article? The article can be titled NZXT products or even List of NZXT products instead of NZXT, but I don't think it makes a material difference. — Newslinger talk 17:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - AFAIK there's different guidelines for "List" articles so that might work. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:LISTN does appear to be satisfied by Cunard's and Saucy's sources in this instance. If renaming and rescoping the article would clear the notability issue, then I'll support these changes as an alternative to deletion. — Newslinger talk 01:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        While I definitely prefer this to deleting the article outright, it wouldn't really make sense from a reader's perspective. Why would one need a "List of NZXT products" if they don't even know what NZXT is? To me it would make more sense to the reader to just WP:IAR and have it all under one "NZXT" label. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 03:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:SALLEAD states that stand-alone list articles should have a lead section, which in this case should give a brief description of the company. Since there is less coverage focusing on the company itself, the lead section would be sufficient if we decide to only have a list article. WP:SAL states, "Many stand-alone lists identify their content's format in their titles, beginning with descriptors such as "list of", "timeline of", or similar", but there is no requirement to use "list" in a list article's title. Whether there is an NZXT list article or an NZXT redirect that points to a List of NZXT products article can be determined through a requested move. — Newslinger talk 03:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the amount of work by Cunard in finding sources, it appears that the sources are mainly about the products and not about the company itself. There are no sources showing that the company has received significant coverage. The article topic is the company. I believe that should the article be changed so that the topic is one of their better known products, it would likely pass. But this article fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll work on adding a products section. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 21:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the solution. If the article topic is the company, the starting point is to see if the company is notable. Adding a products section doesn't make it notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I elaborated on the products section with 20 additional sources. But I just want to say, HighKing, it would seem very counter-intuitive and inefficient to have an article on each of their products but not one on the company itself. Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 05:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To comment on the point about having products but no company in WP, the problem here is that the company isn't notable and so nobody has written about it (and vice versa). Hopefully this is clear by now. Meanwhile, the gaming PC press has a lot of time on its hands. To properly review gaming equipment (and other stuff as well), a place needs to build a lab because otherwise nobody will take your reviews seriously and worse, no one will advertise on your site. And once you have a lab, you need to keep the assembly line humming or it won't pay for itself, and so an endless stream of very extensive (but mostly meaningless) product reviews follows, replete with accompanying affiliate links. And Wikipedia is WP:NOTCATALOGUE.

Obviously, I don't think either the company or any of its products warrant a page. That said, alternatives to deletion are worth considering. Putting the company aside for a moment, it's not like their products are the iPhone or the original IBM PC. Neither the Compaq Portable or DeskPro 386 have their own pages and they're actually significant products with massive effects on a much larger industry (all of personal computing) and the general public as well. NZXT is a small, private peripheral supplier that operates in a niche — providing cases for gaming PCs — with a lot of similar competition. None of their products have made a dent in the world beyond that. Look at the additions meant to improve the page… if the letter 'i' is in the model name then it comes with decorative lighting (did they really call this minimalist design?). This is minutiae, a catalogue and non-encyclopedic.

The only public discussion of the products occurs in the review industry press. They seem to be successful in their business but will that ever make the company or their products notable? I don't see it. I think that applies to all of the case makers (as well as other parts suppliers).

I'd rather see an article like 'Third-Party PC Cases' or 'Gaming PC Parts' (I'm sure someone could come up with something better) which could discuss the whole sector and could conceivably cover white-label box makers as well — I've read articles which discuss how companies like HP select and purchase cases for the systems they sell and there are countless articles about the PC supply chain. It could include the more significant players in the business (like the four mentioned above), historical moments like when the first gaming PC was released, first third-party case supplier, etc…, including, if someone could dig it up, some facts about each of the companies like when they were founded, when they expanded into international markets, how large they are, or any financial or organizational information. This would save people from a host of stublike pages, take advantage of general articles that don't focus on a specific small company (which are rare), and provide some context that would apply to all of the companies. ogenstein (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Dubai Bus Crash

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

WP:NOTNEWS. (I do not see a CSD category to file this under so presume AfD is the place for this.) Lopifalko (talk) 08:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. What else can I say - it's a commonplace, if tragic, event. Not encyclopedic in any way, shape, or form. Cabayi (talk) 09:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the BBC and the Washington Post consider this news, the incident is probably notable. UAE media engage in a lot of self-censorship, but since they are covering the crash as well, I expect they will cover its aftermathh as well. I expect that the Indian government will continue to put pressure on the UAE to reduce the risk of a similar crash happening in the future, somewhat muted because India doesn't have much bargaining power in its dealings with the UAE. I also expect there will be multiple lawsuits as well as improvements in design standards for highways and off-ramps. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Eastmain: WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion on this article, but @Eastmain "If the BBC and the Washington Post consider this news, the incident is probably notable" is a ridiculous statement. Both are major media organisations with an approach of covering as much of the world as possible and allowing readers to select those stories that interest them; as I write this, "Queer Eye star bleached skin as a child", "Warning after Wrexham garden fire sets 150 tyres alight" and "Badger tunnels prompt Wyke Regis Cemetery warning" are also currently stories on BBC News. ‑ Iridescent 09:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have said "If both the BBC and the Washington Post ..." The overlap in coverage between those two media outlets is likely to be notable. It is not crystal-ball-gazing to state that an incident in which 17 people are killed and the underlying reasons are still unclear is not going to go away. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:51, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That would be a dangerous precedent. Both sources will cover subjects trite or ephemeral. Both covering any particular one story would not indicate anything. WP:EVENTCRIT tells us that even when routine accidents are "tragic or widely reported at the time [they] are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:18, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Buses/cars accidents is a sad news but they are common incidents the world and WP:NOTNEWS. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreating this if more indicators of notability arises this article is clearly WP:TOOSOON but I wouldn't say that there is no chance at all that it will not become notable given 1) the variety of countries where the people who died came from (including Ireland), 2) the number of people killed, and 3) the odd circumstances prevailing in the UAE. Some of the editors above seem to have the idea that there are no circumstances in which traffic accidents could be notable - this is clearly wrong: an unusually deadly crash that became the subject of a public inquiry could reach WP:GNG (see, e.g., 1991 M4 motorway crash). FOARP (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 21:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have always considered it common sense that accidents which lead to seventeen deaths are notable. An accident in the UK or USA that caused this many deaths would undoubtedly be kept. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, may be a case of WP:TOOSOON so not opposed to Draftify to see what develops. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Me too I am sorry for the death toll, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Alex-h (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Sources found that demonstrate notability, withdrawing nomination. (non-admin closure) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aashik Aawara

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

Sources provided are nowhere near WP:GNG, I failed to find any additional sources online despite searching for multiple spellings of the title, combined with various related terms, and also the Hindi title. Searching for sources was complicated by the existence of another film, Aashik Awara. It's unclear if there's any actual relationship between the films, but the spellings appear to be totally interchangeable so at the minimum there needs to be disambiguation between them. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The film is in Bhojpuri language and yet it has reasonable coverage in English Media. I am from Wikiproject India and I speak Hindi and Bhojpuri. I would like to clarify the doubt above that this movie has absolutely no relationship with the similarly titled Hindi movie that nom has found out. Based on my searches and coverage in Hindi newspapers, I feel this Bhojpuri movie passes our notability criteria. This film is one of the most notable films of actor Dinesh Lal Yadav and actress Kajal Raghwani based on this news article and thisfrom Navbharat Times. The film has also got coverage of it peaking the charts.^[4] The articles would also need a hatnote to disambiguate the 2 movies.--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, was there any other coverage that you were able to find, such as actual reviews of the film? I don't think the sources you've listed here add up to meeting WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prabhat Khabar in its article here, calls it a hit film. (Hit film = notable film in India)^[5]
Zee News covers the song and the movie here.^[6]
Dainik Jagran calls it, one of the notable film of The actor duo Dinesh Lal Yadav and actress Kajal Raghwani ^[7]
All these reasons, in addition to the ones I noted in my earlier comment are enough for me to keep this article. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DBigXray, Ok, I think the Zee News coverage demonstrates notability. I'm a bit perplexed that you've been able to find so much trivial coverage of the film, or coverage that fleetingly attests to commercial success but doesn't otherwise discuss the subject, but no full length reviews. Still, what we've got here means we'd likely meet GNG by NEXIST, so I will withdraw the nomination. Before we close, however, do you have any thoughts on how to disambiguate the films? My impression as someone who doesn't speak Hindi or Bhojpuri is that we should move both films to some spelling of their title + (year film), and then have all spellings of the title point at the 1993 film with a disambiguating hatnote, as it seems to be the primary topic for the time being. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill the sources are less in number as you would expect from an English movie, mainly because of language bias and internet bias. (see WP:BIAS). The audience of these movies read Hindi newspapers mostly as compared to English. Hence the coverage shows a similar trend. Thanks for agreeing to withdraw the nomination. I support your dab suggestion. With a minor tweaking that the title Aashik Aawara point to the bhojpuri movie. A hotnote would still be needed and helpful. Regards. --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Girlfriend of Pelicans' Anderson dies in New Orleans". National Basketball Association. 2013-08-14. Retrieved 2019-06-10.
^ "Gia Allemand dead, 'Bachelor' finalist was 29". Newsday Magazine. 2013-08-14. Retrieved 2019-06-10.
^ "Readers Can't Get Enough Soul-Fuel". Quebec Daily Examiner. 2019-03-23. Retrieved 2019-06-10.
^ Desk, India com Buzz (January 3, 2019). "Dinesh Lal Yadav-Amrapali Dubey's Film 'Aashik Aawara' is Trending Number 1 on YouTube, Watch". India.com.
^ "भोजपुरी सिनेमा में डिजिटल क्रांति लेकर आया है 'स्पूल', जानें क्या है यह तकनीक".
^ "Amrapali Dubey-Dinesh Lal Yadav Nirahua's sizzling rain dance in Karela Man Pat Jayi goes viral - Watch". Zee News. July 26, 2018.
^ "दिनेश लाल यादव निरहुआ और आम्रपाली की हॉट किसिंग जोड़ी मचा रही धूम". Dainik Jagran.

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 8 (2008 film). Consensus that this short film doesn't, on its own, have sufficient notability to be a freestanding article. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le Rêve de Tiya

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

Yet another short film I can't find much notability for. It's apparently part of a anthology film. So either a redirect to Abderrahmane Sissako or 8 (2008 film) (the film that it's in) would be great if not deleted. I don't think this film is notable enough on it's own. Wgolf (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 03:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be the best remedy.TH1980 (talk) 03:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the full film article as not independently notable, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Schreiber

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

Subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. Played three pro seasons in German second and third-leagues. His college awards don't pass #4 past deletions of players with similar honours. Tay87 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is typical sports reporting. I wasn't sure what it meant to say he was an "All-American candidate", so I looked at the AHCA All-American team for the 2009-10 season. He was not among the 8 defensemen listed, meaning he didn't make the first or second All-American team from the East. Being all conference is insufficient to show notability and he doesn't meet any other criteria at WP:NHOCKEY. Papaursa (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looking through the notability critera for WP:NHOCKEY and he fails in all of them bar rule 4 of the notability but as User:Papaursa brought up, he wasn't listed in the AHCA All-American for that season. So my vote is a delete. HawkAussie (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XPower++

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

Non-notable ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 00:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ^{Talk to} SageGreenRider 00:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 07:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing GNG evidently with no significant coverage from third-party sources and meeting NSOFT is doubtful (also NSOFT is merely an essay not even a guideline). The article stated that three universities are using the XERO CODER IDE in their lectures. But I could not find the given paper. Neither could I find other sources to verify the claim. --94rain ^Talk 07:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chavez family of New Mexico

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

I was unable to find any coverage of the subject other than the provided source searching online. It's further unclear to me whether any of the claims made outside the lead are even supported by the provided source. None of the linked articles make reference to a specific notable Chavez family, although some do mention that the subjects' family had been in New Mexico for a very long time. Does not meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if not for notability, then for BLP concerns. There is no verification, either in the article or the articles of the claimed members, that they are, in fact, descended from the putative dynasty founder, and at least one, Linda Chavez, seems to positively contradict the claim. SpinningSpark 21:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Girlfriend of Pelicans' Anderson dies in New Orleans". National Basketball Association. 2013-08-14. Retrieved 2019-06-10.

[2] "Gia Allemand dead, 'Bachelor' finalist was 29". Newsday Magazine. 2013-08-14. Retrieved 2019-06-10.

[3] "Readers Can't Get Enough Soul-Fuel". Quebec Daily Examiner. 2019-03-23. Retrieved 2019-06-10.

[4] Desk, India com Buzz (January 3, 2019). "Dinesh Lal Yadav-Amrapali Dubey's Film 'Aashik Aawara' is Trending Number 1 on YouTube, Watch". India.com.

[5] "भोजपुरी सिनेमा में डिजिटल क्रांति लेकर आया है 'स्पूल', जानें क्या है यह तकनीक".

[6] "Amrapali Dubey-Dinesh Lal Yadav Nirahua's sizzling rain dance in Karela Man Pat Jayi goes viral - Watch". Zee News. July 26, 2018.

[7] "दिनेश लाल यादव निरहुआ और आम्रपाली की हॉट किसिंग जोड़ी मचा रही धूम". Dainik Jagran.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]