Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 19

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

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London 86

London 86 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:BAND. No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Given that the author has been indefinitely blocked, and the remaining comments are SNOW delete, there's no point in continuing this. Black Kite (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe

Timeline of the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page is all fancruft; it's material that is entirely trivial, adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia and beyond that, doesn't even serve its purpose for fans of Alien, Predator or AvP. The reason for this is that the content isn't even accurate; the three franchises follow separate timelines and continuities, with different scales for the events-- one significant one is that in the Alien continuity, the original founder of Weyland is Peter Weyland, who founded Weyland Corp in 2012, while AvP has a Charles Bishop Weyland who founded a similar-sounding company called Weyland Industries at an undetermined time. Attempting to put these timelines together is not only fancruft, but original research that simply does not work. On top of that, not a single source is secondary; everything is first-party. I appreciate the attempt to build up the Alien, Predator and AvP articles, but this one just doesn't cut it. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 23:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue it is very much valuable and definitely serves its purpose as it clarifies the timeline of events in this fictional universe, akin to the Star Trek timeline article, and I am certain that many fans will appreciate an article such as this (not all fans, of course, but we're not all picky). I would consider your claim of supposed inaccuracy false and arbitrary, as the three franchises don't follow separate timelines/continuities at all, and I would argue that claim of separate timelines as merely regarding personal preference and fan-speculation, because for all intents and purposes they do take place in the same universe, they merely follow different storylines within the same timeline/continuity. It's that simple.
Charles Weyland is clearly presented as the original founder of Weyland Corporation/Weyland Industries, and there's a time gap of eight years (where literally anything could have happened) between the death of Charles Weyland in 2004 and Peter Weyland suddenly rising to power in 2012 as he runs the very same company, so there's absolutely no contradiction here (it would have been a considerable contradiction if Peter founded his iteration of the company while Charles was still alive though) nor is there any actual reason to suggest that any title or brand takes place in a separate universe (after all, Alien vs. Predator intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator films, so at best you could have argued that Prometheus is the odd-one out here, but even that series has been connected to Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator so the conclusion is unavoidable).
On the contrary, everything flows on and continues relatively beautifully, even if not entirely perfect, but no fictional timeline does. Again, with all the media taken into consideration, for all intents and purposes these franchises takes place in the very same timeline/continuity/universe and there appears to be no actual reason to attempt to separate them other than personal preference. They are simply far too interconnected. Not to mention attempting to separate them would be a confusing mess, and the simplest and most logical approach is to assume continuity, especially when everything fits together so well and when 20th Century Fox doesn't really care how much they connect these franchises as long it makes money, and it obviously does or else they wouldn't still be continuing in persistently promoting and acknowledging a shared universe through films, games, novels, comics, and various other media and merchandise. - TurokSwe (talk) 06:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard delete This is total fancruft without proper sourcing or notability. It's just another example of Turok's continued attempt at forcing AvP cruft onto this website, which is the reason he was topic banned for a time. This is fine for a Wikia, but not Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any minor issues such as proper sourcing can be fixed, and the timeline helps the reader keep track of the events transpiring throughout this elaborate fictional universe in the same manner that for instance the Star Trek timeline article does. I'm not "forcing any fancruft" at all, I'm simply constructing a timeline based upon known material from the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator universe as it actually exists, and surely you're not suggesting the contents in the article aren't present in existing media relating to these franchises? They do have sources after all. I understand the reality of these franchises being connected is strangely really uncomfortable for some people and therefore I must be triggering some kind of nerve by even suggesting that Alien vs. Predator exists (and it undeniably does), but that would not only seem like an overreaction over mere products of entertainment but it also hardly seem like sufficient reasoning for opposing the existence of this article, and the same can of course be said about using argumentum ad hominem fallacies. I would hope that we could avoid that as it doesn't make for a very civilized and productive discussion. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If they share a timeline, then why are you the first person to try and put them together? Your sources certainly don't do that for you. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 15:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's like asking "if my wife is really pregnant then why doesn't the baby have a name yet?" It simply doesn't follow logically that "there is no shared universe" just because nobody up until any specific point has decided to construct and publish a Wikipedia article on the timeline of said universe. When such an article is published or who published it first is completely irrelevant. That's just nonsense. The sources and media listed in the article (as well as multiple sources and media yet to be listed) makes it abundantly clear that a shared universe exists. I don't see how this could possibly be ignored (objectively speaking). - TurokSwe (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not nonsense, as I wasn't referring to just Wikipedia; I was referring to the intrinsic basis of this article. The three timelines that you've scraped together into one make for purely original research - they do nothing but contradict each other and are complete fancruft, devoid of any encyclopedic or even accurate value. I'd suggest you read Wikipedia:NOTSOAPBOX, as you're mounting the exact same campaign that you received the six-month topic ban for earlier this year. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 19:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed logically incoherent nonsense, as previously explained, and I merely used Wikipedia as an example, but perhaps you'd like to elaborate and clarify. This article is certainly far from being the only place to acknowledge a shared universe, but I suppose that's irrelevant. What supposed considerable contradictions exist within the timeline and how do they actually matter in comparison to contradictions found in other fictional timelines from other franchises? Because to my knowledge there are no clear contradictions present, and certainly none that contradict a shared universe, and all the information listed in the article is verifiably accurate. I'm not sure what you're trying to have said with "NOTSOAPBOX", nor do I see how this situation is in any way similar to the odd situation from earlier this year (other than two individuals in particular reacting strangely and strongly negatively towards my attempts to improve and expand the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator articles, still leading me to increasingly suspect the explanation being some kind of personal anti-AVP-bias which tends to be a big trigger for some fans). - TurokSwe (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. Alien (franchise) is quite sufficient. Also, the level of detail is way, way, way over the top, e.g. "Last known case of cholera", "Days after his 14th birthday, Peter Weyland is granted a Method Patent for a synthetic trachea (a cure for lung cancer) constructed entirely of synthetically-engineered stem cells. It is his 12th registered patent to date." Clarityfiend (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to make the same case in regards to Timeline of Star Trek. - TurokSwe (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally not fond of timelines at all, especially not for in-universe ones for franchises, but I would never compare Star Trek to this.★Trekker (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly? - TurokSwe (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Timelines in general are inferior to articles becuase they don't give much context, as for being in-universe, Wikipedia in general bans in-universe descriptions, this should apply to timelines as well.★Trekker (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd considering Wikipedia is riddled with in-universe descriptions and nobody bats an eye. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're resorting to Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS now. And actually, people do bat eyes at that, and there are tons of people who spend hours trying to fix that issue.★Trekker (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having been on here for many years, I can't say I've noticed. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How unfortunate.★Trekker (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean? - TurokSwe (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that you have missed people good work.★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what do you mean by that? - TurokSwe (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that it's unfortunate that you havn't seen people put in hard work to make Wikipedia better by removing bad content.★Trekker (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not what I said, and you haven't explained how its "unfortunate" that I've not become aware of somebody's "good work", whatever you're referring to. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Star Trek timeline cites books, including Star Trek Chronology. Is there any equivalent in the Alien franchise? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Considering there are various technical guides, novels, and comic books I would say, yes, there is such an equivalent here. - TurokSwe (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response delivered. - TurokSwe (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current page doesn't contain the issue that prompted the speedy deletion, and it's not original research in any way as the information is supported by actual sources. There are no separate timelines/continuities, and you have not yet shown this to be the case, and the evidence seem to suggest there is only one single timeline, and even if Fox has not explicitly stated what the timeline or timelines actually look like, for all intents and purposes there is only one single timeline as suggested by the available material. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Turok needs to be pronto topic banned again, for good this time. Before this incident I have already seen him back to his old habbits on Template:Alien (franchise), and I felt it was only a matter of time until he tried something bigger, and this is it.★Trekker (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Why do you resort to this juvenile antagonism towards me and how do you expect ad hominem fallacies to count as a considerable argument? - TurokSwe (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're doing the exact thing that got you topic banned before. It's not antagonism to point out that you constantly try to push AvP content on this site (the fact that you did so with major copyright violations this time is rather suprising tho, you should be too familar with Wikipedia by now to not fall in to those mistakes) and that that has gotten you topic banned before.★Trekker (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And what is this "exact" thing you're referring to? I'm not trying to "push AVP content on this site", I'm merely expanding the Alien, Predator, and Alien vs. Predator articles with actual material related to these franchises, and unless you want to argue that AVP doesn't exist, I would say this is a very odd complaint. You're not being very reasonable here by attempting to use every single mistake I make as some sort of argument against me and against the existence of this article. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pushing AVP cruft, and Stonewalling. Those are the exact things.★Trekker (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But you have yet to demonstrate that I've been supposedly "pushing any AVP cruft". And "stonewalling"? Coming from someone who insists on resorting to ad hominem fallacies rather than addressing the issue at hand, that's blatant hypocrisy if I ever saw it. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Stonewalling and AvP pushing is why you were topic banned by an admin, if that isn't prof enough then nothing will be in your mind. Why exactly do you think you were topic banned for?★Trekker (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize how ridiculous that sounds? I don't recall why exactly I was topic banned back then but I remember struggling to find any justifiable reason. Regardless, that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, and you can't resort to ad hominem fallacies every time we have a disagreement. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ridiculous, it's not ad hominem and it's not a problem with me, it's a problem with you Turok. If you don't realze why you were topic banned then you really need to be again, that would clearly be the only way for you to stop.★Trekker (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Case in point regarding ad hominems. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what an ad hominen is Turok. Please stop already.★Trekker (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's absolutely the same type of ad hominem reasoning you've been using throughout this entire discussion, and I would likewise wish that you would cease with this continual behavior. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to stop trying to make you understand that you can't just keep doing this on Wikipedia. You can accuse me of ad hominenes and whatever else, but in the end that won't have any affect because it's easy to see that you're keeping being disruptive on this topic.★Trekker (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've been persistently using ad hominem arguments against me rather than having a civilized discussion of the topic at hand but I'm supposedly the one being "disruptive"? - TurokSwe (talk) 02:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research at all, as made clear by the cited sources alone. More sources could of course be added if needed. The cited Alien: The Weyland-Yutani Report and the Fire and Stone comics alone blatantly recognizes the connection between these three franchises. - TurokSwe (talk) 00:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that were true, that doesn't remotly fix the problem that this page completly relies on first hand sources.★Trekker (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? - TurokSwe (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly going to pretend now that you don't know what secondary vs first hand sources are?★Trekker (talk) 00:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, and please calm down, I'm simply struggling to comprehend your argument. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly calm, not sure why you would think otherwise.
Your behavior and attitude would suggest otherwise. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It really doesn't. Pointing out issues with your editing is not being "uncalm".★Trekker (talk) 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I insist, and I didn't say nor imply that pointing out issues with my edits means you're not calm, but your persistence in resorting to ad hominem arguments while avoiding to have a reasonable discussion on the topic at hand you do not seem very calm, and it's something I hope could change. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well Turok then I guess that's simply what you belive, because I don't feel I have been "uncalm" or remotly unreasonable with you. I think you on the other hand have been very unreasonable, which is per usual when you're on the AvP topic.★Trekker (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again with the ad hominems. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No ad hominems here. Continuing to claim something doesn't make it true.★Trekker (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about dismissive stonewalling. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your claims are false and I point it out, that's not what stonewalling is.★Trekker (talk) 02:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that either. You've made yourself guilty of a strawman argument. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:49, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again, this page relies 100% on sources which are not independent of the subject, thus it fails to show notability.★Trekker (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) TurokSwe please read WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, or reread them. For several purposes, Wikipedia prefers or even requires secondary sources. It also demands independant sources, which are not quite the same thing. (Independent sources are generally secondary, but not all secondary sources are independent.) Primary sources cannot be used to support an analysis, nor indeed anything that is not fairly explicitly included in the source. Literary analysis in particular demands secondary sources, and also demands that the conclusions be found in the source. Combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any of them is WP:SYNTH and that is what we seem to have here. Not acceptable. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm not sure what would qualify as a secondary source in this case. Noting that the cited sources are all related and all blatantly implies the same conclusion. - TurokSwe (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A secondary source would be a notable reliable publication stating "this event in the AvP franchise takes place between this and this".★Trekker (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) comment TurokSwe A secondary source would be an independent reliable critic publishing an essay or article on the relations between the various franchises. Places like NY Review of Science Fiction publish such critical analysis routinely. If none have been published establishing such a time line, or at least asserting a shared continuity, then there can be no such article on Wikipedia. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PRIMARY says, in relevant part: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. That isw the point here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:19, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that issue has been fixed now. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Fortressofsolitude.co.za and Bigcomicpage.com are reliable, and they still make up a minority of the sources on the page.★Trekker (talk) 02:32, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would qualify as "reliable" and why? Why does it even matter how much space they take up in the article? - TurokSwe (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sourcing. You're not a new editor Turok. I've seen you make whole articles.★Trekker (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't answer my questions, but if anything it makes it even more confusing as to what you're asking for exactly, and to my mind there's no evident problem with the sources listed. - TurokSwe (talk) 02:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have put up an ANI about this now.★Trekker (talk) 03:07, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you have, but you wouldn't bother to explain why? - TurokSwe (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with DESiegel's analysis; apart from the OR/SYN lead paragraph, this is just a list of films from the three franchises, and listing them together is a further exercise in original research. There are no independent reliable sources discussing these as a shared universe with a common timeline. Two sources have been added to address the issue, and both of them discuss one comic book (or a series of books, rather) by one publisher, presented and discussed as a crossover event created by that publisher. So, no, these are three separate worlds, one of which is a combination of the two others – that does not make the two others automatically the same as long as there are no sources discussing that. --bonadea contributions talk 10:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't explained how you concluded that there supposedly exists "three separate worlds" as opposed to a shared universe, and the fact that the Alien vs. Predator franchise exists and that it intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator franchises makes it abundantly obvious that a shared universe exists. I don't see how this could reasonably be ignored. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reliable secondary source for the claim that it intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator franchises? The article contains no sources to support the claim of a shared universe beyond AvP, with the single exception mentioned in my post (the comics crossover). --bonadea contributions talk 15:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you're asking here. Are you suggesting the Alien vs. Predator franchise, the Fire and Stone comics, the Alien: The Weyland-Yutani Report technical guide etc doesn't exist? If not then this is a very odd issue. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am asking for a reliable secondary source that supports the claim that [the Alien vs. Predator franchise] intentionally takes place on the same timeline as the Alien and Predator franchises. You have made the claim of it being a shared universe and so the onus is on you to supply the secondary sources. Don't refer to primary sources or what you personally think is obvious; refer to secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 15:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Needless to say it's redundant and unnecessary but take for instance "Let's get ready to rumble!" from Movie Magic #62 (January 2005), or Steven Horn's IGN article "Interview with AvP Director Paul Anderson", or Meredith Woerner's io9.Gizmodo.com article "The Third Aliens Vs. Predator Movie Would Have Served as a Prequel to Alien", or Brett Bruton's Fortress of Solitude article "Prometheus: The Complete Fire And Stone Review – The Prometheus, Aliens, AVP, Predator Crossover Event", or the Big Comic Page article "Joint Review – Prometheus: Fire and Stone #1 (of 4) (Dark Horse)". I don't know what else you want nor do I understand why articles such as these aren't sufficient. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The two reviews of Fire And Stone are not relevant (as they refer to the comics crossover, already discussed above). The gizmodo.com interview is here (it would have been courteous for you to actually supply links to those sources that exist online). I see no claim of a shared timeline in it, only a discussion of what a hypothetical movie in the AvP series would have contained. Once again, we cannot use sources to draw our own conclusions, claims (especially contested claims) have to be explicitly supported in secondary sources. Are there any sources that actually do support the claims? Anything that actually says explicitly that this is a shared universe? (Trying to track down the other two articles you mention, both of which are about AvP, is not something I am prepared to spend time on right now.) --bonadea contributions talk 16:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But Fire and Stone is a direct follow-up to the 2012 film Prometheus, and they wouldn't have a story spanning the Alien, Predator, Alien vs. Predator, and Prometheus brands unless there is a shared universe. It ought to be blatantly obvious. The Gizmodo article says it all in the title alone, they wouldn't be planning to tie AVP directly into Alien unless there is a shared universe. I would say I have provided more than enough sufficient evidence already, and asking for a source that specifically states "this is a shared universe" is unreasonable as the sources already provided clearly, explicitly, and unavoidably implies that there is a shared universe. - TurokSwe (talk) 16:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is obviously WP:SYNTH material -- the article creator has a fan theory that these movies are all in a shared universe. Maybe that theory has merit, but it is clear that it's a theory being constructed here and not a description of a theory that has been researched or written about outside of Wikipedia. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "fan theory" in the slightest bit, it's blatantly obvious through the cited material. - TurokSwe (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TurokSwe (talk · contribs) -- To clarify, are you saying that it is obvious from the films or is it obvious from the independent, third-party reliable sources that cover the films? If it's the former, then this is synthesis and a fan theory. It may be a well thought out and provable theory, but it can't be on Wikipedia if you don't have good sources. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Ironically, he's already shared his theory with the blacklisted AvP Galaxy, which devolved into seventeen pages of him saying that they're wrong for seeing them as having three continuities and he doesn't get what their issues are for disagreeing - verbatim what's here. I'm sharing this because it feels like Wikipedia is being used as a giant soapbox for by editor. DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 17:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DarthBotto (talk · contribs) - Agreed. It doesn't make sense to use Wikipedia for this. At most, he needs to find a wikia page and include it there. It isn't encyclopedic and it doesn't seem as if this editor understands why his work is here at AFD. He seems to think that proving the theory correct somehow makes it encyclopedic. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Greenleaf Whittier Middle School

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

PROD removed by page's creator so decided to nominated for AfD. Non-notable middle school. Meatsgains(talk) 22:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Concur with nom, NN middle school. There is no article on the district (Haverhill Public Schools) for a redirect. There is no mention of primary schooling in the article on Haverhill, Massachusetts, so that is not an appropriate redirect target either. MB 01:20, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of God in Divine Order

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

No secondary references. --ServB1 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Web Coherence

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

Defunct organisation with no external references or indication of notability. Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. bd2412 T 01:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals

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

No secondary references. --ServB1 (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? @4meter4: Could you point to where in there it gives the history of the organization? I tracked down that source here, and it looks like it is mentioned exactly one time. The entirety: "I recently received some information from a church in the east inviting me to Chicago to attend a national formation meeting for a new fellowship of churches called F.I.R.E. That is an acronym for the Fellowship of Independent Reformed Evangelicals. In their vision statement they write, '… we seek to promote unity and co-operation among Calvinistic Baptists.'"
It's a way to talk about a different subject, as far as I can tell. It's not mentioned again. It's also basically a pastor typing his thoughts in a multi-church newsletter, which doesn't seem like the sort of coverage we would want for WP:ORG even if it were in depth. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I made a poor assumption based on the partial view.4meter4 (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No secondary references and see WP:ORG. --ServB1 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The existence and precedence set by other topics being included on Wikipedia can be used as a data point when looking at notability. However, that does not mean that when challenged that no evidence of notability - in this case through WP:ORG - needs to be provided. It does. What appears to be verifiable to RS is minimal and these sources certainly do not help establish notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A denomination with 80 congregations in US and some in about 9 other countries ought to be notable enough to have a WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SpeakOut! (Be Heard)

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

A lot of futurology for a defunct organisation. No decent external references. Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Millie (short story)

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

There aren't any reviews/analysis other than in somebody's blog. This is a test case, as the template at the bottom of the article shows lots more of these critters. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "these critters" is one the classic modernist authors, a "Western canon" figure. I'm amazed but not surprised we need to defend a literary figure of this stature. As if there are not countless PhDs and critical works about Mansfield that any AfD nom should be checking for. Yes the articles need work (most articles do), but AfD isn't cleanup and anyone who knows anything about literature would know that Mansfield and her works are way beyond notability. -- GreenC 21:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You probably mean a "Bibliography" article (ie. Category:Bibliographies by writer) for example Edgar Allan Poe bibliography, they usually link to standalone articles. There are no articles titled "Short stories by.." -- GreenC 23:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: There are plenty of articles titled "List of short stories by" - a pertinent example would be List of short stories by Ivan Bunin. bd2412 T 11:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm I searched for 'Short stories by.." but either way the "List of" format is similar to the Bibliography articles, each entry has a few sentences and optionally a link to the main article. The existence of lists doesn't preclude a longer treatment elsewhere or other way around. -- GreenC 19:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Talk:Katherine Mansfield, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women's History, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies by 7&6=thirteen. MarioGom (talk) 23:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Passing mentions of the story in articles about the author are not enough to establish notability for a standalone page. Please, see WP:BOOKCRIT. --MarioGom (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, however it’s quite obvious that “There aren't any reviews/analysis other than in somebody's blog” is patently false. If critical to this process, I’m sure some appropriate sources can be identified. And WP:RX can often get copies if not online. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per GreenC. Notability is not inherited. This short story does not meet notability criteria. If not merge, then simply delete. Onel5969 TT me 04:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination starts with a clear falsehood as it is quite easy to find detailed coverage of the topic such as "Millie" (1913). Andrew D. (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Something Childish (which could be expanded with brief details of each story), or to a section in Katherine Mansfield (or the already-suggested bibliography article) if SC is also deleted or redirected. This article as it stands is a disgrace. Apart from publication details (and the recently added link to the text) and a plot summary (with no secondary sources), it contains only one short, unsourced sentence describing the writing style. Until my recent edit this sentence was in a section misleadingly titled "Literary significance" although the article made no claim of literary significance at all. This article is already poisoning the well in that the first page or so of google results link to multiple copies of it, thus the sooner the content is deleted the better. I have looked through the google results for this short story and most are indeed to blogspot or wordpress articles or similar. Of those, A Review of Katherine Mansfield’s “Short Stories” says that "Millie" is one of two of her short stories set in New Zealand both of which have a darker tone than her other stories, but illustrates this with a quote from the other story. There is also this Master's thesis which mentions "Millie" as "an early and interesting example of a story which hinges on a limiting situation" but has whole sections discussing other stories or topics. From this I deduce that "Millie" has no outstanding literary significance in its own right, and thus should not be a stand-alone article. (For an idea of what to expect, I also had a look at "The Birds" by Daphne du Maurier: it is clear that this, the only one of her short stories with its own article as far as I can see, is only an article because of Hitchcock's film, since it too makes no claim to literary significance and has no review sources.) --Mirokado (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Apparently some of you have evidently missed Janet Wilson; Susan Reid; Gerri Kimber, eds. (May 5, 2011). Katherine Mansfield and Literary Modernism. London New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, Continuum. p. 38. ISBN 9781441151544. And there is more at Google books and Google Scholar. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A helpful soul at the Humanities Reference Desk has suggested the following as all helpful to the Style section at least:
I’m willing to follow-up and get copies of these if no one else is, WP:RX can provide these to anyone. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See WP:Before, section C1: "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD". Seems fairly clear, given the availability of the sources mentioned above . MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, i may be going out on a limb here ("dont worry coola, the branch is strong enough!:)), but i reckon mansfield may be one of the writers where no. 5 applies ie. "5.The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable.", sources mentioned above show that article can be expanded, as for "This article as it stands is a disgrace. ... the sooner the content is deleted the better..." (as well as "run little stubbies, before the big bad editors destroy you!), just a small reminder from WP:CONTN - "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.". Coolabahapple (talk) 04:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And WP:Preserve 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent research into sources by Gleeanon409 and their Humanities librarian - if not per WP:NBOOK#5 as Coolabahapple suggests. (And, as I seem to find reason to comment too often, "google results" are not the way to assess notability of subjects which predate the internet - or even some which postdate it, if they're not the focus of online media.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above. Her stature as an author makes her works pass WP:NBOOK#5.4meter4 (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Grindrod

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

The article fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, since Grindrod has only been a local municipal councillor and not held any prominent political office or received significant news coverage, as required. Despite him being deputy leader of the Independent Democrats for a brief period, there is no mention of him on the ID's article. The sole "reference" situated on Grindrod's article is dead. The article is also outdated. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cape Town is certainly a large and important enough city that its city councillors could potentially keep substantive and well-sourced articles that featured detail on their political significance, but this is written much more like the kind of "staff" profile you might expect to see on the city council's own self-published website about itself, and cites exactly zero reliable sources at all. Being deputy leader of a small political party is also not a notability freebie that would exempt him from having to be more substantive and better sourced than this, either. And it's existed for 12 years in this state without ever seeing a whit of improvement, to boot. So no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can write and source something much better than this, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be written and sourced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until more sourcing is found. I've found lots of quotes from the subject, but little coverage that appears to be about the subject in a significant manner (see this Irish Times article). It would not surprise me if there are more sources about the subject that exist, but I'm having difficulty finding good sources. (That said, there is reliable third-party coverage of the two main claims in the article 1) the subject did serve on the Cape Town city council and 2) that the subject was the former National Deputy Leader of the Independent Democrats. --Enos733 (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only coverage is the type of routine local coverage that one would expect. Onel5969 TT me 04:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG, --SalmanZ (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacking of reliable source. Barca (talk) 13:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and WP:MILL. Like this subject, lower level party officials are not notable. A search online found a few news articles, but nothing outside of the usual local coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:POLOUTCOMES, and WP:MILL.4meter4 (talk) 12:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Danielle Dithurbide. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wake up with Danielle Dithurbide

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

Non-notable TV show. Just 57 mentions on Google News. Bbarmadillo (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbarmadillo: Doesn't help that the title has been translated, either; typically, TV show titles are left untranslated. More searches are likely with the Spanish title Despierta con Danielle Dithurbide. The host is notable—this is the morning show on Mexico's highest-rated TV network!—but this article is a disaster. We'd be better served with a translation of Danielle Dithurbide for enwiki than this article. Delete. Raymie (t • c) 22:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. While the article is certainly on a notable topic and would easily pass WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, the article as written contains only confusion (including a weird title) and nothing of value. If someone steps forward to clean it up and make a decent stub and the article is moved to Despierta con Danielle Dithurbide than we could reasonably keep this article.4meter4 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Danielle Dithurbide, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can do better than this. As a television program airing on national networks, this would certainly clear WP:TVSHOW if it were properly sourced — but the only references shown here are its schedule pages on the self-published websites of its own networks, which are not independent or notability-making sources. TV shows do not get into Wikipedia just because their own self-created web presence metaverifies its own existence; they get into Wikipedia when they are the subject of media coverage in sources other than themselves. But since we now have a BLP of the host as per Raymie's suggestion, redirecting the show to her article is a viable stopgap solution until somebody's willing and able to get the show written and sourced properly. Bearcat (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to 2channel. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 08:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2channel (2ch.sc)

2channel (2ch.sc) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Devoid of useful content. "It says Not to be confused with 2channel", but its clearly something to do with that. Maybe someone who can read Japanese can rescue the article, but in its present state it is not worth keeping. Rathfelder (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdraw my nomination based on feedback from Eagles247 and Gonzo fan2007 and sources added to the article, which means subject passes WP:NGRIDIRON. (non-admin closure) Steve Quinn (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Alford Jr.

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

Previously PRODed biography of a living person (wp:blp). No significant coverage in independent reliable sources seems to be available. PROD tag was removed with the rationale this passes WP:NGRIDIRON. That is for "presumed" notability, not automatic notability. Article created in March 2006 and apparently no reliable sources have been available for 13 years. I think that is a sufficient amount of time. Does not seem to be a notable football player. Statistics alone are not considered to be reliable sources. Fails WP:SPORTBASIC and GNG. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From nom - I already pointed out that NGRIDIRON is for presumed notability of this player when this article was created a little over 13 years ago. It is an indicator of possible notability. It doesn't mean it is automatically notable. Multiple, independent, reliable sources are needed to indicate that this topic is indeed notable (per SPORTBASIC and GNG). It also fails WP:V in regards to notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are no reliable sources that indicate this subject passes NGRIDIRON - so that is not really the case either. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NFL.com is a reliable source and it states he passes NGRIDIRON (as well as WP:V). It doesn't matter that the article has been around for 13 years without your personal threshold of reliable sources added, he is a notable football player according to Wikipedia guidelines since he has played in games. I have added additional sources to the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where on the NFL page does it state this subject passes NGRIDIRON? I don't see it. In any case, I agree that NFL.com is a place to derive reliably sourced content. However a single statistical board on that page, with no other content, fails the requirement for notability. That is trivial coverage by any standards.
This means that NFL.com is not really a reliable source that indicates the subject passes NGRIDIRON. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without significant coverage, two statistics boards (1 in references, 1 in infobox) are not sufficient for that. And, the sources recently added are merely passing mentions - trivial coverage. None of these satisfy the criteria for SPORTBASIC and GNG. And once again, NGRIDIRON means the subject is possibly notable, at any time. But not automatically notable.
Eventually, multiple sources that cover the subject significantly, beyond passing mention, are needed to establish notability. "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail...[s]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material". ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On NFL.com, the column titled "G" stands for "Games played" and it says he's played in a total of 27 regular season NFL and AFL games. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that. But there is no significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources about him in those games. That is just a statistics board. Steve Quinn (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a person passes WP:SPORTSBASIC they are "presumed" to be notable. If a person passes WP:NGRIDIRON they are "presumed" to be notable. If a person passes WP:GNG they are "presumed" to be notable. Why is it that the nominator believes passing one of these "presumptive" notability guidelines is overruled by possibly failing to pass other "presumptive" notability guidelines? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. I will have to get back to you on it. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:33, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 15:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canada Computers

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

As written, fails WP:NCORP. Cited references are all primary sources. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for both "Canada Computers & Electronics" and "Canada Computers and Electronics" reveals no press coverage about this company—the only coverage that I could find were one or two passing mentions that were tangential in nature. As such, WP:CORPDEPTH potential is non-existent and fails WP:SIGCOV. In short, an unremarkable local Canadian computer retailing chain. Obvious WP:CORPSPAM. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to AfD Closer - Redirect page Canada Computers & Electronics will need to be deleted as well. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the chain is better known as "Canada Computers", for which there are a number of third-party refs accessible via Google News. The current article is terribly sourced, but sources do exist. The company also appears in Forbes list of Canada’s 25 Best Employers in 2019, whatever that's worth. Mindmatrix 17:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mindmatrix, That article you referenced, though, doesn't count as significant coverage and is arguably a non-independent source since it is a promotional list of featured companies, employers, and the like. Also, to your first point, I didn't search "Canada Computers" initially thinking it'd be too generic, but actually, upon searching that, all sources are social media pages, directory listings, and the like. There's a single press mention on the employees voting to unionize, but that in itself constitutes routine operations. fails WP:GNG and, I repeat, it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Well known does not equal notable. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mindmatrix, As a follow-up, anecdotally, based on what I'm saying, I recommend fully 10-20%, if not more, of the articles related to companies on Wikipedia don't pass WP:SIGCOV and don't meet WP:NCORP/WP:NORG. We could keep ourselves busy for a year or more if we made a concerted effort to weed out the chaf, like this unremarkable company. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:23, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Mindmatrix, Looking at the Google News sources now, most of them are references to "canada computers" or "Canada computers," which have nothing to do with this company. There are some press mentions on a local store break-in and theft, which itself is ultra-local and not notable. There's a mention of them taking over the store leases of bankrupt NCIX, which is also not notable. Remainder of sources relate to blog posts (MobileSyrup figures prominently, which itself is a quasi-spammy SEO outfit) that mention "Canada Computers" in a very tangential way (that is, "this device can be purchased at Canada Computers"). Doug Mehus (talk) 17:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dmehus: My keep was actually intended as a comment, so I've changed it. I'll note that at one point, there were a number of reliable sources for store openings (such as this), amongst other coverage, but they seem to no longer exist. (There's a few sources with a small amount of detail, but not sufficient for the WP article to be retained, such as this, or this glancing mention.) As for your points, I always exclude simple mentions from my search results (eg - there are a bunch of hits to Tom's Hardware citing that certain products are sold at Canada Computers which I wholly ignore), and when perusing hits I refine the search by excluding SEO and similar sites with a blanket "-MobileSyrup" or some such. Mindmatrix 19:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mindmatrix, Thanks for updating it to a comment and for clarifying that, though. Store openings and asset purchases/sales count as "trivial coverage" at any rate, no? I noted that Andre's Electronics Experts (a regional chain of electronics stores in B.C.) doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. Visions Electronics, I see, has a page, but it, too, has a notability tag added to its page. Looks like it was added by one or more SPAs, possibly COI-conflicted editors.
That's good to hear you add a -MobileSyrup to your search strings.Doug Mehus (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 16:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been in their stores. For the life of me I cannot image a reason they would be notable for selling PC parts. A search turned up stories like this one about store openings. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. I did multiple searches for sources and could not find coverage that allows Canada Computers to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I've shopped there myself — in fact, I usually go to Canada Computers before I'll even go to Best Buy — but the fact that I'm familiar with it is not a notability claim. What we require is reliable source coverage about it in media, and that's clearly lacking. Bearcat (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe keep. I did find an article on a labor relations lawsuit involving the company. "Ontario Labour Relations Board decision: Gabriel Posada v United Food and Commercial Workers Union Canada, 2019 CanLII 22115 (ON LRB)", Financial Law Reporter, April 5, 2019. Their school donations program is discussed in multiple sources:
  1. "Canada's e-waste problem needs a cleanup: most recycling experts are at odds over resolving the problem. (News)"; Zyska, Patricia; Computer Dealer News, July 26, 2002, Vol.18(14), p.9(1)
  2. "Proposed school to go "high-tech""; Safer, Andrew, Computing Canada, Jul 6, 1994, Vol.20(14), p.1,6
  3. "Universal service and the digital revolution: beyond the Telecommunications Act of 1996"; Lapointe, Markenzy; Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal, Spring, 1999, Vol.25(1), p.61(1)
  4. "Text ‘‘Superpowers’’: A Study of Computers in Homeless Shelters"; Moser, Mary Anne; Science, Technology, & Human Values, November 2009, Vol.34(6), pp.705-740.

Other than that I found only press releases, other public relations material, and some general tracking of its stock prices in The Wall Street Journal. The best independent articles discuss it's charity program for schools and other community organizations, but I couldn't find any good sources on the actual retail arm of the organization. It's a borderline call.4meter4 (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4: I wouldn't say it's a borderline call. Of those four articles you posted, those sound like passing mentions or mentions in which they are mentioned in a tangential way. A single labour relations board ruling would count as trivial coverage related to personnel matters and routine business operational matters, nothing significant. I would urge you to re-consider your !vote even though it's notionally not a vote.--Doug Mehus (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is flawed because you are failing to follow policy at WP:Offline sources and WP:AGF. I've noticed you have a tendency to challenge offline references which you have obviously not read, and that just simply is not a policy based way of approaching discussions where other editors are using offline references which they have read. I have access to ProQuest and other databases through my university library. If you haven't actually read a source yourself, you shouldn't be offering judgements on whether it meets significant coverage or not. I have read the articles in question, and inspite of their names, they do offer more than just passing mention of Canada Computers's charitable program.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: I always assume good faith and your thinking that I am failing to assume good faith seems to, in fact, not be assuming good faith. The articles you referenced from Whpg's comment are not offline sources, but online ones that are not available. As well, re: WP:OFFLINE, it is not enough to just say the sources exist or probably exist. We actually have to read them, which you say you have in terms of the articles you mentioned in Canada Computers, but for everyone's benefit, you should summarize the articles themselves. Also, the "school donations program" for which you cite four sources doesn't count as significant coverage; it's related to philanthropic endeavours, corporate sponsorships, etc.—all trite and trivial matters. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the articles. In this case the articles more than trivial coverage on their charitable arm, but I agree with you that the articles really aren't about the organization itself but about one program that they run which is why I didn't offer a definite keep. In Computer Dealer News the program was described in detail as a potential means of recycling computer parts with positive environmental and social outcomes. In Computing Canada the article was entirely about a high school receiving computers through the program, and the program (in a singular context) was the main subject of the article. In Rutgers Computer & Technology Law Journal the program was used as an example of a way to create equity access to technology among poor communities, and in Science, Technology, & Human Values the company's program was discussed as a possible reproducible program in order aid homeless populations to gain access to computers for needs like employment and social services. All independent and non-tangential.4meter4 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: I believed that you read the articles; that was never in question in my mind. In terms of the first article, you rightly point out that the article is about the company's charitable giving program, but I still question how this meets WP:SIGCOV. From the other articles, which is more or less what I gathered from reading the abstracts and title (you can usually understand what's going on fairly well by reading the titles and/or abstracts), these just talk about the company's charitable donation program. So, it seems to me there could be merit to mentioning this company as part of an article on, maybe, corporate philanthropy or in-kind corporate donation programs, but in terms of an article about this company, it fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. So, might you consider editing your first comment and !vote of very tentative potential support to Comment or Observation or something like that? In this way, I think it's possible for companies to be mentioned in passing in other topical Wikipedia articles but still not have articles about them. Similar with First Nations Bank of Canada, that company may be worthy of one or more mentions in terms of providing banking services in northern Canada and Indigenous communities, but in terms of sources about the organization, there's simply not enough sources to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it depends on how you look at it. The charitable activity is part of the organization's activities just as much as their retail business. Those activities have gotten significant coverage. That's why I am saying it's borderline. I personally am on the fence, and am going to wait and see what others say. I think your views are pretty clear in the delete camp. I am undecided. I am leaving it as I stated, because it is essentially a keep argument that I am tentative on. 4meter4 (talk) 16:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That could be potentially done as a new article, possibly through AfC, but there's nothing of interest in this article, as written, that would warrant maintaining edit history. This is an ultra-short stub-class article consisting of one- or two-sentences. I also question whether such an article on a single company's philanthropic initiatives would meet standalone notability; however, there could be merit in creating a section of a technology retailers' philanthropic initiatives encyclopedia article (say, Computer retailer philanthropic initiatives or Technology retailer philanthropic initiatives). --Doug Mehus (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If such an initiative meets WP:GNG, why not? feminist (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Feminist:, Yeah. Off-topic: I keep having JavaScript errors with the reply-to script; have tried reporting errors to Enterprisey, but, presumably, he's quite busy. Are you aware of any other reply-to wiki scripts I could install instead? Doug Mehus (talk) 07:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately I am not aware of any other reply-to script. feminist (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's some sources out there User:SportingFlyer, and I've added some to the article, relating to expansion, ownership, etc. But hard-pressed to find significant coverage. I have to say I'm a bit surprised, that in the 30 years or so that this well-known ubiquitous national chain has been around, that they've attracted so little attention, given their unusual longevity in their particular business. Nfitz (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. If they've been around 30 years there should be newspaper coverage of them, but all I'm finding are advertisements so far. They are mentioned in almost blasé manners in some CBC articles. SportingFlyer T·C 23:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that can be helpful is restricting google searches to particular websites. e.g. site:cbc.ca "Canada Computers". I checked CBC, The Star, and the Globe and Mail this way, but didn't find much beyond passing mentions, and routine coverage of the fire. The best sources I could find (which weren't previously discussed) are:
  • [6] brief mention of CC as an example of a "Markham immigrant success story"
  • [7] a couple brief mentions of CC as an example of a store that "caters to OTA do-it-yourselfers" (in the context of a fluffy/personal piece about cable-cutting) Colin M (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a fair number of passing mentions in RS, but I don't think they add up to WP:SIGCOV. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON. As a Torontonian, it feels notable to me - I think of it as one of the more iconic businesses in the nexus of computer stores around College and Spadina. Heck, this BlogTO post describes them as "the godfathers of this IT stretch". But I have to go with policy over my personal biases. Colin M (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Litmus7

Litmus7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creepTalk 16:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article is referenced to routine listings and best-places-to-work announcements, which are classed as trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. My searches are finding no better than routine announcements and listings; in sum, a company going about its business but lacking notability. AllyD (talk) 18:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my PROD: Fails WP:NCORP. Sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. shoy (reactions) 23:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The updated version of the article has improved references and relevant informative content regarding the entity. The information in the article is more significant than "trivial coverage" as listed in WP:CORPDEPTH. As for notability, upon a thorough and extensive search I did find a number of entire articles regarding the company and how it is a notable entity in the relevant local and global community.
Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources:
1. http://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/kochi/2018/jan/24/litmus7-systems-starts-operation-in-smartcity-1762849.html
2. https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/litmus7-systems-rated-among-50-best-places-to-work-in-it-bpm-sector/article25606863.ece
3. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/kochi/litmus7-fort-kochi-heritage-runs-promo-held-in-the-city/articleshow/66496098.cms
4. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/events/kochi/fort-kochi-heritage-run-held-today/articleshow/67112628.cms
5. https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/company/litmus7-systems-consulting-private-limited-/U72200KL2009PTC024392
6. https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/unveiling-retailsingularity-litmus7-endeavors-to-gear-up-the-retail-world-for-the-age-of-singularity-1027863331
7. https://www.siliconindia.com/yearbook/company/Litmus7SystemsConsulting-catid-8-cid-234.html/2013
Many Thanks Gokulh97 (talk) 06:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gokulh97: I would advise you to read WP:CORPDEPTH again. Ref 1 is the "the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops". Ref 2 is "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists". Ref 3 and 4 are "sponsorship of events, non-profit organizations, or volunteer work". Refs 5 and 7 are "simple listings or compilations". Ref 6 is "press releases, press kits, or similar public relations materials". None of these references establish notability. shoy (reactions) 12:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Gokulh97 is a 1-week-old account. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article named Litmus7 is created using all authentic references from the internet. It was not intended to create any promotion for the article-subject as you can see it was written in a very basic language without any promotional content. Its intention is to educate common people about the companies in Kerala. Being awarded as the best place to work consecutively for two years, I strongly believe this should have a place on Wikipedia. I believe, in this way, Wikipedia helps people to identify and work in organizations that match their passion and dreams. The article has got enough references from the internet. I strongly vote to keep. Much Gratitude, Prince Paul (talk) 07:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There is consensus that there is coverage, listed in this AfD discussion, which meets the standard imposed by NCORP. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Challenger, Gray & Christmas

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

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar." It was deprodded by User:Dmehus with the following rationale "Clearly meets notability guidelines. Included within the article are sufficient references and a quick Google search produces significant results to meet WP:SIG. Also removing WP:Notability tag, but it could use clean-up.". I respectfully disagree. As I discussed in my Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. All sources here mention the subject in passing or are WP:PRIMARY. I couldn't find even a single sentence defining it in Books/Scholar search that goes beyond WP:YELLOWPAGES. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I jumped the gun in saying clearly meets WP:NOTE. Google search results would seem to suggest this may not be notable, but I would recommend searching for offline sources (i.e., newspapers), where possible, and/or films. Sometimes old newspapers are digitized and the Internet Archive might be engaged to see if there are free films that could substantiate its notability. I won't oppose this nomination, but at any rate, as written, this article needs major improvement as it is written like WP:CORPSPAM or WP:Advert. Doug Mehus (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment Noticed your edit summary, User:Piotrus, said "lets take this to AfD", which is probably somewhat OK in that it mentioned AfD, but should've included a clickable wiki link to this discussion page. I definitely recommend Twinkle for AfDs. Saves my life! Doug Mehus (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references appear to have any in-depth information on the company nor any independent content. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 18:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete or soft delete only because I am familiar with this company and its pop culture references, but I haven't seen sufficient, independent online sources that provide significant coverage to justify keeping it. There may be some offline sources, but deleting without prejudice wouldn't be a bad thing...someone can always look up said offline sources and recreate article through new page review process. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify and send article to AfC process. There are probably plenty of offline sources available, though none of the sources cited by Cunard below qualify, in my view, as significant coverage and, this firm does have plenty of mentions in pop culture, including film and television. So, I suspect sources exist, even though, as written, this woefully fails WP:NCORP and WP:Notability guidelines. Thus, having this go through AfC would be a good thing. --Doug Mehus (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Baumohl, Bernard (2008). The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing. pp. 47–50. ISBN 978-0-13-244729-4. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
    2. Баскина, Татьяна (2015). Всемирная история кадровой индустрии [World History of Human Resources] (in Russian). Moscow: ru:Манн, Иванов и Фербер. p. 137. ISBN 978-5-00057-595-6. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
    3. Meyer, John L.; Shadle, Carolyn C. (1994). The Changing Outplacement Process: New Methods and Opportunities for Transition Management. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books. ISBN 0-89930-890-2. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
    4. Quinones, Eric R. (1996-04-10). "As Layoffs Rise, So Does the Demand for One Man". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-10-13.
    5. Carpenter, John (2011-10-24). "Outplacement leader says helping people get back on their feet is the right thing to do, and it refuels the economy". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
    6. Lewis, Al (2012-03-16). "Lewis: Challenger thrives in challenging economy". The Denver Post. Dow Jones & Company. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
    7. Hagerty, James R. (2019-09-20). "James Challenger Helped Create Market for Outplacement Services". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
    8. Dvorak, Phred; Lublin, Joann S. (2009-08-20). "Outplacement Firms Struggle to Do Job". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
    9. Machlowitz, Marilyn M. (1977-08-14). "Getting Fired With Style". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.
    10. Dresang, Joel (1988-08-08). "You're not fired — you're being outplaced". Pensacola News Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-10-13 – via Newspapers.com.
    11. "Spouse's job may affect search by discharged members". Daily Record. 1989-11-12. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-10-13 – via Newspapers.com.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Baumohl, Bernard (2008). The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Wharton School Publishing. pp. 47–50. ISBN 978-0-13-244729-4. Retrieved 2019-10-12.

      The book notes on page 47:

      So monitoring trends in corporate layoffs can be useful if you want to anticipate changes in the economy's performance.

      One company that does precisely that is Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC), an outplacement firm based in Chicago. The Challenger group scans public information record for announcements on corporate layoffs and then tallies it up along with a commentary on the latest trends. (As of May 2004, the company also began tracking hiring announcements.) However, there is no free access to the Challenger corporate layoff report on the Internet. Paid clients of CGC are the first to receive the data, which is released the first week of the month. Those who seek to get the information for free will have to rely on business news Internet sites such as Bloomberg, CNBC, and CNN.

      CGC culls a variety of sources for announced layoffs, including press releases, newspapers, trade papers, and then adds them up. Its research covers publicly traded firms, though a few large private companies are also counted whenever possible. The focus is on comparing the volume of layoffs on a month-to-month basis and with earlier years. The data is also divided by industry and on a regional basis.

      The book notes on page 48:

      There are no tables to review here because Challenger has not made them available to nonsubscribers. But the press obtains highlights of the report and gives it ample coverage. By and large, the investment community and economists view these layoff figures with only limited interest. For one, the numbers are not fresh. ...

      ...

      Another problem is the way the Challenger report breaks down layoffs by geographic region. It's based mostly on the location of the company's headquarters, yet many of these layoffs can take place elsewhere, even outside the U.S.

      ...

      On a slow news day, investors might take note of the Challenger report. Otherwise, its impact on the market is negligible.

      The book notes on page 50:

      There are presently two major sources of information on layoffs. One is the Challenger, Gray & Christmas survey, which was discussed in the preceding section ("Corporate Layoff Announcements"). Its data, however, covers only announced corporate layoffs; it doesn't follow up to see if these job elimination plans were fully carried out.

    2. Баскина, Татьяна (2015). Всемирная история кадровой индустрии [World History of Human Resources] (in Russian). Moscow: ru:Манн, Иванов и Фербер. p. 137. ISBN 978-5-00057-595-6. Retrieved 2019-10-12.

      The book notes:

      Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC)

      Основанная в 1962 г . в Чикаго CGC предлагала клиентам услуги по оценке и тестированию персонала, индивидуальный коучинг и программы развития для руководителей, перспективных и особо ценных сотрудников, а также разрабатывала комплексную стратегию при увольнении работников. из этого «микса» сформировалась услуга аутплейсмента. CGC помогала участникам программы найти новую работу в среднем за 3,2 месяца,  в то время как среднерыночный показатель составлял тогда пять месяцев. Свой успех компания объясняет индивидуальным подходом и бескомпромиссным качеством. Консультанты обязательно проводят глубинное интервью с каждым участником программы, а при продвижении на рынке труда советуют им не тратить время на массовые рассылки и пассивное ожидание предложений. Значительно эффективнее активные контакты и встречи с потенциальными будущими работодателями.

      From Google Translate:

      Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC)

      Founded in 1962 in Chicago, CGC offered clients assessment and testing services, individual coaching and development programs for executives, promising and especially valuable employees, and also developed a comprehensive strategy for dismissing employees. Out of this “mix” an outplacement service was formed. CGC helped program members find a new job in an average of 3.2 months, while the market average was then five months. The company explains its success with an individual approach and uncompromising quality. Consultants are required to conduct an in-depth interview with each participant in the program, and when promoting on the labor market they are advised not to waste time on mass mailings and passive waiting for offers. Active contacts and meetings with potential future employers are much more effective.

    3. Meyer, John L.; Shadle, Carolyn C. (1994). The Changing Outplacement Process: New Methods and Opportunities for Transition Management. Westport, Connecticut: Quorum Books. ISBN 0-89930-890-2. Retrieved 2019-10-12.

      The book notes on page 226:

      Another challenge came from Middlebury College in Vermont when the employees and alumni of the college criticized the work of the Challenger, Gray & Christmas Outplacement Firm hired to assist with the college's downsizing. Workers, it reported, were dismissed without notice and taken on the same day to a building on the edge of campus, where they were told to clean out hteir desks after hours, by appointment. The tactics triggered a storm of protest, including a march on the campus, petitions, and numerous letters to Middlebury Magazine. Comments circulated such as "the whole operation stinks"; "My agony continues as I try to comprehend why it was necessary to dismiss persons in such a frightful manner"; "Total insensitivity on the basis of lame-brained advice from an outplacement firm"; "The use of an obfuscatory word like 'outplacement' to conceal and sanitize cruel and arbitrary treatment of long-term employees ... is shocking."

      The book cites Nation's Business 1992 as a source for this claim in the appendix. The book notes:

      By James Challenger's account he gave birth to the outplacement industry in 1965. Claiming to be the industry's founder, his Chicago firm (Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.) "is certainly the oldest specializing in outplacement."

    4. Quinones, Eric R. (1996-04-10). "As Layoffs Rise, So Does the Demand for One Man". Los Angeles Times. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-10-13.

      The book notes:

      Challenger’s father, James, co-founded Challenger Gray & Christmas Inc. in 1962 to provide outplacement services, which means it is hired by companies to find jobs for employees that have been laid off. The firm also works as a consultant to companies that are planning staff cuts.

      In 1993, noting a rise in corporate cutbacks, Challenger Gray started publicly releasing monthly and annual reports based on its compilations of layoff announcements.

      Employees sift through about 70 newspapers and several computer services daily looking for mentions of layoffs, which are included in the reports only after being verified by the companies, Challenger said. The reports include rankings by state, region and industry.

      The reports caught the media’s attention, and they’ve been mentioned with increasing frequency in major newspapers.

      They’ve also been criticized. Detractors say that because the reports are based solely on announcements--and Challenger Gray doesn’t follow through to tally the actual layoffs--they don’t provide a comprehensive view of the national employment picture.

    5. Carpenter, John (2011-10-24). "Outplacement leader says helping people get back on their feet is the right thing to do, and it refuels the economy". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.

      The article notes:

      That's the opportunity his father, James Challenger, saw almost 50 years ago, when he and two partners — long since gone from the business, though their names are still on the door — started the first outplacement consultancy in 1962. An attorney by training, the elder Challenger was running a small kitchen appliance manufacturing firm but looking for a way to go into business for himself. He noticed growing numbers of increasingly large corporations were laying off workers as market conditions changed. He saw an opportunity and took it.

      ...

      But Challenger's customers, downsizing companies going through tough times, are increasingly less willing to pay as much for outplacement consulting.

      ...

      Challenger, Gray & Christmas is a privately held firm and, as such, is not required to release annual revenue figures. Various online business research sites give estimates ranging from $25 million to $50 million. Challenger would not comment on the accuracy of these estimates. He did confirm that the company has about 200 employees, and that number has, in the past, been as high as 300.

      One of the ways Challenger fights for his share of the market is by relentlessly promoting the Challenger, Gray & Christmas brand. Indeed, the most rudimentary Internet search turns up story after story on all manner of workplace trends in which Challenger or someone from his company is quoted.

      ...

      The firm also banks publicity at NCAA basketball tournament time, serving up an annual study on lost productivity from employees watching March Madness games, particularly the early round matchups that take place during the day.

    6. Lewis, Al (2012-03-16). "Lewis: Challenger thrives in challenging economy". The Denver Post. Dow Jones & Company. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.

      The article notes:

      Challenger, 56 years old, is chief executive of Chicago’s Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., which bills itself as the nation’s oldest outplacement firm. His team is often the first to arrive at the scene of a mass layoff, aiding the wounded with everything from counseling to job-interview coaching.

      His firm had been quietly tracking layoff announcements for years because they were its lifeblood. But once quoted in the press, the Challenger, Gray & Christmas job-cuts report became an official staple of our nation’s economic news.

      ...

      In 1962, when Challenger’s father, James, started the storied outplacement agency, companies usually didn’t cut as deeply as they do today. And when they did, they didn’t often hire outplacement consultants to comfort the casualties.

    7. Hagerty, James R. (2019-09-20). "James Challenger Helped Create Market for Outplacement Services". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.

      The article notes:

      James Challenger had tried law, advertising and manufacturing of gas heaters before dreaming up in the mid-1960s what he called a wild idea: persuading companies to pay him to help find new jobs for executives and middle managers they were laying off.

      His firm, Challenger, Gray & Christmas, offered what came to be known as outplacement services. The initial reaction from companies, he said later, was why should we help people we’re firing?

      ...

      Outplacement services, provided by scores of firms, have become standard at most large companies. Challenger Gray, now run by one of his sons, John Challenger, has more than 300 employees in 27 offices across the U.S. and says it helps over 10,000 people a year find jobs.

      ...

      Challenger Gray couldn’t please all of its clients. In 2009, The Wall Street Journal quoted Sonia Service, a former PepsiCo Inc. employee, as saying Challenger Gray sent letters to prospective employers, without her approval, that included typos. During a practice lunch interview, she said, a job-searching coach chided her for ordering cranberry juice. The coach said that choice could be interpreted as a sign of a urinary-tract infection.

    8. Dvorak, Phred; Lublin, Joann S. (2009-08-20). "Outplacement Firms Struggle to Do Job". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.

      The article notes:

      Some activities appear to follow routines. Two Challenger clients, executives from different companies and different parts of the country, describe mock job interviews over lunch with their coaches.

      ...

      Ms. Service, the former administrative assistant at Pepsi, was offered outplacement with Challenger, Pepsi's main provider for about the past decade. She was invited to a two-day individual workshop in a suburban New York hotel near her former office, where a coach reviewed skills such as crafting résumés and cover letters.

      The coach said Challenger would check online regularly for relevant vacancies, then send Ms. Service's résumé and cover letter to prospective employers.

      Ms. Service didn't like Challenger's rewrite of her résumé because it contained too many dates she thought would reveal her age; she says she asked Challenger not to use it. Ms. Service says she never saw the finished cover letter. Ms. Service was later surprised to find that the résumé and a cover letter -- which contained a double comma and the date written as "February 05" -- had been sent to a New York public-relations firm on her behalf earlier this year.

    9. Machlowitz, Marilyn M. (1977-08-14). "Getting Fired With Style". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-10-12. Retrieved 2019-10-12.

      The article notes:

      The leading outplacement consulting firms are based in New York and Chicago. Among the oldest and largest is Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago corporation with 22 consultants and five regional offices serving up to 1,000 individuals a year. Its client roster includes the Xerox Corporation, Motorola Inc., United Airlines, Esmark Inc., the Quaker Oats Company and Sears Roebuck & Company.

    10. Dresang, Joel (1988-08-08). "You're not fired — you're being outplaced". Pensacola News Journal. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-10-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      "Outplacement is a service that organizations provide to discharged executives and managers," explains John Challenger of Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc., an outplacement firm in Chicago.

      ...

      The Challenger firm is credited for pioneering the outplacement industry 26 years ago as a way to ease the guilt of executives faced with firing fellow executives.

    11. "Spouse's job may affect search by discharged members". Daily Record. 1989-11-12. Archived from the original on 2019-10-13. Retrieved 2019-10-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. is the nation's oldest outplacement company. The Company has counseled more than 20,000 displaced people since its founding in the 1960's. It maintains 16 regional offices in Atlanta, Boston, Cleveland, Tulsa, Okla. Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Nashville, Tenn., Philadelphia, St. Louis, New York/Stamford and internationally.

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

    Cunard (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 2008 Wharton School Publishing book The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities notes: "There are presently two major sources of information on layoffs. One is the Challenger, Gray & Christmas survey, which was discussed in the preceding section ("Corporate Layoff Announcements")."

    The Associated Press noted in 1996 about Challenger Gray & Christmas' reports, "The reports caught the media’s attention, and they’ve been mentioned with increasing frequency in major newspapers. They’ve also been criticized. Detractors say that because the reports are based solely on announcements--and Challenger Gray doesn’t follow through to tally the actual layoffs--they don’t provide a comprehensive view of the national employment picture."

    Columnist Al Lewis wrote in 2012, "But once quoted in the press, the Challenger, Gray & Christmas job-cuts report became an official staple of our nation’s economic news."

    The New York Times noted in 1977, "The leading outplacement consulting firms are based in New York and Chicago. Among the oldest and largest is Challenger, Gray & Christmas, a Chicago corporation with 22 consultants and five regional offices serving up to 1,000 individuals a year. Its client roster includes the Xerox Corporation, Motorola Inc., United Airlines, Esmark Inc., the Quaker Oats Company and Sears Roebuck & Company."

    Cunard (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that any source you cite contains any discussion in depth. Yes, there's a bunch of mentions in passing, but that's not sufficient to make this company notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems you don't read the sources you provide. " The Secrets of Economic Indicators" does not 'provide several pages on the subject'. It only mentions a dataset created by the company, which is discussed on 2-3 pages, but the company itself gets only a passing mention as the dataset creator. The news pieces provide some coverage of one of the founders, not the company, and may be sufficient to justify creating his article, as he may pass NBIO. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, and neither a discussion of the company product or a founder helps to make it notable, given there is still no in-depth coverage of the company presented anywhere. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • When books, magazines, and newspapers write about companies, they discuss the company's history, the company's revenue and outlook, and what the company does. The coverage about the company's report about layoffs is coverage about what the company does. I believe that coverage about what the company does to generate the report and what reception the company received from publishing the report has should be considered considered coverage about the company.

    While it is possible to rename this article to "Challenger, Gray & Christmas report on layoffs" since sources have written about it in detail, I think that is too restrictive of a name and would prefer the article remain titled "Challenger, Gray & Christmas".

    I consider this in the book The Secrets of Economic Indicators: Hidden Clues to Future Economic Trends and Investment Opportunities to be significant coverage of the company's work on the report and what reception the report has:

    Extended content

    So monitoring trends in corporate layoffs can be useful if you want to anticipate changes in the economy's performance.

    One company that does precisely that is Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC), an outplacement firm based in Chicago. The Challenger group scans public information record for announcements on corporate layoffs and then tallies it up along with a commentary on the latest trends. (As of May 2004, the company also began tracking hiring announcements.) However, there is no free access to the Challenger corporate layoff report on the Internet. Paid clients of CGC are the first to receive the data, which is released the first week of the month. Those who seek to get the information for free will have to rely on business news Internet sites such as Bloomberg, CNBC, and CNN.

    CGC culls a variety of sources for announced layoffs, including press releases, newspapers, trade papers, and then adds them up. Its research covers publicly traded firms, though a few large private companies are also counted whenever possible. The focus is on comparing the volume of layoffs on a month-to-month basis and with earlier years. The data is also divided by industry and on a regional basis.

    ...

    There are no tables to review here because Challenger has not made them available to nonsubscribers. But the press obtains highlights of the report and gives it ample coverage. By and large, the investment community and economists view these layoff figures with only limited interest. For one, the numbers are not fresh. ... ...

    Another problem is the way the Challenger report breaks down layoffs by geographic region. It's based mostly on the location of the company's headquarters, yet many of these layoffs can take place elsewhere, even outside the U.S.

    The focus is on what Challenger, Gray & Christmas (CGC) does to generate the report. The article notes that CGC is an outplacement firm, is based in Chicago, scans public records for corporate layoff announcements, generates a report with commentary about it, and in May 2004 started also tracking hiring announcements. This is substantial coverage about the company's work. The book also has critical commentary about the report saying "the investment community and economists view these layoff figures with only limited interest", "the numbers are not fresh", and the report is "based mostly on the location of the company's headquarters, yet many of these layoffs can take place elsewhere".

    I consider this article in the Chicago Tribune to be significant coverage of the company:

    Extended content

    That's the opportunity his father, James Challenger, saw almost 50 years ago, when he and two partners — long since gone from the business, though their names are still on the door — started the first outplacement consultancy in 1962. An attorney by training, the elder Challenger was running a small kitchen appliance manufacturing firm but looking for a way to go into business for himself. He noticed growing numbers of increasingly large corporations were laying off workers as market conditions changed. He saw an opportunity and took it.

    ...

    But Challenger's customers, downsizing companies going through tough times, are increasingly less willing to pay as much for outplacement consulting.

    ...

    Challenger, Gray & Christmas is a privately held firm and, as such, is not required to release annual revenue figures. Various online business research sites give estimates ranging from $25 million to $50 million. Challenger would not comment on the accuracy of these estimates. He did confirm that the company has about 200 employees, and that number has, in the past, been as high as 300.

    One of the ways Challenger fights for his share of the market is by relentlessly promoting the Challenger, Gray & Christmas brand. Indeed, the most rudimentary Internet search turns up story after story on all manner of workplace trends in which Challenger or someone from his company is quoted.

    ...

    The firm also banks publicity at NCAA basketball tournament time, serving up an annual study on lost productivity from employees watching March Madness games, particularly the early round matchups that take place during the day.

    The article notes that the company was founded in 1962 by James Challenger and two partners whose names are in the company's name, that the company is facing a challenge in that its customers who are "downsizing companies going through tough times ... are increasingly less willing to pay as much for outplacement consulting", and that the company is privately held. The article notes that research websites estimate that the company's annual revenue is $25 million to $50 million and that it in 2011 had about 200 employees which is down from 300 previously. The article notes that CEO John Challenger "relentlessly promote[s]" the company's brand in the media in an attempt to get a larger share of the market and that it takes advantage of the NCAA basketball tournament by releasing a yearly study saying employees lose productivity from watching those games while working.

    Cunard (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your effort, but I am not convinced this meets in-depth coverage. Few sentences mention the company in passing, that's still is, well, passing coverage. Let's see what others think about this - is this sufficient to met NORG/GNG or not. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I agree. None of these sources meet WP:SIGCOV. However, I've changed my !vote to Draftify, to send this article to the Draft namespace and have it go through AfC to improve it and have it meet WP:NCORP and WP:Notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shinhan Bank Canada

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

As written, fails WP:NCORP. Cited references are all primary sources. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "Shinhan Bank Canada" has no press coverage whatsoever—all search results are trivial matters such as routine operations, passing mentions, and directory listings. As such, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:SIGCOV. Since it lacks standalone notability, could either delete or merge with Shinhan Bank, consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICICI Bank Canada and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Canada) currently in progress. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen an admin strike a comment by a user who was not socking or making personal attacks. Why would they? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, Okay, fair enough, but you have to admit, Carajou seems oblivious to the fact that AfD is not strictly a vote; one must advance or at least cite logical arguments in support of their !vote. In this case, check out the external link cited. It's a link to a Bing search result about CoinDesk (ostensibly a Bitcoin blog)! Doug Mehus (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Mehus, I think the bigger concern here is the way you are aggressively interacting with others over sourcing issues across multiple AFDs. It's bordering on harassment/incivility. Perhaps you need to take a wikibreak.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus is really closer to that of a merge. While merge is a valid AfD close, it was not felt appropriate by many participating editors due to article size factors and so I am formally listing it as a keep. If editors involved with editing the Eastwood article(s) wish to propose different organization of the articles - such as by merging it to Personal life of Clint Eastwood the work and consensus for that can be established outside of this AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and work of Clint Eastwood

AfDs for this article:
Early life and work of Clint Eastwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant; same even longer content found in main article Clint Eastwood — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 08:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 08:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete just duplicates the content of the main article. FOARP (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As material from this page appears to have been merged to the main article on Eastwood, deleting this with its history would remove credits from the authors. Or is all material here originally copied from the main article? Redirecting without deletion solves the problem. --Hegvald (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous nomination was a unanimous Keep and this nomination does not make any new points. Deletion would disrupt and destroy the attribution of the various contributions made to these pages over the years and so is inappropriate per WP:ATD; WP:MAD; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. (talk) 10:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per the guideline Wikipedia:Article size, the main bio article is far too long. Oakshade (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the fact that concerns of close paraphrasing were raised in some of the associated AFDs. ミラP 21:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on what I could gather from the article history, it was originally split from the main article. No sources will be lost if this article is deleted. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to say "delete" but I noticed the nom made the very disingenuous move of removing over 5k of content from this article just before this AfD [13] and then claims here that even longer content found the the full bio article when that wasn't the case before the TNT job. I have restored that pre-AfD content. Additionally, I see the nom last year removed over 22k of heavily sourced early work content from this article [14] which I have also restored, much of which would be too large and detailed for the already overlong bio article. Oakshade (talk) 06:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the points raised by Oakshade, fresh opinions are needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was nothing "disingenuous" about the content I moved -- not removed -- to merge with related, overlapping info already found in the main article. Once I did that, it became evident that this article didn't need to exist, thus the nom. The many related Eastwood satellite articles are for the most part bloated with unencyclopedic detail, and this is one of them. There are other bio articles longer than the main Clint Eastwood article, and the info in this article, when consolidated with what's already in the main article, would eliminate the need for this article altogether. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 16:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is it's violating the guideline Wikipedia:Article size and specifically WP:SIZERULE which states that if an article is over 60k long it "probably should be divided" and if the article is over 100k the article "almost certainly should be divided." The bio article was divided for that reason. Before you moved content to that article it was already 152k. Now it's over 156k. This is one of the most common reasons we have divided articles as there frequently far too much sourced content for one article as was the case with the bio article and this AfD is simply serving to reverse the SIZERULE effort. Oakshade (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly the article had been purposefully de-contented to enroute it towards deletion. The article is well-sourced and meets policy. XavierItzm (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge, as per the reasons given by User: Reywas92Ta. I realize that people love their favorite celebrities, but this article does not have an encyclopedic title and smacks of "celebrity/idol worship". It's kind of embarrasing to be in an encyclopedia to be perfectly frank. We don't do this for other articles even for very notable people who have had a very beneficial or a very harmful effect on mankind (for example, Wikipedia does not have a "Early life and work of William Shakespeare" article).Knox490 (talk) 04:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Life of William Shakespeare separate from the bio article. Oakshade (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @XavierItzm, @Oakshade, while you may infer from my actions anything you want, let me clearly state it was not my intent to purposefully create a situation that would necessitate deleting the article. To state I intended otherwise is to call me a liar. As I stated, I merged and edited here and here the military career content from this article, eliminating duplicate information in the main article and reducing the size of the content by almost one-half in the process, from four unnecessarily detailed ("...while returning from a prearranged tryst with a girlfriend in Seattle..."), wordy ("...Eventually, during the late afternoon, the plane ran out of fuel and the pilot was forced to ditch the aircraft ..."), chatty ("...After some difficulty getting onto the beach...") paragraphs to two.
Upon completing that process, I returned to this article and it was clearly evident that it did not merit a stand-alone article.
Now that the military content has been restored to this article, it's ballooned to more than 8,000kb in both articles and is clearly redundant. While there is a guideline that states when articles ought to be split, it is a guideline, and other articles exceed it. I am using a mobile device and do not have the ability to use tools to determine article size, but I can easily see that Benjamin Franklin is longer than the Clint Eastwood article.
The issues are two-fold:
  • Is it permissible for the main Clint Eastwood article to exceed the guidelines for article size?
  • Should Eastwood's early life be migrated from the main article to this article, and if so, does the content merit a stand-alone article?
So debate the quality of this article and it's true merits, compare the military content in both articles (encyclopedic and summary style, or not?), But don't base your analysis on what you think my machiavellian intentions may or may not have been. — btphelps (talk to me) (what I've done) 07:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed much of that duplicate content you added to the already too-long bio article and restored it here. No it's not permissible for an article to exceed article size guidelines. That's why Wikipedia:Article size is an offical guideline. In this case the bio article is WAY oversize. If you'd like to change WP:SIZERULE, you have to make your case on its talk page. Oakshade (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, deletion is not an appropriate way of dealing with issues of size. Split and merge are best done by ordinary editing so that the history and attribution is preserved per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It shouldn’t be merged because the Clint Eastwood article is already way beyond our official WP:SIZERULE guidelines and such lengthy an article creates readability issues to our readers - see WP:LENGTH. While there is always some overlap of content between related articles, in this case most of the content was removed from the Clint Eastwood article and returned here.Oakshade (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because the main article is quite long does not mean that it must be split in this way. An alternative is a merge with Personal life of Clint Eastwood as Early and personal life of Clint Eastwood perhaps. Much of this excessively detailed article overlaps with Clint_Eastwood#1950s:_Early_career_struggles, and, like the previously deleted articles, it is entirely sourced to McGilligan's Clint: The Life and Legend. A Wikipedia article should not simply be a paraphrase of one book! Reywas92Talk 03:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article contains relevant material not provided in the main bio article and size limitations prevent a merge. I am no particular fan of Eastwood's acting or politics, but that's no reason that Wikipedia should limit coverage of his life that meets our editing guidelines and criteria. My own contribution to this article was to source info on his 1951 plane crash. Sure, this article has many flaws, which can best be addressed through additional work, not deletion. 18:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Outright deletion seems to be untenable due to some material already being merged into Clint Eastwood and the need to preserve that history. Therefore: keep or merge? (and if merge, where?)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It's full of detailed minutia (e.g. "He was a large baby at 11 lb 6 oz (5.16 kg) and was named 'Samson' by the nurses", plane crash blow-by-blow, etc.). Way over the top. Does he also have a mole somewhere? Does he like Italian or is Chinese food his favorite? What did he get on his last birthday? This kind of thing belongs in People or a book, not here. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Clint Eastwood. We probably could write similar length novels on many major figures of the last 50 years, but if an article is growing too long, put in some editorial effort and trim the unencyclopedic bits. Clarityfiend points out some places where things were indiscriminately added. One thing that worries me is that this article sprung into existence as a 28k character monstrosity. It had 60 references, of which 53 were different pages of "Clint: The Life and Legend". Even now it has 56 references to that book and only 14 references to anything else. This is not a good addition to our encyclopedia. Rockphed (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article should be kept because it is well sourced. The WP:RS decided the data was of public interest and thereby published it; per policy, Wikipedia goes by the sources. It would be quite artbitrary to say, well, the RS put out all this well-sourced material that meet all policies, but hey, we editors have decided the WP:RS were all wrong to cover the subject matters! XavierItzm (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was going to say delete initially - however, the article is quite detailed, and as per wikipedia standards, there is too much info here to be put into the main article - it would then become too long. Its also been decided to keep it on its first AFD, which tipped my opinion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SPINOFF. It's lengthy and well referenced and on a notable topic. There's no reason we can't have more thorough coverage on this part of Clint Eastwood's life. Merging is not an ideal option because the main article is already substantial in size. A content fork is really the best option.4meter4 (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Re-work and Merge the Clint Eastwood series of articles. As per @Oakshade: and @4meter4:'s rationale, article length likely prevents these details from being merged into the parent article; however, this is a detailed and well written article, I'd argue. It could be, perhaps, merged into other spin-off articles of Clint Eastwood and renamed in some way, I think. --Doug Mehus (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. But that’s really a decision to be made or not made on the article’s talk page by the editors who actually want to do the work of a merger, if indeed a merger is agreed upon. That’s not really something we can or should decide in an AFD. It’s a reasonable content fork as is per AFDs concerns.4meter4 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: True, but these opinions may help guide post-AfD merger, splitting, and other workings of the articles on which said editors could build off of.--Doug Mehus (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not big on offering complex merge opinions at AFD. That's really something best determined by those editors committed to improving that content area. Having the merger discussion here can distract from our purposes at AFD by creating conflict on an outside issue. It can also create an unnecessarily complicated close.4meter4 (talk) 23:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: True, but I forgot to mention I've seen other editors point out that AfD is often a more useful avenue for merger and split decisions that otherwise languish for months, even years in some cases. As well, anecdotally, I've observed some editors tend to participate more in page move and merger discussions than in AfD (and vice versa). So, there can be merit to bringing articles to AfD in order to increase the diversity of voices in said discussions. I also subscribe to the view that merge is really a variation on keep. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. A somewhat lengthy discussion with several points of contention. First off, based on the arguments presented here it's clear that WP:GNG is not met - apparently they are all either drive-by mentions, self-published blogs with no editorial oversight (per the discussion underneath WanderingWanda's argument) or the subject's own websites (per argument underneath Norozco's argument), and no clear rebuttals were offered except for unsupported assertions and DreamFocus's rather vague argument. The WP:ENT-based argument is a bit more murky as there is one major role and one other role where there is disagreement on whether another role satisfies the criteria, but it seems like the most detailed argument is that this role is not major. Plus there are general BLP sourcing concerns here as well. I see there are canvassing concerns but it doesn't seem like canvassing itself or the fear of it have swayed the discussion to any degree. Thus, a delete it is. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:31, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Mongillo

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

No notable roles except for Shinji in the Neon Genesis Evangelion redub and Sho in Mob Psycho 100. Nothing else seems to be stand out beyond that. For comparison's sake, Spike Spencer, who was the original English voice of Shinji, has voiced in every single Evangelion media to date prior to the redub. He is way more notable as the character's English voice.

The subject, on the other hand, did not voice the character in the Rebuild movies, which makes me question if being the redub voice of Shinji for just the original Eva continuity is even that notable at all. WP:NACTOR may not be met, and I'm convinced that the subject does not meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:WHYN, because the majority of the sources are just mere WP:SELFPUB tweets, with little to no reliable sources. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: It is likely that some users were canvassed via these tweets from the subject: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Here's a backup in case the subject decides to delete them: [1] [2] [3] [4] --Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: This actor strikes me as being on the edge of notability, but they are the subject of at least two articles: [15], [16]. They're also discussed in these articles: [17], [18], [19], and briefly noted in several more. Their role as the lead character in the Evangelion series and movies is undeniably significant, and, as noted, they have a major role in Mob Psycho 100. They also have secondary roles in Time of Eve, Zetman, and Mobile Suit Gundam Seed (as Nicol Amalfi), plus a ton of smaller roles. Spike Spencer's career isn't relevant: this isn't a competition between the two. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that being the redub voice of Shinji means that much compared to Spike, when the latter has been voicing the character for far longer and before the subject's career had even started. Spike first voiced as Shinji back in 1997, when the ADV dub was released. He continued to voice as the character as of 2014, which was the year the English dub for Evangelion: 3.0 You Can (Not) Redo debuted. Having voiced the character for 17 years (almost two decades), you are going to have a difficult time convincing me that some short term redub voice is just as notable as a 17 year long commitment to portraying the character. Spike's portrayal of the character is also broadcast on Toonami - the network aired both the original series *and* the Rebuild movies. [1] [2] [3]
Guess whose portrayal of the same character isn't broadcast on American television? The subject's. On top of that, Spike's portrayal is notable enough for Funimation to call him back to reprise his role for the Rebuild movies. The subject's voicework for Shinji isn't that notable, by comparison. It is important to compare the subject and Spike's voicework for the same character, because that is the only way we could determine which portrayal is the more notable one. And I believe it is crystal clear as to which portrayal is significantly more notable. The subject's portrayal is only featured on Netflix. It may be a big streaming platform, but the redub isn't distributed anywhere else. Spike's portrayal of Shinji, on the other hand, was broadcast on American televsion, and distributed via home media as well. This dwarfs the significance and notability of the redub by a lot.
On another note, the Daily Dot and Pride articles only briefly mentioned the subject; that's not WP:SIGCOV. Some of the other articles talk a bit more, but that's about it. Is there even anything else we can write about the subject? If not, then the subject fails WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list.
Lastly, I should mention that the subject's role in Gundam SEED isn't even out yet. It's literally just a cast announcement, so there is no notability nor coverage about it. Also, it's yet another redub voice. Sk8erPrince (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--
Changing "Weak keep" to just "keep", on reflection. The HuffPost and Vice articles represent in-depth, non-trivial coverage from more than one independent source. Therefore, I think Casey Mongillo passes WP:GNG. And while I'm 100% all in favor of merging smaller articles with larger ones, I don't see any good place to merge this article to, and I think it would be a shame to just lose it. The article may be somewhat short, but it's also interesting. It's not just a dry list of the actor's credits: it talks about both transphobia in the voice acting industry and non-binary representation in media. I'll point to this list of "very short featured articles", as well as the Wikipedia:Permastub essay than notes that Paper encyclopedias are full of informative, concise stubs. Finished permastubs likewise don't need expansion. WanderingWanda (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the HuffPost source[20] is a "contributor" article (RSP entry). HuffPo hosts user-generated content with minimal editorial oversight: effectively self-published blogs. (It's also an interview in question-answer format, not in-depth external coverage.) Cheers, gnu57 22:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out, GNU. I'd imagine that brings the subject meeting WP:SIGCOV into further doubt. Also, a working actor's article *should not* be a permastub; that violates WP:WHYN. Furthermore, WP:WHYN is an actual policy, while Wikipedia:Permastub is just an essay - we don't even know if it's a widespread Wikipedia norm. I am doubtful that it is, because it strongly contradicts with WP:WHYN.
Also, Wanda, with your latest reply, you're basically admitting that it is unlikely for the article to be expanded in the foreseeable future because you think it's a permastub that "doesn't need expanding", and the only real reason you want to keep the article is because "it would be a shame". That seems to be a "personal taste" type argument, if you ask me. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
--
Hmm, I knew to look out for Forbes's weird "contributor" distinction, but HuffPost pulls it too, huh? Back to "weak keep" then. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes and Huffpost's contributor section is not reliable, see WP:RSP. It would have to be written by staff editors. If the "contributor" is independently reliable, then reconsider on case-by-case basis. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my analysis of the articles cited:
* The Vice article [21] is a great detailed analysis of Mongillo's portrayal with the LGBT perspective. I would count this article towards significant coverage.
* Huffpost "She's changing the game" [22] is detailed on Mongillo's career, but it is also contributor driven, but if Florida Dame is a notable journalist, then it's a maybe, but it's also a Q&A interview for 2/3 of the article.
* TV Guide - (have to access this one later) hard to tell, mentions name, "good job" and "trans"
* Pride.com [23] - listed among 10 voice actors in LGBT and just has a brief paragraph, not significant coverage.
* Daily Dot [24] - this is passing mention: "Casey Mongillo did an excellent job voicing the main character, Shinji Ikari"
So I would count Evangelion as a major role towards WP:ENT. Where is the second one? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:12, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AngusWOOF, if you ask me, there needs to be at least three major roles to qualify for WP:ENT, and even then, there needs to be WP:SIGCOV that talks about those roles, as well as reviews. Just getting cast for voice roles (even if they're main roles) isn't enough. From what I'm seeing at the moment, the reliable sources are incredibly scant. Sk8erPrince (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENT says multiple, which is defined as more than one. So two is enough, you don't need three. Dream Focus 23:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's just your interpretation of the guideline. Nowhere in the guideline says that two is the minimum. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two has always been the minimum. There is no other way to interpret the dictionary definition of the word "multiple". Dream Focus 04:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You do have an argument there when it comes to "multiple" as it is not defined clearly, it does bother me though on the lack of significant coverage. If we were going for WP:IAR then a poorly sourced BLP with passing mentions isn't helpful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: You can't just call out an automatic deletion for Casey, while it is true that this voice actor is still new to the VA community, but like all voice actors, they need more time to develop as a professional voice actor. but your not even giving Casey the chance to do that, even though Casey has her own account, IMDB, BTVA, Instagram, ANN Page & last but not least own website. So please, don't delete this article just yet, all I'm asking s that you give this article some more time to develop, ok. Norozco1 (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's your rationale for keeping the article, it's policy non-compliant. It's literally a non-argument. You have cited a total number of zero policies. Any voice actor can just create a Twitter profile or have user generated pages as long as they have voiced at least one role. That doesn't make them notable. Please read WP:BASIC, WP:NOTABILITY, and please stop begging for mercy. What you just did is an argument that you should have avoided making. Also, articles should ideally be fully fleshed out in their draft state before they're even published. How many years a voice actor has been in the industry is also immaterial to their notability.
Furthermore, one of the subject's earlier works is from 2010, in Red Dead Redemption. That was 9 years ago. This means the subject isn't new to the industry like you claim they are. And even if the subject were an industry newbie, we don't hand out free passes just because of that. They still need to meet our notability guidelines - no subject is exempt from that.
Lastly, AFD is not an "automatic" process; this article could only be deleted if there a *consensus* to delete. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP 04:12, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple social media accounts does not mean notability. The articles are brief paragraphs that say "Casey does a great job" and "Casey came out as trans". So there is potential Casey could be notable, but need those WP:THREE in-depth articles that focus on Casey. If those magazines are writing about Casey's career then great, bring those out. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Three is an essay and a rather stupid one at that. The notability guidelines say multiple, which the dictionary defines as more than one. So saying two isn't enough you need three, is just pointless. Dream Focus 23:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yet, the essay cites WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV, and it is very much in line with site policy, especially in regards to expanding articles with more credible sources. The essay is hardly stupid, if you ask me. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per our guideline WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON. I am fully open though to a redirect to Shinji Ikari or a user draft if an editor is willing to work on it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The fact that the HuffPost article is unreliable, and probably unusable per WP:BLP, is a pretty big blow to my above arguments. Therefore, I'm flip-flopping again: let's merge the Evangelion-related content to Neon Genesis Evangelion (or Shinji Ikari). (I do think it would be good to save/userfy the article, though, as we may want to recreate it in the future.) WanderingWanda (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep How is this even a topic of discussion? Meets literally all criteria for a valid Wikipedia article. The S (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You claim that the article meets the notability critieria, but what are they? For someone that's so sure of what they're saying, surely, you should be able to cite some of the site policies to back up your argument? Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I fail to see what Spike Spencer's notability has to do with Casey Mongillo's. Casey has done more than enough voice work over the past decade, with increasingly notable roles in recent years, and is arguably more notable than many other voice actors on this site. The only reason the person requested deletion seems to just be out of obsession for Spike Spencer and some delusion of defending his honour. That's not a grounds for deletion, that's a grounds for mental evaluation.64.231.241.225 (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "Arguably" more notable, huh? Why don't you prove it by citing Wikipedia's guidelines? And "mental evaluation", huh? That's rich, coming from an IP that is most likely canvassed by the subject's tweets to defend them (which I will update above). You know, throwing "Strong Keep" doesn't help keep the article. It's about consensus and the strength of the argument. Oh, and thanks for the WP:PERSONAL ATTACK, by the way. That's against the rules. Sk8erPrince (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not intended as a personal attack, it was an observation of your juvenile reasoning for requesting deletion, which was almost entirely just "Spike Spencer did Shinji more so Casey Mongillo shouldn't have an article". That's not how things work. As others have already pointed out, they meet the criteria for an article — I don't have to provide examples when others have already done so. Stop being so upset and stop acting so aggressive towards everyone who doesn't think exactly as you do. People other than Spike Spencer are allowed to have Wikipedia articles. Also epic "ur an ip user lul" response. I don't care about what Casey tweets, if this article deserved deletion then I wouldn't have bothered. Furthermore, your tweets and strange childish beliefs that "being in the Rebuilds means they're better" [25] further solidify that you're only reason for requesting deletion is spite and fanboyism for the original Evangelion cast. Please stop trying to make this website about yourself and grow up. Don't claim others are personally attacking you when you're acting out in a childish tantrum. 64.231.243.99 (talk) 04:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As a participant of an AFD, you *do* have to cite valid guidelines when you present an argument. Just because other people share similar sentiments with you, that doesn't mean you're exempt from citing nothing. I cited the guidelines, and you did not. There's more pressing concerns than just the subject's voicework as Shinji - as noted above with WP:SIGCOV and WP:WHYN. Saying the subject deserves to have their own article without citing any guidelines is just empty words.
And you're free to deny that you made a personal attack against me, but it doesn't change the fact that you did - I don't need a mental evaluation just because I nominated an article for deletion. The fact that you can't even tell that you made a personal attack against me is very concerning per WP:CIR. If you can't disagree without resorting to name calling, then please stop editing on the project. Nobody's throwing a childish tantrum here. Rather, the one that's hurling insults at me seems to fit that description way more. Your editing history seems to strongly imply that you're just here to attack me, which means you're not really here to build an encyclopedia. [1]
You're one to talk about aggression when you talked down to me for needing a mental evaluation, and having no contribution history for the last decade or so up until just now, which makes you suspicious, and likely canvassed by the subject's tweets.
PS: Stop IP hopping in an attempt to evade detection. And don't try to link other Twitter accounts when it's irrelevant to this debate. Plenty of people dislike the redub. Oh, and feel free to keep talking down to me. I won't be responding to you any more unless you could cite some actual guidelines. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not IP hopping, and the contribution from a decade ago is from another person who happened to have my IP at some point, but alright then. I'll tell my IP to stop changing when you stop acting like an aggressive asshole towards every single person here. I'll end this discussion now since this obviously isn't going anywhere and we're both just running in circles pointlessly. 64.231.243.99 (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: The canvassed WP:NOTHERE IP has been blocked for personal attacks. Check the diff here. Sk8erPrince (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: You are beginning to bludgeon this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG only works if the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". At least half of the sources present point to social media which act as primary sources, the rest appear to be passing mentions that do not go into detail on the person other than the characters she voices. AngusWOOF did a nice job breaking down the possible usable sources above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My !vote stands and is self explanatory. I know how this works. A voice actor is known for their work, and this one has a large body of work. Move on. Lightburst (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The huffpo, and vice articles are reliable third party, non trivial coverage. AdamF in MO (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The Vice article is fine and can be used as a reliable source, but *definitely* not the contributor-written Huffpost article. To quote Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#HuffPost_contributors: HuffPost includes content written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight. These contributors generally do not have a reputation for fact-checking, and most editors criticize the quality of their content. Editors show consensus for treating HuffPost contributor articles as self-published sources, unless the article was written by a subject-matter expert. In 2018, HuffPost discontinued its contributor platform, but old contributor articles are still online. Check the byline to determine whether an article is written by a staff member or a "Contributor" (also referred to as an "Editorial Partner"). With only one in depth article from Vice, I am not convinced that the subject meets WP:GNG. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:40, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This person clearly passes criteria 1 of ent. AdamF in MO (talk) 10:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting WP:ENT #1: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. How does the subject meet the criteria in question? Shinji is the only role that had coverage in one article. What are their other notable roles? Sk8erPrince (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You yourself already listed Sho from Mod Psycho 100 as another notable role. Please stop contradicting your own previous statements, and please for the love of God stop bludgeoning the AFD. This is beyond ridiculous at this point. 64.231.240.160 (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're one to talk about "bludgeoning" when I was just complying with deletion policy and replying calmly with counterarguments, which is perfectly acceptable behavior. You don't get to talk down to me again, you block evading IP. Look forward to the range block. If you don't want to participate in this AFD, then just say so. I've had enough with your rudeness.
But anyway, I did not contradict myself. I did list Sho at the top, but the role has no coverage and it's not a main role. I only mentioned it because it's the only other role that kind of stood out other than Shinji. It's hard to determine how notable it is due to lack of coverage. Beyond Sho and Shinji, are there any more notable roles? If not, then I doubt that the subject meets WP:ENT. Also, I was asking Adam, not you. He can talk for himself. Sk8erPrince (talk) 04:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: The canvassed IP hopping troll has been range blocked. This makes it two times that the IP has been blocked for persistent harassment. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - Huffington Post Contributors are user-generated content and don't contribute anything to notability. The entire claim of notability here is based on a credit (not insignificant, but isn't a substitute for WP:N -- prominent roles are good indicators of notability, not a free pass; we need to write an article based on sources after all, not on credits) and the Vice article. The latter is quite good. If there were one other thing that weren't a listicle, user-generated content, or a brief mention, I'd be over on the weak keep side. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or stubify. Almost all of the references in the article do not meet the standards for sourcing at WP:VERIFIABILITY. The only usable source in the entire article is the vice article. The article clearly fails WP:SIGCOV. However, given the several prominent voice roles which are verifiable through the vice article, the subject does pass criteria #1 of WP:NACTOR. This leaves us with two options: 1. Delete for lack of significant coverage; or 2. Stubify by removing all unusable sources and unsourced content to avoid BLP violations. I am ok with either.4meter4 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire Vice article only talks about Shinji, though. The subject's other roles aren't mentioned. I'm doubtful that the subject meets WP:ENT due to only one notable portrayal. That being said, I agree that the article has only one usable source, hence failing WP:SIGCOV. Sk8erPrince (talk) 07:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Additional reference discovered. (non-admin closure) scope_creepTalk 18:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Younge-Ullman

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

Non-notable writer. Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 15:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'm the author of the article and here's why it should be kept: She does not fail WP:AUTHOR as one of her books was a finalist for the 2017 Governor General Literary Award and therefore qualifies under criteria #3. She's also a notable person, as independant reliable sources give her coverage. I can dig through newspapers and add more, which was part of the reason I originally had the article in draft space (as I planned to improve it). I was busy, and do other stuff on-wiki in the meantime. Yesterday, the draft was deleted under G13 as abandoned, and I submitted a WP:REFUND request to contunie working on it. I moved it to mainspace to prevent it from being deleted again under G13 if I got busy again, as I'm a grade 12 student and I might not be as active on Wikipedia for periods of time because of my obligations as a student. Clovermoss (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
scope_creep No wikiprojects have been notified of this discussion. Would it be okay if WP:Canada and WP:Women in Red were notified of this AfD? Clovermoss (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Clovermoss: Of course!!. The process will add all interested groups in shortly anyway. Hope that helps.scope_creepTalk 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy close as the move back to mainspace was an end-run around the previous AfD that just closed a few days ago. Please do not move the draft back into mainspace without addressing the issues raised at the previous AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prabal Kumar Basu

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

was draftified by discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabal Kumar Basu and then was immediately moved back into the mainspace without any changes 10 days later. no refs added since the so still fails WP:POET as per the deletion discussion. It seems the creator of this article has no intention of improving the article, just pushing it back into the mainspace. CodeLyokobuzz 14:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CodeLyokobuzz 14:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CodeLyokobuzz 14:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CodeLyokobuzz 14:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CodeLyokobuzz 14:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: pinging RoySmith as the closer of the last deletion discussion. CodeLyokobuzz 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Idea (Ariana Grande song)

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

While this song did chart and received some coverage through album reviews, there is no standalone coverage about this song; therefore, it is not notable per WP:NSONGS which states that a song is "notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". It also states that "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability", which is exactly what is being referenced in this article. It also explicitly states "that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created". This article should be redirected to its album, Thank U, Next. Billiekhalidfan (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I vote keep per WP:GNG. I get what Billiekhalidfan is saying, but the song has charted in almost 20 countries, and the article's "background and composition" section could be expanded with other composition details and reviews, even if they come from reviews of the album as a whole. I've done a quick Google search and posted some links for consideration on the article's talk page (just a handful of many similar articles). Additionally, this article needs a "Performances" section because she performed the song during the Sweetener Tour and at both Coachella and Lollapalooza. Mention of the remix(es?) should also be added. With the addition of "Remix", "Personnel", and "Reception" sections, I could see this being a nice little article. Finally, if editors decide the song is not independently notable, please just redirect and do not delete the page entirely, because the page is a possible search term and may be expanded further at a later date, especially since there may be more coverage still since this is Grande's most recent release. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At its core, WP:GNG (and its subject-specific variants) exist to filter out topics for which it would be impossible to write an article with substantial and verifiable information. If the only thing we can offer about a song is standard metadata like who performed it, who wrote it, who produced it, how long it is, which album it's from, etc. then we should not have an article about it (because Wikipedia is not a song database). But that's not the case here. The § Background and composition section, while not very long, provides some interesting (sourced) details about the song's composition. I think it would be a shame to remove this information from the encyclopedia. Also, secondary coverage is not limited to album reviews (this Rolling Stone feature that talks about the song's composition is not a review). Colin M (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin M, Agreed, and there's not even a "Reception" section yet... ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: more information is being added to the article. It has received stand-alone coverage and has charted in many charts, enough to keep it. Paparazzzi (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paparazzzi: Where is there stand-alone coverage? Billiekhalidfan (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vibrant Technologies

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

Non notable company. The NYT source is a profile of the founder, not the company. Lacks sustained coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zidan’s Model of Quantum Computing

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

The notability of the method has not been demonstrated, and, in additional, the article has been created by a new single-purpose account. There are four references in the article, all four are articles in the refereed journals, but none of the journals is high-impact, and the totality of the four articles come from two research groups. Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 10:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Venturi

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

WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 09:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Troll (Dungeons & Dragons)#Troll variants. Not strictly the consensus, but I think a reasonable compromise between the various delete/redirect/merge sentiments, and WP:ATD-compliant. If somebody wants to troll the history for material to merge, you can do that, but keep in mind WP:V and WP:UNDUE. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giant two-headed troll

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

Another non-notable D&D monster variant, much like my earlier nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giant troll. Unfortunately, having double the heads doesn't equate to having any more notability, as the lack of reliable, secondary sources would indicate. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.. Giant trolls, sea trolls, spectral trolls, spirit trolls. wraith trolls – they're all the same thing, with tweaks; and the specifications vary from one set of rules to the next. Merge any of them that appear from under their bridges to Troll (Dungeons & Dragons). Narky Blert (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of original GoBots. The sourcing to Time magazine doesn't satisfy GNG, just so you know. (non-admin closure) ミラP 17:06, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leader-1

Leader-1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unable to read the Time source, but it seems like fluff considering it's used to reference a basic fact about the character. That's the same for everything else. If they have anything of substance, the person who added them certainly didn't feel like showing it. TTN (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand for TIME, but have you searched for additional sources before the nomination or checked out the ones present? Its easy to say that something isn't notable, but you have to show how this is true per WP:BEFORE "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deneen Borelli

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

Lack of remotely any WP:JOURNALIST notability or WP:NRV third party source demonstrating consistent, sustained, substantial notability for a journalist. - 2601:5C2:4380:6380:FDCD:863B:69D2:EBF1 (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hong Kong ODI cricket centurions

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

Per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTMIRROR. Anyone interested in such stuff should use statsguru, no need to mirror here. Also, there is no precedent of having such articles in other sports. Störm (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same above reason:

List of Afghanistan Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Australia Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Bangladesh Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of England Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of India Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ireland Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of New Zealand Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Pakistan Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of South Africa Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Sri Lanka Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of West Indies Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Zimbabwe Test cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Afghanistan ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Australia ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Bangladesh ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Bermuda ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Canada ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of England ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Hong Kong ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of India ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Ireland ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Kenya ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Nepal ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Netherlands ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of New Zealand ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Papua New Guinea ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Scotland ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of West Indies ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of United Arab Emirates ODI cricket centurions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Also, I have requested speedy deletion of some articles which were started by me. Thanks. Störm (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern International University

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

Unreferenced and promotional, but appears to be defunct Rathfelder (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastián Serrano

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

Most of the references are focussed on the company, not the individual, so it is possible as an alternative that his company, Ripio, might be notable-- I am not sure, because many of the references are PR or notices. But it might be worth considering. As for the person, there seem to be no sources substantially on the person, except the Forbes interview. And that interview, as is customary, is essentially PR-driven, an excuse for him to say whatever he want to in orderto promote his company. We should nno longer accept this sort of material for BLP, just as we no longer accept it for companies, as specified in WP:NCORP, Some of the other material, is his self-written introduction to his talks, The question for notability is whether any of this is more than PR and mentions. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:05, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not Delete Sebastián Serrano is a notable person in Argentina and in the Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency world. His profile is similar to Pierpaolo Barbieri, founder of Ualá. I replaced and added sources and added more information in order to prove relevance regarding his career and two of his most important developments, BitPagos and Ripio. As the articles states, he is one of the few developers who had created apps related to cryptocurrencies in Latin America. He is mentioned as a case study in two of the key books about Blockchain and Bitcoin technologies that were cited as sources and he is an authorised word in everything related with Bitcoin.The relevance of Sebastian can also be seen in the sources cited, which apart from the books, are from the most important newspapers of Argentina and the most popular Bitcoin news websites of the world. Sebastián is not merely a bussinessman, he is one of the most important Bitcoin specialist in Latin America and one of the most relevant influencers, according to the news website Techfoliance.[1]--Tishoteles (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Spanish language sources (many of which are reputable newspapers) seem to offer clear profiles of Serrano that aren't passing mentions. The content of the page itself might delve too deeply into the details of each of his businesses, though. I don't think that takes away from the notability established in some of the cited sources. Gargleafg (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It does look like he is of some significance in the Argentian blockchain world. However, the sources presented in the article, in both English and Spanish, fail to be from RS or fail some other element that would confer notability. I agree that Ripio might be notable and if that article existed I'd recommend a merge or redirect there. But as it does not and he lacks coverage in the kinds of sources that establish notability here, we end up at delete. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Barkeep49. There does appear to be enough significant coverage for Ripio but not for its founder. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Six Korean name articles created today

Won (Korean given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shi (Korean given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eon (Korean given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Si-young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Si-eun (Korean given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Si-eon (Korean given name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am nominating the above six articles for deletion for the following reasons:

  1. They all rely on two sources, one of which is, in all six cases, a Wikimedia sister project, which violates circular referencing standards. The other is either a link to a dictionary or a government document regarding naming procedure.
  2. Due to the lack of reliable sourcing, there is little evidence provided that each of these names meets the general notability guideline. In any event, a government document detailing naming rules does not constitute significant coverage.
  3. The articles impart no useful information regarding the names and Wikipedia is not a directory or indiscriminate collection of information. Entries at List of Korean given names should suffice.

While the following two points are circumstantial and not reasons to delete in themselves, it is worth noting that all of the articles were:

  1. created on the same day
  2. created by the same user.

SITH (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment English Wikipedia has many articles about individual personal names. From what I have seen at AfD, they are usually kept if there are sources and also notable people who have the name, who are or can be included in the article. There are articles about people with the given name Won, or with Won as an element in a two-syllable name, who could be included in the article. Dictionaries of personal names are usually accepted as sources. I note that the Won article was nominated for deletion less than one hour after it was created. It doesn't even have a talk page, so the relevant Wikiprojects (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy) would not even know that the article existed. Why not ask at WikiProject Korea for help with finding and adding more reliable sources? Why not leave the page curation tags on the article for longer than 38 minutes? RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • RebeccaGreen, I'd have no problem incubating these articles in the draftspace, especially if you or those at the WikiProjects you mention think there is hope of improving the articles such that they pass the general notability guideline and aren't just directory entries, in fact, I was going to move them to the draftspace but they had been in the NPP queue for less than a day and there are only six of them so the problem wasn't pervasive enough to do that, which is why I brought them here for a community discussion. Which one doesn't have a talk page yet? I'd be happy to set up the banners and notify the WikiProjects in question. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 08:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BEFORE was not followed. Further given name pages are essentially disambiguation/navigation pages for readers searching by first or last name. They serve a useful and practical and necessary function on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utpal Shanghvi School

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

100% unsourced and reads like an advertisement. Listing here for community input. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 04:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:27, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also, that the refs you quoted are directory listings as a result of paid promo, not reliable third-party "independent" significant coverage. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide reference of your claim that the ranking are "a result of paid promo". Also, provide ref why Hindustan Times is not "independent" from the subject school. Without such references, these are just your opinion. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is literally a directory listing and quotes the the principal, what are you talking about? --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: a school that exist, which can be verified. But still the school does not pass WP:GNG. Also per February 2017 RFC. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself clearly states (which was decided in the RfC): Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. and WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions[...]. SCHOOLOUTCOMES also provides the link to that RfC. Basically, as this school fails WP:NGEO, WP:ORG, and WP:GNG as well, there is no reason at all to keep the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wasnt aware of the RFC that makes SCHOOLOUTCOMES redundant now. Hence striked out the rationale in my !vote. But i maintain my Keep as the school passes GNG as well. Article has been improved thus. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
it still lacks significant coverage. —usernamekiran(talk) 17:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
School's annual day gets full news article. So does it's cleanliness drive. Students keep appearing in various news for the sports and academics. They get scholarship. Schools gets award and also is notably first Indian School to get ISO certificate. Did you even browse through the article? That's significant coverage enough. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 18:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By our current standards of sourcing, there's enough for notability . The RfC on schools did not say that high shools weren't notable; it didn't even say that most or even many high schools were unlikely to be notable;it meely said we could not quote Schooloutcomes and leave it at that., but make an argument. The argument that mos thighschools will have sources if you look sufficienly which was one of the bases of the former schooloutcomes remains valid--and this article proves it. And way back 10 and 11 years ago when there were attempts to delete as many schools as possible, even then the argument theat there were notable alumni, was generally acceptted as implying `nhy --and there are here. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by seconding DGG's comment, and some other notes: The school was started in 1982 so I believe there would have to be reliable sources about the construction and opening not online. Also while many of the cited pages are routine news (see WP:ROUTINE) there would have to be non routine coverage in Mumbai newspapers. I'll check Indian newspapers but I will also ask Indian editors for assistance. Non routine coverage often includes info about building construction, renovation, or expansion of the campus. Any changes in headmaster that are controversial may count too. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Found possibly a source with significant coverage:
    • Business India, Nummers 642-647. A.H. Advani, 2002. p. 24.
    • Quote: "His Utpal Shanghvi School is the first and only school in the country to get the iso9001 certification way back in 1994. It also achieved recognition from the French Bureau Veritas Quality International, a world leader in quality certification from[...]"
  • If you like I can ask Wikipedia:RX for the source. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WhisperToMe I have used that source to mention that the school is first indian school to get ISO 9001. But i couldn't get the full article to add more. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no changes in the article post QEDK commented here. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Feller

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

Nothing but minor roles; fails WP:NACTOR, WP:WHYN, and WP:SIGCOV. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sk8erPrince (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chonnaphat Buaphan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Andrew Base (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Andrew Base (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bhugra

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

Unsourced since 2011. The lede is incomprehensible (but that is not in itself an argument for deletion). The History section may be interesting, but is unsourced and has no obvious relation to the title. A WP:BEFORE search was not easy, because of the undoubted notability of Dinesh Bhugra, but turned up nothing. Blank and redirect to Dinesh Bhugra as {{R from surname}} (an {{intitle}} search turned up nothing else). Narky Blert (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 08:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Fontana mayoral election

2018 Fontana mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. I noted: Fontana, CA is not large enough of a city for its mayoral elections to be automatically notable, and the only source here is primary statistics about the race. Fails WP:GNG, arguably WP:NOTSTATS. A WP:BEFORE search for this nomination found only local sources. SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:10, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 04:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is a non-notable election.4meter4 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Canadian Automobile Association. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta Motor Association

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

As written, fails WP:NORG. All sources are primary sources, save for one source, a book, which may provide some background and contextual organization on the organization; however, I'd point out, that's only one source. The remainder of the potential sources do not provide significant coverage. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "Alberta Motor Association" reveals limited, if any, press mentions of or about the organization—all of it is either passing mentions, which mentions the organization in a tangential way, or which provides coverage of trivial matters such as surveys the organization commissioned or new products and services. As such, fails current and future WP:SIGCOV coverage. I note, too, that few automobile associations meet WP:Notability, with only American Automobile Association attracting enough coverage to meet WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply That would be trivial mentions, though, as I understand it. Notability is also not inherited. In terms of the sources you found, thanks. #1 may help to support background information, but sources #2-4 cover it only in a tangential way, which make passing reference, or which cover trivial matters (i.e., road safety campaign they sponsored). Doug Mehus (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA Saskatchewan
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA South Central Ontario
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAA-Quebec
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Automobile Association
and should be considered/closed similarly. Doug Mehus could you please indicate if there any more like this? This process seemed inefficient before (as maybe only one multi-item AFD was needed, tops), and now it seems worse. There was discussion and closure on some of the above. Do we need to round up duplicative discussion in a new round, now? --Doncram (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, Twinkle does not let you bundle AfDs, but no, this is the last of the related Canadian automobile association AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then do not use Twinkle. --Doncram (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this in one in particular is the worst of the bunch so, while I probably could've combined CAA Saskatchewan, CAA-Quebec, and CAA South Central Ontario into one AfD, this one has even less sources available. Moreover, crucially, per my above, AMA doesn't release any sort of corporate reporting or history beyond brief anecdotes, so even if we wanted to write a detailed article using entirely primary sources, we couldn't. I'd note, too, that AMA's chartered bank subsidiary Bridgewater Bank recently passed unanimous AfD for deletion as it was not notable and failed WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. So, it should be evaluated separately from the other AfDs. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Glad to know there are not more. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, and I would say "obviously". There is no dispute that the Alberta Motor Association exists, is very large, and has some basic history, including that there probably is some year of establishment, etc. Probably the minor amount of stuff about some fraud incident is wp:UNDUE and otherwise not worth mentioning. The basic facts of existence, etc., can be covered in a section covering the provincial subgroups at the main Canadian Automobile Association article. It is very sensible to leave a redirect behind, pointing to the correct section.
Arguments above for "deletion" of this, and probably arguments about the already-deleted Bridgewater Bank article, fail to address why redirects should not be kept, and why past content and contribution credits embedded in the edit history should not be saved. One reason being that future events, or discovery of much more reliably-sourced material, could lead to sensible restoration of these articles. And we are obligated to look for wp:ATD alternatives to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 16:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, The past contributions for this article are not worth noting in the edit history, particularly since many of them may, or appear to have been done by, editorially conflicted editors who quite likely were operating on behalf of their employer or a company paid by their employer. The prose is not especially significant, either. Nothing worth noting in edit history. Also, a company is not "obviously notable"—you really should read WP:Notability in its entirety. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, Doncram does not make a claim of "obviously notable", he says that the obvious solution is to merge appropriate content into the larger, notable topic. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
78.26, Well, he did say "obviously," following which he referenced how AMA "exists, is very large [...]," so the implication was that he thought it was obviously notable, but if that's not the case, that's fine. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to merge or a redirect as the existing prose in this article may not be worth salvaging. Plus, someone could easily just re-create a redirect. Nevertheless, we do seem to have near unanimity in terms of there not being sufficient reliable, independent sources for WP:CORPDEPTH and standalone WP:Notability such that every person either favours delete, merge, or redirect. I guess my preference would be for the first, followed by the last, and ultimately, the middle of the trio of options as my third choice. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes by "obvious" I meant it is obviously the right solution to merge the article, rather than to delete it. I've been going round on this with User:Dmehus at the other articles' AFDs and maybe elsewhere. They do not attach much weight, if any, to the importance of our adhering to Wikipedia's commitment to contributors. To me it is, well, obvious that we should comply with our obligations to assist in proper attribution/credit to authors that way.
And for other reasons it is good to keep the original articles (at least in edit history) rather than delete them outright. See essay wp:TNTTNT to which I contributed for more of those. Just one more reason is that preserving the edit history helps inform future editors if/when someone arrives and creates an article on the topic again. If it was outright deleted, then there is no way, or it is not simple, for other editors to find their way to this AFD discussion. The Talk page of the article, which would carry link to this AFD, would have been deleted. Any discussion at the Talk page and here will effectively have been lost, and cannot inform considerations about what to do with the new article. All judments about the relative merits of keeping/including various types of information would have been lost....including say my brilliant comment about preferring not to include the fraud stuff.
Also labelling the decision here as "merge" rather than "redirect" is better, is more descriptive, as long as we are in fact intending to merge some content from here into the CAA article. Choosing to say "redirect" would be petulant, like trying to emphasize that the previous well-intentioned and reasonable efforts by previous editors was really bad, like their work was s*****y or whatever. No need to be rude that way. Specific material and sources that in fact appear to me should be merged over (with editing) include:
  • that the AMA serves Alberta and the Northwest Territories, was founded in 1926 (maybe or maybe not mentioning it was started with 1400 members and that original dues were $6.50), with this source:[2]
  • that it is headquartered in Edmonton and has more than 950,000 members as of June 2018, with this source:[3]

References

  1. ^ "Rapping of the 20 must-know Fintech Influencers in Argentina". Techfoliance. Retrieved 2019-10-17.
  2. ^ Foran, Max (1982). Calgary, Canada's frontier metropolis : an illustrated history. Windsor Publications. p. 277. ISBN 0-89781-055-4. Archived from the original on 2015-06-23. Retrieved 2013-06-07.
  3. ^ AMA. "About the Alberta Motor Association". Archived from the original on 26 October 2017. Retrieved 2018-06-12.
Brief stuff like that should go into a table row about AMA, perhaps, or into text in the needed section about CAAs subdivisions/affiliates, IMO.
To decide what to do here, Dmehus and I do not have to come to agreement about all that. "Merge" is okay by them and, I guess, is strongly preferred by me (because I think it is the right thing to do for many reasons). --Doncram (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I'll remember that book name. I'll take a look and see what's useful, though I disagree it should be mentioned in a "table row" on the merged page about AMA. Stripping out the WP:Puffery and rewriting in a WP:NPOV, I can condense that article into about a paragraph (with citations, including those mentioned). I'm just saying, since a substantial rewrite is necessary, I'd favour redirect over merge. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Where I disagree with you is the need to "credit" the authors. When you edit Wikipedia, you edit on the condition that your edits are uncredited—that is, pooled together with those of other editors, and then licensed fully to Wikimedia Foundation, who, in turn, license the collective content under CC-BY-SA (attribution is to Wikimedia/Wikipedia).Doug Mehus (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, I also take issue with how you've characterized my redirect rationale. Similar to how I misunderstood your "obviously" statement, you've totally misread my reason for favouring redirect. It's not about saying their work was "sh**ty" as you suggest, but rather just eliminating the prose that was written rather hastily—like trying to be first create an article without regard to whether it meets WP:Notability or WP:NPOV. That's all.Doug Mehus (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are simply wrong about the need to credit. I do not edit on condition that my contributions are uncredited, not at all. I absolutely do want to know that I and others can see, in my contribution history mostly (and only a little bit more by explicit credits in edit summaries (and continuing existence of my work in contribution history at a redirect), say, when my work has been merged elsewhere), all of my contributions. And it matters to me that anyone can figure out whether or not it was me that contributed some beautiful wording or some neat fact or insight or some mistake.
I don't care if coverage of the several branches of CAA is done in table of rows or in short paragraphs about each. But okay, you did not say their work was "s****y", not sure if I was implying that or mischaracterizing somewhat and if so I apologize. But I do think many editors, especially any citing essay wp:TNT (which you did not) and seeking deletion, do show reckless disregard for the previous editors, which rankles me a lot. But it does seem that you value/respect the previous editors' contributions less than I do, you are being very explicit about that.
I happen to have contributed around 15,000 new articles, almost all about historic sites and starting out as fairly short stubs, but I take pride in those contributions, esp. for the good sources linked with more info for interested readers, and for the inter-connections to other articles that I figure out to include, and for my decision-making about creating related articles, and more. Some in the past have been insulting to me about my contributions, and in general I feel they are ignorant about what was involved, and could not do what I have done, and/or they are malicious bullies or worse. But I do understand in general what you mean .... I myself do have a gripe myself with one or two specific editors who have created a ton of extremely short stubs with no value added, or negative value added, as if they just want to run up their article creation stats, where the stubs have same or less info than is already carried in well-constructed list-article tables. It is my estimation here, though, that the authors were well-intentioned and did quite a decent job (meaning the set of all previous editors who built up the article to its current state; i am not evaluating the original author's contribution). And I think you under-estimate their contribution, including by their having found and formatted the sources included and more, and their having made decisions about what to select or not, and so on. Maybe we can agree that we are just coming from different perspectives. --Doncram (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, Yeah, and starting short stubs on historic sites like you have largely done apparently is entirely different. There's more research that can be done. Plus, the historic site doesn't hire anyone to do SEO work to promote their website. I think we have to be hyper-viligant with regard to companies and organizations for AfD, as well as biographies. But yeah, if it's just about a park, an auditorium, a historic site, or some sort of topical encyclopedic topic on say, Rope, then it's absolutely fine to have it start as a stub-class article and leave it there for as long as necessary. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Doncram, But yeah, some editors have been helpful, but it's mostly been clean-up, tagging categories, and the like. I don't care, personally, if an article I performed such trivial cleanup on is AfD'd. I was speaking mainly about the contributions of users "JaneySmith" and "Amatravel," who appear to have been editorially conflicted in their edits (especially the latter), and to the article's creator, who seems to have just wanted to run up article creation stats. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The sole delete voter has been blocked for sockpuppetry and the sole non-comment vote generated a lot of discussion, so an extra week is recommended.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ミラP 04:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FOARP, LOL! For two people, we did get quite the deletion discussion going, didn't we? ;)Doug Mehus (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America1000 09:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Max Aruj

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

Appears to be non-notable - excluding the bio pages, all sources were either very tangential mention (with Aruj in a credits list) or were largely interview/quotes from Aruj rather than significant independent coverage. Someone whose main claim to fame is "additional music" for a score probably doesn't meet notability standards. Didn't manage to turn up any better sources in a WP:BEFORE search. creffett (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. creffett (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Autobots. RL0919 (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert (Transformers)

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

Non-notable character TTN (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Mario franchise characters#Recurring enemies. RL0919 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Bones (character)

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

A WP:BEFORE found nothing notable about the Dry Bones enemy that merits a separate page. Unreferenced and fancrufty. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ミラP 03:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powermasters

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. bd2412 T 01:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Machine Wars

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

Non-notable topic TTN (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Revelation Space locations

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

Just another Revelation Space fancruft list with zilch sourcing. Following on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Factions in Revelation Space. ミラP 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ミラP 01:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus among participating editors over whether the provided sources establish notability under NCORP. As the there has been fairly extensive discussion I do not think it qualifies for a further relist under policy and instead am closing this as no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beesfund

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

Very large article on very small venture fund--the total capitalization is about $8 million. The references exception are notices of funding or trivial PR releases or interviews that amount to pr releases, like ref. 3, where the founder says whatever he cares to, or inclusion in general articles. DGG ( talk ) 10:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm sorry, your arguments are not true. It's not a venture fund, it's an equity crowdfunding platform that is gaining a significant attention of mainstream media, including Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider. I'm really able to recognize "trivial PR releases," hence I have included none. I can understand the subject is complicated (articles on other platforms are of similar length: PledgeMusic, Symbid, Invesdor) -- and this is why I carefully tried to explain the complexity with the NPOV, in an informative form, with facts having sources. The length itself, nor capitalization (what's your source?) is no reason for deletion. If you have doubts, we can add the {{expert needed}} badge. — Kochas 15:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
DGG, as per WP:SAVEPROD, and no clear consensus, I'm letting you know I've explained the rationale on creating the article in the discussion here. I've also edited out the article. If I may, I suggest we deprod. Should you had any further questions and/or suggestions what bits you have doubts over, I'd be happy to respond and work further on the article. — Kochas (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it appears to be notable and is one of the more well written articles compared to the permastubs like Motus Bank and other Canadian financial institutions. Still, that's not to say this article doesn't need some WP:NPOV improvements. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Long article. I'd like to ask User:Kochas is he has any WP:COI to declare, such as being paid to create this? Now, notability. Lots of press releases and primary. [42] (Forbes) is half-interview, and the parts that are not read like taken from a press release. [43] Another interview. [44] - paywalled, so can't verify. [45] - rewritten press/release / one para. Everything else seems like low quality source. It's a very long WP:CORSPAM entry, but in the end I don't see what makes it pass WP:NORG. In other words, the usual start-up 'buy us/our shares' type of promo spam. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:21, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your voice, User:Piotrus. For a one-time journalist and editor myself, my mission is to provide useful, readable prose. And as you might see in my edits, I prefer to contribute with coherent articles rather than adding small parts, to make a strong, well written material for a WP:GOOD article. Which has nothing to do with WP:PE. When you're interested (or are fascinated by, for that matter) in a subject, you're dedicated to spread the word. I'm sure you know it yourself, since you've created so many history articles (kudos to you!). The company is gaining so much media attention I've been gathering all the sources for a long time now, eventually making a strong article out of it. Similarly to my earlier articles on Venture capital in Poland, or Startup Poland, on subjects hardly anyone has wished to cover, so far. If you are seeing doubtful references, you're free to remove them, change them, or ask other contributors to have a look at them. I'm considering nominating myself for a reviewer or other specialized function, and I would never cut shortcuts with WP:CITESPAM (I guess that's what you're referring to). – Kochas (talk) 12:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am convinced there are no COI issues here, however I am still unconvinced this passes WP:NCORP. Granted, it is difficult to AGF such topics due to high volume of spam. Your article is very well written, but is it notable? I am afraid that the coverage is still rather weak (press releases, business as usual reports, few interviews...). Well, let's see what others will say. Btw, I think that it makes much more sense to write articles on venture capital / startups in Poland, where semi-notable startups etc. can be discussed, and I commend you for your work on those overview articles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:17, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I appreciate the good word. And as for the coverage, I wouldn't bother with blogs and press releases to affect my reputation. I was really careful to quote nothing but articles that still accumulate in major news outlets in Poland, and they don't just publish PR messages. I'd be happy to work on the piece further with anyone familiar with the subject. – Kochas (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, Dmehus, both of you have indicated that you have found references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I have been unable to find any. [This reference, for example, is based entirely on an interview with Ludwik Sobolewski who used to be the former president of the Warsaw Stock Exchange but had just joined Beesfund before the interview (and the article is littered with references that show that Sobolewski is being interviewed and is providing the information). What other references do you believe meet the criteria? I know the 80 references looks daunting but you can automatically exclude easily identifiable primary sources, blogs, company announcements or articles based on same, articles based on interviews, mentions-in-passing or inclusion in lists, etc. There's nothing left after that as far as I can see.... HighKing++ 16:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HighKing, with all due respect, last time I checked, quotes from international media outlets on English Wikipedia (Polish and Romanian included) were considered notable enough. The article you mention doesn't only interview the guy, the author elaborates further what does adding the former WSE chief to the company actually means. — Kochas (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit more source discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, K.e.coffman, but I'm sorry, no argument you raise here is true. Please let me clarify, in case you did not speak Polish (as the company in question originates from Poland, and so does the majority of my references) – I would never quote any opinion pieces in a Wikipedia article. Not to mention self-promotion, or propaganda for that matter (re: WP:PROMO). With all due respect, I have doubts that any historian who is an expert in World War II matters, would necessarily recognize significance of latest equity market subjects, including blockchain efforts led by share market players. And vice versa, certainly. If you did speak Polish, you would definitely know every WP:ORGCRIT criteria are in fact met here. That was my idea to put together the article in the first place. The company's presence in major Polish media is increasing thanks to its crowdfunding campaigns involving hundreds of investors, as well as the changing European law – and in turn, for the last few years now, the major economy media in Poland has covered Beesfund in their headlines more and more. These are the very reasons the article should be there. I hope you reconsider. — Kochas (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article is lengthy because of its essaylike nature, using many news articles that are not about Beesfund. Maybe it is a sincere (but misguided) attempt to create a useful article, or maybe a deliberate attempt to give the impression Beesfund is more notable than in reality. Because of the amount of cleanup required, maybe it should be moved back to draftspace to re-write it on-topic, without any original synthesis, or off-topic commentary about crowdfunding. Sionk (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hi Sionk, I'm not sure if you !voted or not but in case you weren't aware, if an article is deleted, any editor can request the deleted article is placed in Draft space so that they can continue to work on it. HighKing++ 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For an article that has 80 references, not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. In order for a reference to establish notability, it must be significant and in-depth coverage on the *company* containing independent content consisting of original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In other words, no Primary sources, no references relying on interviews/quotations/company announcements, no references based on crystal ball gazing into the future, no mentions-in-passing and no churnalism. As I said, none of the references qualify. I also wholeheartedly agree that this article is highly promotional and resembles marketing literature. It is chock-full of company-speak promotional statements and falls foul of WP:SPIP. For example, the history section has 6 sub-headings with titles such as "Increasing interest" and "Further growth". By way of contrast, it has the same number of paragraphs as the Bank of America article. It contains other promotional statements such as "[the founders] own issuance served as an example to prove the legality of public issues of shares offered without a prospectus or memorandum" and "Beesfund wants not only startups but also mature companies to benefit from crowdfunding in Poland". The author continues to toe the company line while laying the "excuse" for not launching an accelerator by including a quote from Regiec laying the blame solely with the WSE. I'm tempted to edit the article but I doubt any editors who take the time to look at the references (and not balk at having to go through all 80) will quickly see that they fail the criteria. Topic fails GNG and NCORP and SPIP. HighKing++ 16:33, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @HighKing, the basis of your opinion on lack of notability seems to come out of not speaking Polish, sir. Otherwise you'd know the sources in question are major Polish daily newspapers (eg. Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita), economy dailies (Puls Biznesu, Parkiet), major weekly magazines (Polityka, Newsweek Polska), or economy news websites (or their economy spinoffs). The only instances I used the company's own website came out of the context, such as with the table of the biggest issuances. How can you contribute to the conversation, if you don't know the titles, or the names, hence the significance of the Polish media? Please let me exemplify this once again: the number of coverage in the Polish major media outlets through the recent years, and the increasing overall interest in Beesfund, the company's impact on the economy discourse were the reason for me to write the article in the first place. I haven't used any press releases for the article to be "highly promotional". The expression is a skeleton key in the discussion. You could name any *company* article this way. The sentences you've quoted serve the context. If they seem doubtful in your opinion, let's make them work fine, while assuming good will. Sionk did a pretty good job already. — Kochas (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response Hi Kochas, no, the basis for my !vote has very little to do with the language of the reference as Google Translate is very helpful in that regard. Just FYI, you should be a little more careful of shooting accusation/allegation at experienced editors, To turn your own arguments against you (only so that you can see how meaningless they really are) - you appear to have an overly-simplistic version of the type of reference that is required to meet the criteria for notability. An Independent Reference does not simply mean that the publisher has no link with the company but that the content must also be independent. How can you contribute to the conversation if you don't even know the applicable policies and guidelines? Please take a look at the definition of "Independent Content" at WP:ORGIND and then point me to any one of the the 80 links that meet the criteria and I will point out in detail why it fails the criteria. HighKing++ 19:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Hi HighKing, thank you for the reply. First of all, any further discussion wouldn't change your mind here, would it? Second, I had no intention of making you feel offended; if I have, I'm sorry. Although I haven't shot, accused, nor alleged anything to anyone here. Still, at the same time I feel sorry that you named my arguments "meaningless," my editing "not careful," and my understanding "overly-simplistic." And that you assumed I don't know the rules Wikipedia relies on. Oh, and the subtext about me being less experienced than you, sir, was also a bit depreciating (I won't bid my professional resume, and I've checked your impressive edits, no irony). So there, the discussion can now be nicer. With all that in mind, I value everyone's opinion in here. And in my opinion, all of my references are fine with the notability criteria: I've used no PR releases, no interviews support facts, no self-published content supports description of the company's activity. But if you feel they're not, and you have the urge for educating on semantics of media articles, I'm opened for discussions. Though please, no further analyses here, that would be an overkill. You can Wikipedia-email me for contact. Thank you, and best regards. — Kochas (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi Kochas, I specifically posted a link to the applicable guideline and further requested that you post a link to any reference that you believe meets the criteria for establishing notability and you've demurred. Hmmmm OK, but your continued assertion that "all" the references are "fine with the notability guidelines" does not stand up to any scrutiny whatsoever as I see several that clearly don't (e.g. Primary sources, interviews, etc). Since there are 80 references, there's a chance that using Google Translate might provide an incorrect position and I was hoping you might point to at least one good reference - I will change my mind if references are produced. HighKing++ 15:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • Response @HighKing. Alright, I appreciate the dialogue. The company in question, and the equity crowdfunding trade are so recent, that most of my sources are media articles, and not books, nor academic papers (although I've added additional publications on equity crowdfunding alone, as Further Reading). Out of all quoted articles, I've picked a few of those that included the most of valuable facts worth featuring in the Wikipedia article:
            1. “Beesfund Has Ambitious Plans...” — Major economy daily newspaper reports about the former Warsaw Stock Exchange chief executive joining the company. A fact that is supported by quotes from those concerned in the report. The piece also acknowledges the most fresh numbers about Beesfund, and confirms its nearest plans.
            2. “Equity Crowdfunding – Can You See the Effects of a Larger Limit?...” — Trade website interviews the CEO. I'm quoting three minor numbers and one fact, found nowhere else, that add up to the context.
            3. “Beesfund's Crowdfunding Honey” — Polish edition of Forbes longform feature from 2015, about the company's origins, mentions some key numbers that give an image of the company beginnings, and its first issuer.
            4. “What Startups Are Worth Investing in?” and “The Potential Lies in Building the Community...” — I used five instances of minor objective additions from the interviews with the CEO (by the major daily newspaper) that contribute to the facts sourced from elsewhere (or to the EU law – eg. the paragraph Characteristics of the platform). Some of those additions are in fact repeated in other sources. Still, I've referenced fully aware the sentences with questionable (though not ineligible) sources, in order not to give the facts out from thin air.
            5. Capital Collections Have Been Noticed — Another report in a trade stock-market newspaper that features facts, numbers, and amounts I've quoted in the article.
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 Deleted under criterion G11 by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) ~~ OxonAlex - talk 13:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Netcad

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

Boldly nominating from a suggestion on RfD regarding a redirect to the article. WP:GNG is failed here. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 00:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_October_19&oldid=1142613057"