Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 31 May	2 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor Ice Cube

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

Non-notable local arena, no reliable secondary sources or major affiliations. —Notorious4life (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Notorious4life (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Notorious4life (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:46, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a small sports field that used to be used in the Junior Hockey League. No sources, aside from listings (such as this) and self-published items (such as this), can be found to support notability. -The Gnome (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhanurjaya Narayana (DN) High School, Kendujhar

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

Another non-notable high school. The article has been unreferenced since December 2017, and I could not find any significant coverage of the school either. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 23:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 23:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 23:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Secondary coverage is missing. Lorstaking (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemel Hempstead Theatre Company

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

Non-notable amateur dramatic company. It was reviewed as a one-off in the Guardian in 2012, as a specimen amateur dramatic production, but that doesn't make it notable, and WP:BEFORE shows nothing else. Ingratis (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amateur company that performs in a small theatre and holds "club nights every week, during which our bar is open". A run-of-the-WP:MILL amateur society. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per WP:MILL. No evidence of notability outside of the local area. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (from nominator) - it's definitely important locally so could be merged/redirected to Boxmoor. Ingratis (talk) 00:54, 5 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suro records

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

Not notable. The one reference is just a list of releases. Fuddle (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 22:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vesicash

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

insufficient evidence for notability -- references are press releases or notices of investment only DGG ( talk ) 21:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all sources are press releases or notices of investment - Sources cited such as that from pymnts.com (https://www.pymnts.com/news/payments-innovation/2019/african-ecommerce-boost-digital-escrow/) and disrupt-africa (https://disrupt-africa.com/2019/08/how-nigerias-vesicash-is-making-digital-payments-more-secure/) are neither press releases or notice or investment --Atomiser2003 (talk) 06:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject does not meet company notability guideline. It's too soon to have a page. Lapablo (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails to satisfy WP:ORG. Celestina007 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The company lacks in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. References or sources are promotional piece. Lapablo (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BioSlimDisk

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

Not notable, created by blocked user. Company no longer in business – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 21:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unduly promotional and fails WP:NCORP Sulfurboy (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WDID-LP

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

It never served as anything more than a rebroadcaster of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, then it was sold to a group that couldn't find programming for the station, so it closed down. Even as someone who writes TV station articles, I can't say this meets the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 20:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 20:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There was a false attempt three years ago to allege this analog-only station could carry subchannels, but nobody ever found a source to dissuade my conclusion this station served only as a TBN repeater and didn't survive past that point. It technically meets WP:BROADCAST in the callsign change...but nothing else. A weak redirect to Template:Savannah TV might work to show it is defunct and retain its categories. Nate • (chatter) 20:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Though this analog license is defunct, it is survived on a separate license/facility ID by WDID-LD, originally granted as a digital companion channel in 2013 and is presently licensed… but currently only carries the Three Angels Broadcasting Network and infomercials. (Indeed, WDID-LD redirects to 3ABN's article, not the one for its analog predecessor.) Maybe there's some potential redirect target somewhere, but I'm not sure what, and in any event I don't think WDID in any form has served as anything but a repeater of larger services, much less attracted sufficient notice in any form, verifiable or no — there's no way in hell it gets over any of our notability humps, broadcast or general. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 9 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allen R. Morris

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

this is so convoluted and spammy its impossible to tell whether this guy is notable. The claims of an emmy would make me think he is but barring nuking it from orbit and starting fresh from a non-upe/coi editor, this article is unsalvageable. Praxidicae (talk) 20:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. This article fails to focus on what might make this person notable in the television business. Instead, we get content like a 134-word blockquote about him playing in the woods as a child and four paragraphs about an never-aired television pilot he produced. Of the three sources cited in this article, the main one is his IMDb page (not always considered a reliable source), and that page makes no mention of the Emmys that the subject supposedly won. Another source cited is a one-sentence item from the New York Times which reads, in its entirety: "Carabiner International, Inc., New York, has agreed to acquire privately held Blumberg Communications Inc., an audio-visual equipment services concern, for $23.3 million in cash, stock and assumed debt" -- not even mentioning the subject. If this person really is notable, I think this article could do with some "addition by subtraction" -- taking out the less notable aspects of his biography and keeping only the notable content. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable television maker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article.". Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but if the article clearly established the subject's notability using reliable sources, I wouldn't be supporting deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, is being an emmy gold circle inductee (see here) wikisignificant? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- The Gold Circle seems to be an award for career longevity (see https://lonestaremmy.org/awards/the-circles/ ). The award is given for "media professionals who began their careers in television at least 50 years ago, either in a performing, creative, technical or administrative role within the industry or in an area related to television such as TV journalism education, advertising, promotion, and public relations. They must also have made a significant contribution to the Lone Star Chapter television for at least part of their 50-year career." So I would recommend focusing on documenting the competitive awards that he won in order to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A notice suggesting that some of the comments from this discussion may be implemented was placed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of academic journals by preprint policy

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. SHERPA/RoMEO already offers that. fgnievinski (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies. Academic journals are legitimate things to have articles about, and this is one reasonable way to classify them. (And for that matter, all information in Wikipedia is already offered somewhere else.) XOR'easter (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP There are reliable sources referring the information. XOR'easter already explained things quite well, neither of the reasons the nominator give are valid here. Dream Focus 07:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment My sense is that this could be compacted a great deal even if kept, but it also seems to me that copying out the policy statement of every single journal is not really justifiable as fair use. Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with tens of thousands of academic journals out there, this isn't viable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too long is never a valid reason to delete something. I see a lot of entries at Category:Academic journals but its not tens of thousands. Only those notable would be on the list of course. And when list articles get too long they are broken into separate articles. Dream Focus 22:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tens of thousands of articles on journals already exist. Even if this was limited to a few thousands the argument would still apply. This is a list that is unmaintainable, and what their preprint policy is is not something that warrants a page on Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we already keep plenty of lists of academic journals, this is a reasonable criterion by which to index them in my opinion--a3nm (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete unless substantially reduced in scope. as Headbomb says, this is potentially a list of every academic journal, ever. If a list of the exceptional case members were made, it would be manageable. But that wouldn't be this list. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Of course it is not exhaustive (nor should it be), but it fulfills a different role from databases aiming for completion (SHERPA/RoMEO, Transpose) in that it provides the reader with a useful snapshot of the range of journal policies on preprints. Jessica Polka (talk) 12:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From my research into journals on issues related to retractions etc, I think it's extremely unlikely that tens of thousands of them will ever have a clear and findable policy on much of anything. And there are plenty of ways to make it more manageable. If it's not meant to be a comprehensive list, then I like the suggestion of it being for notable journals. An option in terms of both copyright and size would be to keep the information - especially that summarizing of them as compatible etc - and just linking to the specific reference instead of cutting and pasting the wording. It gets a fair number of pageviews, which strengthens the case for keeping it. (I've used it myself to save time when deciding on journals to submit manuscripts to.) I wouldn't make this decision based on whether a database currently exists: for most, we can never really be sure how long they will be around. Hildabast (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but think about the purpose. It is much better to restrict to journals already having articles here. It is much better to extract from the policies Y and N statements. An advantage of lists over categories is that such statements can be referenced. Wikidata is potentially a better place for the fine details, but isn't there yet in developing its data model. Such a list can be useful, for sure. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Commonfloor. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vikas Malpani

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

This article relies on routine coverage about the company founded by him. I failed to find any amount of significant coverage for him outside the context of the company. Article creator was blocked for undisclosed COI. M4DU7 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG yet. Sources seem mainly PR or either way they fail WP:RS. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Commonfloor: Barely found anything about him aside from his involvements with the company. Article looks WP:PROMOTIONAL. It's best to redirect it to the company article. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:30, 4 June 2020 (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abroad in Japan

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

This has many, many sources, though as he only has 1.6 million subscribers, I don't think it meets the notability guidelines. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 18:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I believe this person passes GNG, as he has received significant coverage here:[1] and here:[2]. There’s also this:[3] but I can’t access it due to a paywall. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @Devonian Wombat: The Japan Times seems like a good source but I find the other two questionable. lullabying (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: The Japan News seems like a good source too. lullabying (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject of the article has been featured in several news sources around the world and thus meets criteria 3 and 4 of WP:FILMMAKER. Mccunicano ☕️ 01:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
KEEP Articles have enough reliable resources, definitely looking at contribution in section - YouTube Channel is should be rewrite. Krishna Murthy DL (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Comment from an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Juliette Han (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 7 June 2020 (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) Juliette Han (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Burmese respelling of the English alphabet

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

I don't understand if this article is right for English Wiki Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's no reason not to discuss this topic in an English-language encyclopedia; en.wiki is for human knowledge written in English, not just matters of parochial interest in the US, the UK, etc. The article is under-sourced at the moment, but loanwords are a thing that linguists study [4][5], and perhaps the referencing could be improved. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Entire reasoning for the AFD is flawed. English Wikipedia covers anything that passes GNG. And this topic seems like something that should pass GNG if effort was put into improving its sourcing. An article being in poor shape is not reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 14:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with above, interesting article and no real reason for deletion mentioned. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2020 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenukallu Siddeshwara Temple

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

Article is non-neutral, and has little to no reliable sourcing in the article; no reliable sources were found in a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (talk page) (Contribs) Remember to notify me after replying off my talk page. 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sock
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Keep. Good article — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuriousEagleGye (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:54, 7 June 2020 (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. I don't see a consensus to merge. There is also the issue of an absence of reliable sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rattler (G.I. Joe)

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

Fails WP:GNG through lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. Sources currently in the article are yojoe.com, which appears to be an unreliable action figure database, an "official" GI Joe book (primary source), and the comics themselves. A WP:BEFORE search brings up toy sites, action figure databases, and sundry other unreliable sources. Not every action figure in GI Joe needs an article. Hog Farm (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no redirect. It's a non-notable fictional airplane/plot device. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject is about a non-negotiable fictional device. Abishe (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not discussed in third party sources as something notable - all the sources are general GI Joe guides. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:58, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. A non-notable fictional vehicle/toy. There are no reliable sources that discuss it in any way that would pass the WP:GNG. The proposed merge target, itself, is a violation of WP:NOT, as it is basically a toy catalog, so merging there would not be helpful. Rorshacma (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Basically what Hog Farm said. Celestina007 (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brownian Motion Ultimate

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

Non-notable, lightly sourced student organization. User:Namiba 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 19:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable if it has it's own website. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - lots of cruft and fluff. Not sure how having a website makes it notable; that isn't a tenet of WP:GNG and I guess then that most high school sports teams should have pages then. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:02, 1 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf Hua Li

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

Fails WP:GNG and the content is cited by primary sources and lack reliable secondary sources. The subject seems to have written as WP:PROMO. The person who is also the company founder of Futu Holdings has also been Afded. Abishe (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Futu Holdings, the company he founded, per WP:PRESERVE and Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I have supported retaining Futu Holdings at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futu Holdings. I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about Lea Hua Li. Cunard (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he is one of the of creators of QQ^[1]Ron John (talk) 09:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Entrepreneur Spotlight: Before Founding Futu, CEO Li Was a Trading Junkie". CAPITAL WATCH. Retrieved 22 May 2020.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He participated in the R&D of Tencent QQ and created Tencent Video, source provided by Ronjohn. There is enough to meet WP:GNG. Best VocalIndia (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:13, 1 June 2020 (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futu Holdings

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to have written as a WP:PROMO. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. "Futu initiated with a Neutral at Goldman Sachs". The Fly. 2019-04-02. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
  The article notes:
  
  Goldman Sachs analyst Weicheng Tang initiated Futu with a Neutral rating and a price target of $18.30. The analyst is positive on the company's position as a "major player" in a "niche" internet-driven brokerage platform market that offers online stock trading services to Chinese retail investors and holds a 22% market share in terms of trading volume. Weicheng Tang also expects the offshore online stock trading market to "continue to grow thanks to asset diversification demand from Chinese households and an increasing number of Chinese companies going for HK/US listings." However, with shares trading at 50-times and 22-times his expected earnings for FY19 and FY20 respectively, the analyst contends that the high earnings growth potential for Futu is priced in.
2. Linnane, Ciara (2019-03-11). "Futu is the first big Chinese IPO of 2019: 5 things to know about the online brokerage". MarketWatch. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
3. Zhu, Julie; Fioretti, Julia (2018-12-18). Sarkar, Himani (ed.). "Tencent-backed broker Futu confidentially files for up to $500 million U.S. IPO: sources". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
4. Tse, Crystal (2019-03-08). "Tencent-Backed Online Broker Futu Rises in Trading Debut". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
5. "富途將成中國互聯網券商海外IPO第一股騰訊持股30%" (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2018-12-29. Archived from the original on 2020-05-17. Retrieved 2020-05-17.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Futu Holdings to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case. However, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
According to the company's website at https://ir.futuholdings.com/financials/analyst-coverage^{Internet Archive}, Futu Holdings has received analyst coverage by:
1. BOCI Group's Yiwen Zhang
2. Citigroup Global Markets Inc.'s Daphne Poon
3. Goldman Sachs (Asia) L.L.C's Weicheng Tang
4. UBS AG's Kelvin Chu
In the reliable sources I listed above, I included a summary of a Goldman Sachs analyst report written by Weicheng Tang.
Cunard (talk) 11:36, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately the topics in all the sources above provided by Cunard are considered trivial coverage by NCORP and therefore don't establish notability. It ultimately doesn't matter what a Goldman Sachs analyst rates them as, it's original research anyway, or how much capital they raised in an IPO. All that stuff is pretty run of the mill and could apply to any company. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: FUTU is the largest securities firm in Hong Kong which strongly contributes to notability.
From Sina Corp in 2019 (translated using Google Translate), "At present, Futu Securities is the largest securities firm in Hong Kong with a customer base of 380,000, far exceeding its peers." The source:
鄭瑋 (2019-01-06). "富途證券擬赴美上市無中國大陸業務許可存監管風險" [Futu Securities intends to go public in the U.S. without the risk of regulatory oversight of business license deposits in mainland China] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. Archived from the original on 2020-05-26. Retrieved 2020-05-26.
Cunard (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says that "analyst reports" are example of sources that can be used to establish notability. Wikipedia:No original research says that Wikipedia editors cannot perform original research. The policy does not prohibit Wikipedia editors from using reliable sources (like analyst reports) that perform original research.
In addition to the analyst reports from BOCI Group, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and UBS, here is a 27-page report from Capital Watch:
Cheng, Honglan; Frank, Peter; Xu, Mingyi. "Capital Watch: Futu Holdings Limited" (PDF). Capital Watch. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-05-26. Retrieved 2020-05-26.
The report offers a disclaimer noting that Capital Watch could have a conflict of interest with the companies it reviews and notes:
This report is the outcome of a months-long investigation, research, and analysis of Futu Holdings Ltd. and China’s online brokerage industry by 27 professional journalists and analysts from JPM Media Group across its Beijing, Silicon Valley and New York offices. It differentiates from investment banks’ reports by focusing on media reports and providing analysis from the perspective of the media.
It collected and isolated relevant information from an extensive range of reports on Futu Holdings and China’s online brokerage industry, conducted in-depth analysis through investigations, verified the information authenticity from multiple channels, and analyzed data from unique media perspectives.
I also found this column from iResearch:
陈纪英 (2019-06-12). "非典型券商富途，疯狂投入技术研发到底值不值？" [Atypical brokerage Futu, is it worthwhile to invest in technology research and development?] (in Chinese). iResearch Consulting Group. Archived from the original on 2020-05-26. Retrieved 2020-05-26.
Here is a quote from the article: "On the track where financial licenses are strictly regulated and the Internet experience is integrated, Futu seems to be inconsistent with the industry's laws, but it is actually using R & D technology to build strong industry-leading barriers"
Cunard (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that NCORP says things like earning forecasts is trivial coverage. I assume that would include analyst's reports. It matters what information you are taking from them to establish notability. Not everything in an analyst report is gold just because "analyst report." It's still on us to determine if specific facts in them are usable or not. Maybe its worth starting a discussion about on the Notability (organizations and companies) talk page if you disagree though. If you think every little detail in an analyst report no matter how mundane or run of the mill should be usable for establishing notability, that's on you to justify and get the guideline altered based on. In the mean time though, I'm just going off of what the guideline says. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations specifically says "analyst reports" can be used to establish notability. Analyst reports like the Goldman Sachs report discussed above contain analysis about a company's performance and the risks it faces. Cunard (talk) 09:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the key word there ""analyst reports" can be used to establish notability." I never said they couldn't be used. Just like news articles, academic research papers, etc etc can be used to establish notability. That doesn't mean it's automatic or that context and what information your using doesn't matter for any of those sources though. So, I don't know what your arguing about. Can analyst reports be used to establish notability, sure. Do they always automatically no matter what, no. Nothing does and no where does the notability guidelines say they do. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard is correct - analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are considered "Independent Content". Earning forecasts, on the other hand, are company announcements and run-of-the-mill. Analysts upgrading/downgrading based on earnings are also trivial and run-of-the-mill. But an actual report where the analyst describes the company in detail and discusses their business model or whatever, thats not trivial. There's more than enough analyst reports provided above and the two links to specific report provided by Cunard are to references that meet the criteria. Topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:11, 1 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarila Thompson

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

Although there are several articles that seem to cover the subject in depth, those don't look major or reliable. Not active as for now, only several movies, the roles were minor. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR for me. Less Unless (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks reliable source, no coverage, fails WP:NBIO. Drat8sub (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject appears to be a veteran film producer who was quite active between 1990 and 2000. Per this Pulse Nigeria source, he founded Elonel International LTD, one of Nigeria's 10 most popular Nollywood production companies of the 90s and 2000s. This Day newspaper published an in-depth article discussing him an his documentary titled Nigeria: The Economic Reality. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Minor roles do not go for WP:NACTOR. Alex-h (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex-h: The aritcle is misleading. The subject did not starred in those films; he produced them. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Versace1608—a case can be made for WP:GNG, and the subject isn't really an actor, but more of a producer. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion that indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG and that deletion is unnecessary, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:06, 1 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi Balooja

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

A Self-promotional article. Fails WP:NACTOR. Hatchens (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. It comes close to being such with how many hundreds of articles we have sourced only to IMDb, but that is not how things out to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is sourced only by IMDB. I can't change that because I can't find any proof that he has any notability at all. Literally everything I found was from his own social media, meaning that the actor doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 21:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Adventist Health. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health Selma

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

The article only references primary sources and I was un-able to find anything except trivial coverage in a search for better ones. So, it doesn't pass GNG or NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect this and all the others like it to Adventist Health. No independently-sourced content, so nothing to merge (there is one sickeningly promotional press release, but it's not about this thing but the parent company). See close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Health Hanford for precedent; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventist Health Castle may also be of interest. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge > (selective) Adventist Health using primary source provided with information about original name, founding, location, and merger in Adventist Health, whose article needs updating.19:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adodo Eddy Osaman

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

Pretty blatantly self-promotional page. Provided sources don't look that great either. Hiàn (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Hiàn (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional page. We need to act quickly against such before Wikipedia becomes twisted to a purpose it was not meant for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per rationale provided by Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NOTPROMOTION, although appears to have carried out some admirable work does not meet WP:ANYBIO, has not done anything wikiextraordinary. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. He does not have a career to speak of in anything. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is simply not for promotion. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:58, 8 June 2020 (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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Cambry Jr.

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

Promotional article for a person who does not meet Wikipedia's cnotability criteria for biographies, because there is no significant coverage about him or his achievements. The listing of links to it in the main namespace, at the time of writing List of Haitian Americans, List of University of Chicago Laboratory Schools people, and his brother, Jonathan Paul Cambry, whose article is also up for deletion, say more than I ever could. Graham87 15:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any qualifying secondary reliable sources with depth; Crains and the others look like PR pieces/churnalism. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipuffery which does not remotely meet WP:NOTABILITY.--Smerus (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a businessperson or academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the Crains piece was more focused on this biography, I could support. If the awards in the WP:LEAD were sourced with WP:ICs from WP:RS or if the film credits were sourced, I might be able to support, but this does not establish notability.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Petraria Arcatinus

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

The type of catapult described in this article does not seem to be mentioned in any reliable historical sources. The word petraria or petrarium did exist, with the meaning "machine that hurls stones, petrary" (Dictionary of Medieval Latin from British Sources). But I can find no reliable source for the adjective arcatinus, and if it did exist, it would have to be arcatina, to agree with feminine petraria. The more reliable sources cited on this page seem to refer only to petraria (petrary). I believe "petraria arcatinus" is a fabrication which has spread through various amateur websites. The original editor acknowledged this problem in the article itself and on the talk page, but I think overstated the possibility that the "petraria arcatinus" actually existed. Lesgles (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Lesgles (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not agree. This type or catapult (a bow powered stone thrower with a swing arm throwing mechanism, very distinct form the lithobolos designs) is definitely not a modern fabrication from websites, with one of the earliest depictions found at this point being a Gustav Dore illustration from 1877 (commons:File:Gustave_dore_crusades_the_crusaders_war_machinery.jpg). Numerous physical reproductions of this style of catapult exist around the world in museums and historical sites. While the actual existence of this catapult during the Crusades or at any other time has not been established and is definitely disputed, the existence of this type of catapult in our modern view of history, for at least one and a half centuries, can not be disputed. This only truly problematic issue here is the name of this catapult. The name may be a modern (20th century) creation. But this type of catapult has a much deeper history that can not be relegated to some sort of Internet meme. People have a legitimate interest in learning about it. Battling McGook (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is an interesting subject, and there is a resemblance between Doré's illustration and the image used in the article. It's even possible that later reconstructions were based on that illustration. But whether it's a modern (post-medieval) invention or not, we need to cite reliable sources. Lesgles (talk) 18:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Elmidae's vote below and cited source on the arcuballista... I don't want to get too far into the weeds here, but reading this article underscores the real issue. Most people these days think "arcuballista" refers to a bow-powered weapon which shot bolts (i.e. very large arrows or spears). The catapult in question here is one that is bow-powered and shoots stones. Reading this article, you'll find that the authors here think arcuballista did not refer to a bow-powered weapon at all, but a torsion powered bolt-shooter with some sort of arched construction (meaning it is in no way related to the catapult in this article). The central problem is that we have very old greek and roman texts (usually not even original), with very few artifacts or same-era depictions, and then we have a few centuries of post-renaissance reinterpretation, in which new names were added from multiple languages to the names we had from the nearly original texts. But a lot of modern scholars think that much of the reinterpretation was wrong. The bow-powered stone thrower that the article is about was likely just an artifact of those incorrect interpretations (but then again, several scholars think the most popularly depicted catapult, the so-called onager, with a swinging bowl and a stepped-crank spring loading mechanism, usually on wheels, is a mostly incorrect depiction that never existed). So the problem of not having an article on this very common interpretation of a catapult because no "official" name for it can be found is somewhat absurd on the face of it. No "official" name will likely ever be found, because it's very likely the catapult not only never originally existed, but also was never formally described in reinterpretations, and was simply a fanciful notion of an artist like Doré or someone before him. After going through this discussion though, I would certainly be open to renaming this article (perhaps "Bow-powered stone-throwing catapult"). Battling McGook (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not based on reliable historical sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication it is a notable topic, or even a definitively real topic per Lesgles. A gsearch returns nothing of value. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Vote Is Invalid because there has been no discussion Rename because based on discussions the central issue seems to be with the term being poorly sourced, while no one is disputing the many sources showing catapults of this form. Battling McGook (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- That people are writing about this machine, on the basis that it did exist, is sufficient grounds for having an article, to say that it did not and that Doré's illustration and other modern reconstructions are in fact the result of a fantasy. Sometimes it is necessary to have an article about a lie, so that people know it is a lie. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I personally do like the article; this is interesting stuff. However it cannot be denied that it presents as a big pile of WP:SYNTH. Of the provided sources, those that use the actual name seem to uniformly be based on "this is what we heard people call these things" (the rest deal with ancillary material and not this machine itself). That's not good enough for an encyclopedia article. There's just too much might-have-been/possibly-called/one-could-conclude stuff in here. We don't need to be gunning for a monograph on the subject, but at least a clear and unambiguous mention beyond a mere name drop in a reliable scholarly publication would be expected. I'd like to note that I just found what I believe to be a better treatment than any yet cited on the page: a book review in a History of Science journal [6] - search for "arcuballista", then read the next two pages' worth of text. And that still doesn't provide a solid basis for an article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:09, 7 June 2020 (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 Xtreme (group)#Discography. The only objection to keeping the redirect seems to be that there would be a circular redirect. Those are generally removed if an AfD is closed as redirect. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We Got Next

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

Article does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Although the draft was declined five times, the author moved it to articlespace anyway. GoingBatty (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Information about this obscure album belongs on the article about the group Xtreme; not worthy of its own article. David notMD (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a reason it was declined 5 times at AfC - No indication it meets WP:NALBUM KylieTastic (talk) 19:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was one of the five who declined this originally. Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM plain and simple. -CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Draftify - I understand the situation about the article. But you must understand that this article is something that bachata fans, Xtreme fans, and latin music fans would love to read about. I've done everything I could to prove that this article is accurate and that the album "We Got Next". This album does exist I think it should stay on Wikipedia. If anything, there will be other people to help out add more to the article. the situation is that when the bachata group Xtreme started in 2003, they were underground and weren't really with a record label. They were with a independent label called 2 Strong Music, but they didn't have the main stream publicity to help the group. They still worked with them after they were signed to a record label but for the most part the founder was seen as more than a manager than a record label owner. In 2005, Xtreme had finally signed with a record label named SGZ Entertainment. A label founded by Sergio George. There 2005 album titled Xtreme just like the name of the group. This was considered to be their debut album. So We Got Next was kind of forgotten. Only three their tracks, "Honey, I Do" and the bachata and R&B versions of Te Extraño. The other seven tracks were never mentioned again. I have listened this album before. I am a huge bachata fan to the point I search about bachata artists' discography (list of albums). I recently made an article on bachata group Aventura's 1995 album Trampa De Amor. Back then they were know as Los Tinellers. This album had the same situation but it actually had articles that backed up the article and it was able to be approved and become an official wiki article. The reason this was possible was because Aventura are world known icons of music. So their history has been in articles and mini documentaries in which Trampa De Amor has been mentioned. It was also an album that was kind of forgotten but yet 7 of it's 10 songs were re-made for other albums. So I was able to get that album approved, the "We Got Next" should also stay as well. I'm sorry that turned it in to an article when it was still a draft, but I got tired of waiting for it to be approved. If I knew this situation would have happened, I would have still left it as a draft until I was able to truly make if acceptable for wikipedia's poicies. But please let the article stay and anyone else who reviews it please support it and don't ask for a deletion. And also if anyone reading this can find articles or links that can make this article worthy of being on wiki, I would be very grateful about it. If it is decided that the article should be deleted, then just leave it as a draft so I can more improvements to it until I can finally make it comply WP:NALBUM. I have put in a lot of work in it already so please don't delete it. Just put it as a draft again. If y'all want, I put it has a draft right now if y'all agree. And as for David notMD, I do not see anything obscure about the information I put in. It may look it fits better in the groups bio page instead of the album page, but I had to give that info so people could understand about the album's situation and also know why there is really not a lot to say about it. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC) DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk)[reply]
Delete - To the previous voter, what matters is the specific requirements of notability at WP:NALBUM, and this particular album does not meet a single one of them. That's because of the lack of information already admitted by that voter and admitted in the article. I'm sure that bachata fans would love to know about this album, but that should be done somewhere other than Wikipedia. See also WP:PROMOTION and WP:ILIKEIT. Wikipedia is for items that qualify as encyclopedic. The fact that the group released an early album that remains unknown can be described (very briefly) at their article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:25, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I've seen articles that barely have anything to say on wiki and it has been kept. I have done everything to make this article as accurate to what it says as possible. A lot of album are put on wiki. I mean is an music album info even count as encyclopedic. The album "We Got Next" was on Xtreme's discography list on their wiki artist page. I had recently crated an article about Aventura's 1995 album Trampa De Amor. That album had a similar situation, but I was able to turn it into an article after it was rejected a few times. It was made official by a wiki user who approved it. I did everything to make sure the evidence is accurate. I put references and external links proving my claim. The only reason I wrote what I wrote was to give people an explanation about the album's situations so I could be specific about why it didn't have a lot of recognition. Wikipedia is known for wrong information anyways. My college professors never recommended any of their students to use it because it is an open source where people can write what ever they want on this website. My article is much more accurate than alot of things written on wiki every day. So please tell me what is it that I'm missing so I can fix the problem and make it stay. The only thing I'm reading is deletion but no better solution to how I can make it follow WP:NALBUM, WP:PROMOTION, and WP:ILIKEIT. I really want this article to stay. I'll put it back as a draft and keep it that way until I can make it acceptable for Wikipedia. I wonder if y'all even look at the references and external links before voting. Y'all should have more consideration about this article and either help me out or vote for it to be a draft again so I can put in the time to fix it. If anything, other people will see this and probably even add more to it that may actual work better and fit the wiki policies. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC) DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk)[reply]
Redirect to Xtreme (group): Barely found anything about the album. Easily fails WP:NALBUM. It's best to turn it as a redirect. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have decided to move it back to the draft. If y'all choose to let me keep it as a draft, I will do everything I can to finally find the correct resources to finally make this article fit the qualifications for a wiki article about an album. I hope that when the final decision comes, I hope it is to move it back as a draft. As for some of the info I added to the album, I will either remove it or added it to the group's bio page since it does fit the the Xtreme's artist page. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - DominicanWikiEdit1996, you have voted thrice in this AfD to draftify it. Users vote on certain AfDs only once. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - My apologies Superastig, I didn't know I had voted 3 times. I still new to this deletion voting thing. I thought that's how someone responds back. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk)
      - DominicanWikiEdit1996, that's OK. I suggest you read WP:DISCUSSAFD so you'll have an idea on how to properly contribute on future AfDs. We have out own votes and reasoning. And it's best if you respect them than to argue with us about it. And always remember. Once a consensus is made to keep, redirect or delete the article, it should be respected. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Superastig, I do respect the opinions and votes of others, I was just trying to defend the article. What ever final decision is made, I'll accept it. If it's deleted, I'll just try harder in to finding articles that can qualify with wiki. But that is if I can, other wise I won't make the article until the near future if Xtreme ever makes mention of it or a history about the album is written on a news or articles website. I do hope that this article can be sent back as a draft per now so I can try improve it. And if I still can't not able to, I'll delete it myself. It'll be a shame that the only album from Xtreme's discography doesn't have it's own wiki page, but it is what it is. I hope I do hear back from the other wiki users GoingBatty, David notMD, CNMall41, and doomsdayer520 who have all voted on this to read their response about what I have responded back to them. If I knew this situation was going to happen, I would have never put it in the article section and left it as a draft. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk)

Comment: Again, a need to learn more about AfD. The article creator does not have the ability to delete the article. And drafts are not forever - if no progress is made on a draft, the creator is notified at about six months that the draft will be deleted if no progress. Personally, I see no benefit in draftifying this, as in my opinion the best place for a concise mention is in the article about the group. David notMD (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Xtreme (group) with {{R from album}} and the current categories. @DominicanWikiEdit1996: No one is doubting the accuracy of the information you provided in the draft. While you have had over five days to add more references to the article to show how this album meets WP:NALBUMS, you have not done so. I agree there are other bad articles on Wikipedia, but please read the essay WP:Other stuff exists. I also suggest reading Help:Your first article. GoingBatty (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the Wiki Voters - I have decided that it should just get deleted already because I can't find articles from independent sources that can help me make this album article eligible for Wikipedia. Also, making it a redirect is not the best idea. The link is in the discography section of the group's bio page. So to click on that link just so it directs you back to the group's article where the link is in the first place, makes no sense to me or to anybody. That's why at this point it's just for the best it gets deleted I'm not really voting, I'm just at this point wishing I would have agreed with this in the beginning. When there's finally Independent sources talking specifically about the album, I will make it again and I know this time it will be approved. But for now, It should be deleted. As for some of the information of this article I will put it on the group website since it does have talk about there beggingings and that I can back it up with independent sources. Unfortunately I can't delete it my self. So to every person who voted, thank you. At least I have an article that was approved. Trampa De Amor from Aventura when they were once called Los Tinellers (The word teenagers spelled with Spanish letters and pronunciation for the Hispanic that can't speak english). This article was also rejected a few times until I found sources that help it get approved. Now, it is an official article of Wikipedia. I don't know if anyone here is Hispanic of have heard Hispanic music at least, but I would everyone to read about it. The only reason this album was able to stay in Wikipedia compared to we got next was because the group Aventura or more famous so there's obviously more people searching about their history more then the group Xtreme. Trampa De Amor was and album that never got recognized as there first album because it was made in 1995 and their official debut was in 1999 when they had already changed there name and had a new start as Aventura. But in there case, that album has been documented so people are aware of it. So that's why it was much easier for the album to become an official wiki article. I didn't move it to article myself, it was approved by a wiki reviewer. Anyways, to GoingBatty, David notMD, CNMall41, and doomsdayer520 I thank you all for voting and to who ever is incharge of deleting it, do what you must. DominicanWikiEdit1996 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TechEmpower

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

Non notable organization that does not satisfy WP:CORP. A before search conducted shows the organization lacks in-depth significant coverage in independent secondary reliable sources. Majority of information found are in primary sources. Celestina007 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of the article and I'm not affiliated with TechEmpower in any way, I'm just following the Framework Benchmarks. Here's a couple of points:

ServerCentral covers them here https://www.servercentral.com/case-study-techempower/
Apress published this book https://www.apress.com/gp/book/9781484235188 that cites their benchmark results
Red Hat cites their results here https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2018/07/24/improv-net-core-kestrel-performance-linux/
DZone article https://dzone.com/articles/five-facts-you-might-not-know-about-techempower-fr
Finally, Microsoft links to the benchmark in their company-only URL shortener https://aka.ms/techempower
Other metrics:
- 5K stars on the framework benchmarks repository on GitHub https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks
- The Framework Benchmarks are frequently discussed on Reddit, HN and varius forums, e.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/cbgv6f/rust_async_frameworks_dominate_techempower/ https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/7xr7cr/techempower_web_framework_benchmark_round_15/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17254152 https://forum.phalcon.io/discussion/17988/techempower-benchmarks-218

Hope this helps. Rivanvx (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG - I tried quite hard to find some decent citations for this, but... when all five refs in the article are the company's own website it never bodes well. In the bin with this one. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:42, 1 June 2020 (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) Juliette Han (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sine from Above (Lady Gaga and Elton John song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS, all sources come from reviews or interviews of it's parent album and should be redirected to Chromatica. LOVI 33 14:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is literally 1 day old. The current sources are what they are, but a quick search revealed many, many articles that focus only on this song, including one from Rolling Stone, which is probably as top-tier a source as you can get when it comes to music notability. JimKaatFan (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Out.com, NME and Rolling Stone articles currently in the article are specifically about this song, not the album. And the first page of my Google search reveals other sources specifically about the song such as [7] and [8]. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Chromatica, its been prematurely created and should exist as part of the Chromatica album page unless it gains further notability e.g. charting. Where the information could be included elsehwere, there is no need for its own page. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 16:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, the song was just released - however; it has had independent coverage due to the significance of having Sir Elton John on her album and their personal relationship. This is bound to have even more coverage in the future and it is best to have a place to put it. HesioneHushabye (talk)
Keep: It's clear from the coverage cited in the article that the song is getting news coverage on its own, because of the Elton/Gaga collaboration. The Harper's Bazaar article is called "Lady Gaga and Elton John Dance the Pain Away with 'Sine from Above'", and the Rolling Stone article is "Song You Need to Know: Lady Gaga feat. Elton John, ‘Sine From Above’". Obvious keep. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A lot of independent coverage for the song, including the ones indicated above. Article easily passes WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:36, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable album track due to its feature with Elton. Nahnah4 (talk | contribs) 07:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as shown with links provided above, there are multiple articles specifically focusing on this track that aren't just album reviews or artist/label/producer/songwriter commentary, so this meets WP:NSONGS. Charts (or lack thereof) are irrelevant to whether songs warrant articles. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The song has received independent coverage outside of album reviews. Toughpigs has already provided evidence of this. I believe the coverage is significant enough to make the song notable enough for its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we speedy close this as it's a landslide keep? ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 19:26, 5 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AltAssets

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

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notable company from way back in the day. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DiagnosisPro

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

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 14:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another article about a defunct non-notable software company from over ten years ago?? Colour me completely unsurprised. @Wikieditor600: All these articles you've AFD'd on super non-notable businesses could probably all be completely uncontroversially PROD'd, they're no value to anyone. -- a ^{they/them | argue | contribs} 21:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:05, 2 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jitendra Singh Tomar

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

This biography lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. The article is created ~~be a declared paid editor~~by somebody with a conflict of interest although they have now removed that declaration from their user page. The draft was declined, however ~~the paid editor~~ the editor with a significant conflict of interest decided to accept his/her own draft. The only reference in the article is an interview. My own search only turned up this passing mention. Whpq (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Whpq (talk) 13:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:06, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He worked in television industries for 3 years. Directed 2 films. I demand some more time and let the career section be complete as it is pending by OTRS team. User:PangolinPedia (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2020 (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 withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael & Miranda

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

Reviewed under new article curation process. No indication of wp:notability. 3 of the 4 references just to to the press-release wording. No content other than material from the record jacket. Suggest merging into the band's article. North8000 (talk) 12:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's a Trouser Press entry online as well, so that's 3 good refs. For a 1980 album, there would also be older print material, which--as an AfD keep rationale--gets old, but is still true. My personal opinion, which the closer is obviously free to ignore, is that merging album articles makes for a less interesting encyclopedia. Caro7200 (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a couple of more refs - this was one of the first albums released under Fiction records after the Cure. It is 1979/80 album and most ref for this is paper based so refs would be hard to come by. However all major music streaming services have the album, which shows it must have a certain amount of notability. Also as above - albums should nolt be incorporated into bands articles - they need to be separate - and this is a notable band having charted.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On this the SNG says "Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". On a different note, rearding your charting note, if you could put in a sourced statement that it charted on a national music chart (Wikipedia:Record charts) that would be sufficient to meet the SNG. Even just having some material in the article beyond what's on the record jacket would help. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now added quotes from reviews from publications (and refs) plus additional review scores from internet sites - all which are notable organisations on Wikipedia.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / withdrawn The article has since evolved in the areas that it was nominated for, especially sources found and added. IMO still not a slam dunk; suggest developing additional material North8000 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5. Hut 8.5 17:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anbe Sivam (soundtrack)

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

Article created by sock who creates a bunch of dubious notability articles on indian cinema. All mentions of the album are in passing, fails WP:NALBUMS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, I tagged for G5 speedy delete, I've also reverted main film article edits as well Ravensfire (talk) 12:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely fine with a G5 here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:04, 1 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asif Azim

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extremely promotional article that doesn't meet WP:NACTOR with a single appearance on a reality show, and not enough to meet WP:GNG. Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:08, 2 June 2020 (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 Secret Dreams and Forbidden Fire. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lovers Again

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

The article does not meet the notability requirements as per WP:MUS. The song did not chart worldwide, there is no literature about the song, and the entire contents of the article could be summarised in the article Secret Dreams and Forbidden Fire - the song's parent album. Skyrack95 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Secret Dreams and Forbidden Fire: Per nominator. Barely found any source about the song, which didn't chart anywhere. Article easily fails WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 20:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong national security law

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

This article is a stub; most of the content is already covered by another article. This article's title is also a move destination of that relatively comprehensive article, which is currently discussed on the talk page. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 10:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to thank everyone for their opinion. My initial thought was that most of the contents of this stub were repeating those in another article and that this article was supported by some seemingly biased Chinese sources. But now that it has been expanded and greatly improved, I would also support keeping it. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 09:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 10:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- NYKTNE _(talk) 10:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The other article is specifically about the decision by the NPC. This stub is about the law more generally and there is ample scope to expand it with developments in Hong Kong and internationally as matters develop. Mccapra (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Dps04 (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sounds like the nominator is arguing for merger into the page in question. That's not a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mccapra is correct. Lightburst (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Important, ~~but needs improvement. Kingsif (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)~~ Now improved, with currently only 1 section out of 6 being about the decision: they evidently deserve separate articles. Kingsif (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the story is developing and very important in the context of current politics. The article has been written well and with adequate sources. Abishe (talk) 08:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - not only per WP:SNOW, but also given that an article being a stub isn't a deletion rationale at all, no valid reason for deletion has been put forward. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - The legislation of a national security law for Hong Kong have been the most controversial political topic other than electroal reforms since 2003. The article works very well as an overview article. OceanHok (talk) 04:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page in question focuses more broadly the law, rather than the decision by the NPC of China which authorises the drafting of a law. I do believe there's a confusion in overlap here, though. From the names alone, currently, it sounds like there's two articles covering the same law. There may be renames or merges required, and there is already a proposal for a rename of the NPC page you linked. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Ghia

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

Declined at AfC as Draft:Kaka Bhajans (different name for same individual). Sources in article do not establish notability, and I am unable to find sources establishing GNG. Promotional issues as well. Eostrix (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Drab promo article of a non-notable subject. As a point of housekeeping, I'm removing the vestigial AfC markup from the page. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if we let people do an end run around AfC by just changing the article name we allow commotion and snubbing of guidelines. It is high time we require every article to pass through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from its physical body. Promotional garbage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Cauman

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

Unknown notability, just explains that he has a phd and has authored books.   Kadzi   (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable art historian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not seeing the notability. Possibly, the creator of the article could make a case for the notability of the exhibition "Matisse in American Art" at the Montclair, which was widely reviewed.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17].--Jahaza (talk) 16:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he seems to have written at least two books (on Van Gogh and Matisse) so along with the curatorial works/catalogs he may meet WP:AUTHOR point three, known for a "collective body of work". That said, it's pretty hard to find any secondary commentary on him, over even his date and place of birth.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Students League

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

Non-notable Dutch communist students group attached to Communist Unity Movement of the Netherlands (Marxist–Leninist). Fails GNG, no sources. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it doesn't pass WP:ORG critera.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organizations and article will remain stub forever if kept. Bvatsal61 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Communist Unity Movement of the Netherlands (marxist-leninist) or Delete. Whichever.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Youth

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

Non-notable Dutch communist youth group attached to Communist Unity Movement of the Netherlands (Marxist–Leninist) . Doesn't pass GNG. No sources. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:49, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it doesn't pass WP:ORG critera.--Maleschreiber (talk) 15:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable organizations and article will remain stub forever if kept. Bvatsal61 (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Communist Unity Movement of the Netherlands (marxist-leninist) or just Delete. Whichever. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Poon

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

non notable celeb "chef" and nutrionist with no coverage in independent reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:55, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable nutritionist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 06:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hollywood.com and WSJ are not notable? Please explain how that isn't notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iiicedblack (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Flori4nKT A L K 11:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable chef. - Tatupiplu'^talk 10:05, 1 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plus (band)

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

Fails WP:DEL#8 Nightvour (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nightvour (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of their singles apparently charted in 2010 ([[18]]), so if I believe that is enough to usually satisfy the notability criteria. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this article is really lacking in sources, their Oricon profile shows that all of their singles and albums have charted and therefore pass WP:NMUSICBIO. lullabying (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC with albums and singles placed on a national chart, namely Oricon, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 1 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Kuert

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

Promotional article full of original research and puffery fails GNG and ARTIST in large part because the key claims about exhibitions are false/misleading, and none of the claims about films are verifiable. Florence Biennale is a vanity exhibition, and Palazzo Bembo is where ECC stages their vanity shows concurrent with the Venice Biennale. None of the citations to NYT worked. I searched the site for all the terms, and again in their film reviews, but nothing. None of the awards were verifiable either. Even if they were verifiable they aren't enough for NARTIST. Theredproject (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, for his films, which do have some coverage. NARTIST fail but weak pass on GNG. Apply TNT to article. Does not seem notable for his art career, although I cannot be bothered to plumb the depths of the enormously inflated article to determine the fine art notability precisely.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I tried to clean up some of the many citations and noticed the quality of citations is pretty low right now. If it's decided this is a "keep" and since this is a BLP, it needs a lot more clean up and removal of unsourced fluff. A lot of edits and sources from Oct 2014 seemed to be questionable. Jooojay (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable film director.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If this is going to get kept, and that should only happen if someone manages to dig up some better sources that say something -about- the work rather than list or mention it in announcements and press releases, it would need to be reduced to a stub. The current content is not supported by sources. Had we cleaned it up, we would have been left with almost nothing. Vexations (talk) 14:05, 5 June 2020 (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 Green Line E branch. Sandstein 10:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bynner Street station

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

VA Medical Center station (MBTA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Evergreen Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Perkins Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Moraine Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Robinwood Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lakeville Road station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pond Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Seaverns Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Monument station (MBTA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Carolina Avenue station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Child Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Saint Rose Street station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

While there has been significant debate on whether certain light rail and streetcar stops are notable (I've voted keep on most), these stops are unquestionably non-notable by any standard. Because of how long ago they were closed (1985), there's no information available about the individual stops; the collective history is better discussed on the article about the line. The stops were only marked by yellow bands on a pole; there's no infrastructure to discuss.

Aside from notability and lack of content, there's also a lack of evidence that these were the actual identities of the stops on the 1985-closed section of the line. The articles were based on this 1990s map showing the then-planned restoration of the closed section. However, the 2001 environmental documentation (page 13) shows a different set of proposed stops, and an (unfortunately offline) 1972 map in my collection shows a different set of pre-1985 stops. So tl;dr: there isn't even a reliable source to verify that these exact stop names actually existed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC) Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:45, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All: While my anecdotal evidence as a user of the line in my college days at Northeastern of course doesn't matter, the MBTA station map is certainly a reliable source. That it's not the same station list as existed in 1972 or mooted in 2001 is irrelevant -- the MBTA both eliminated and added many stations in that time, and there are more changes yet to come. Notability is not temporary. Ravenswing 02:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ravenswing: My point with the stop listings is that there is so little reliable information available that we can't even be sure that these were the actual stop locations, much less write even a worthwhile stub article. Those stop names were only ever used on that single map, almost two decades after the line closed; no other maps show them. It's not clear whether it's showing the former stops, or proposed restored stops. (Evergreen Street and Bynner Street are less than 250 feet apart - substantially closer than any 1972 or 2020 stops - which casts further doubt on the accuracy of that map.) Compare this to the 1980s-closed stations on the B, C, and inner E branches (non-notable, but verifiable from multiple reliable sources - you may recall some of those E stops) and 2004-closed Fordham Road station (where there's enough information available to write a three-paragraph stub). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, text is nearly identical across these articles and would be much better presented in the line's article. — C16SH (speak up) 03:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
redirect all to Green Line "E" branch or delete There is no information in these articles which isn't just pulled out from the list of stops, and while I wouldn't object to outright deletion, that list is an obvious redirect target. Mangoe (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Mangoe. The target is obvious, and redirects are cheap. XOR'easter (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect per Mangoe. --Cornellier (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe and XOR'easter. This preserves the information and edit history, allows for easy merging if anyone desires and easy restoration should more information come to light all while making it easier for people to find the content we do have. Deletion achieves none of this. Thryduulf (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mangoe Donaldd23 (talk) 20:01, 5 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dean's Scholars

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

Completely non-notable honors degree that fails WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sulfurboy: Do you have any objection to making a subsection under the UT Austin page with a few sentences for Turing Scholars, Plan II, and Dean's Scholars. (A similar instance is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plan II Honors). Skjn (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skjn, You don't need someone's permission to change a page. If you want to build consensus for the addition first you can do it on the page's talk page. Otherwise, you can just be WP:BOLD and go ahead and add it. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability for this program which undoubtedly could be adequately covered in the U's main article. Oppose any redirect - title's too vague. John from Idegon (talk) 09:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add redirect to University of Texas at Austin#Academics, which discusses this program and a few others. Skjn (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Insured

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

Defunct insurance group. There are few hits for the organization on Google, but I do not believe there is enough significant coverage or evidence of notability to pass WP:GNG. Mbdfar (talk) 07:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is little aside from the coverage of the launch and pricing of the firm's policy aimed at people with HIV, and an in-role quotation from the company spokesman about cover for people living with cancer [19]. The firm co-launched a TIG Impaired line with MorganAsh in 2009 [20] but the regulator's listing page indicates that the firm ceased to be authorised around a year later [21]. I am not seeing the coverage about the company needed for notability. AllyD (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The page gives a little bit promotional outlook but nonetheless the subject overall fails WP:GNG. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2020 (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 Materialscientist (talk) 08:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Pocketmaar

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

The film is not notable as per WP:NFILM and lack WP:RELIABLE sources ~ Amkgp ✉ 07:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp ✉ 07:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp ✉ 07:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:@Passengerpigeon, Spiderone, Narky Blert, Mccapra, Abishe, Drat8sub, and SS49: Help and request for review if interested. Thank you.

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Griffith (disambiguation)

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

Not enough entries for a dab page: other than the main topic, only the Parkway qualifies; the others are all partial matches. In any case, all of the entries (except Andy Griffiths (disambiguation)) are already linked in the main article, making this page rather pointless. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands is unnecessary. Per WP:PARTIAL "A disambiguation page is not a search index. Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion between them". Realistically somebody who searches 'Andy Griffith' will not be looking for either show, the museum, or the parkway, or could find what they're looking for at his article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Eddie89. Donaldd23 (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Modify the hatnote at Andy Griffith. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equinox Complex

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

The article does not establish notability (and I would argue it's not notable), but anyway the Equinox Complex appears to be defunct: the article Swissôtel The Stamford does not link to it, the external link is an archive, and the corporate website [22] doesn't mention it. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I am kind of done with this site and stopped contributing years ago. It is annoying trying to establish notability to people who live halfway around the planet who just could not be bothered to do a simple Google search and plaster "non notable" to anything they know nothing about. Never mind that it is a famous outlet in Singapore well known for its location and that classic photograph of downtown Singapore where most people take from its windows. I did not know that wikipedia deletes articles of establishments when they close (just did 2 years ago soon after massive bad press over a food poisoning case), so go right ahead if under-developed articles like this offends you.Huaiwei (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose not non-notable. Equinox had a massive food poisoning case where 51 diners cam down with gastroenteritis symptoms. https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/equinox-swissotel-food-poisoning-hygiene-status-downgraded-10202902 like what Huaiwei says, this article is just underdeveloped. A possible page move to "SKAI (restaurant)" might be in order instead with the content restructured appropriately, as the location is taken over by a new brand, but with most of the furnishing, layout intact, and a tweak to the menu. https://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/food/getting-a-high-at-skai https://rubbisheatrubbishgrow.com/2019/02/21/skai-singapore/. robertsky (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing it seems notable for is a food poisoning out break. Which I have zero problem with. Except that keeping the article just for that goes against Wikipedia's single news worthy event rule. Making every restaurant that had news coverage of a food poisoning incident worthy of an article on that alone would be a ridiculous standard and might encourage places to do shady crap to get Wikipedia articles. I'd be fine with there being a mention of the company in the article for SKAI (restaurant), but that doesn't warrant keeping the article now just so it might, but probably won't be, merged later. Also, the article is clearly promotional in tone and without the promotional content there wouldn't really be much of an article. Except maybe "people got sick from eating there." --Adamant1 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 06:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrija Roy

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

Non-notable actress. Zoodino (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR.-Tatupiplu'^talk 10:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 07:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non notable teen actress, too soon? searches shows nothing but passing mentions. -Rinat Shakenov (talk) 04:50, 4 June 2020 (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 digital television deployments by country. Nothing sourced to merge. czar 02:44, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status of terrestrial television

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

Quibbles: not enough refs, abbreviation DTT not explained, the whole page is a table. Also: it's mostly covered at List of digital television deployments by country. Fuddle (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of digital television deployments by country. Although I'm probably going to regret it somehow, I feel like it's useful to have the information in a table as well as in paragraph form. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 13:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the better laid out and sourced List of digital television deployments by country. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of digital television deployments by country, and any content that might be deemed important can be taken from the page's history. Santosh L (talk) 09:51, 6 June 2020 (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. czar 04:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Tristar Animation Studios

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

This is clearly a fake company. No doubt about it. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 02:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author and the editor immediately after him both have strange editing histories. And one has reverted the others' edits too many times for it to be coincidence. PrussianOwl (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has no films. The only feature films are completely unrelated. Feels like a joke to me. Also an orphan article 2601:197:800:C0D0:202E:74B:4029:2A68 (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2020 (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 Cobra characters. It's up to editors whether to merge anything sourceable. Sandstein 10:24, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fred VII

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

Literally only sourced to the comics. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't turn up enough in reliable sources to demonstrate a WP:GNG pass, mostly stuff out of fandom and pinterest. Hog Farm (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no 3rd party secondary sources demonstrating notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a very condensed version to List of Cobra characters. We have this list for articles like this, not notable for a stand-alone article. Just WP:FANCRUFT as the article stands. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not every character in a massive franchise needs to be included on a character list if there are absolutely no reliable sources showing that they are notable at all. And in this case, it appears that there are none. The article itself uses only comic books as sources, and searching brings up virtually nothing in reliable sources on this very non-notable fictional character. Rorshacma (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Cobra characters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2020 (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. czar 02:45, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenview Aviaries Park & Zoo

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

This zoo appears to lack the required amount of independent coverage to satisfy any applicable notability guideline. All I can find (in addition to the one bit of local coverage present) is run-of-the-mill tourist guides, travel blogs, Tripadvisor, and listings. (Please also see AfDs for Killman Zoo and Oshawa Zoo. I don't particularly have it in for Ontario zoos, but I noticed that the category was full of undersourced entries. For some I have found sources and dropped them on the talk page, for these I didn't.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2020-05 Killman Zoo ✓ speedy keep

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, possibly add a line to Chatham-Kent --Cornellier (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2020 (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. czar 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oshawa Zoo

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

The two items of local coverage currently present in the article appear to be just about all the independent coverage for this zoo that is available (and these are on the meagre side). I couldn't turn up anything else of substance, aside from the usual listings, Tripadvisor, and travel blogs. (Please also see AfDs for Killman Zoo and Greenview Aviaries Park & Zoo. I don't particularly have it in for Ontario zoos, but I noticed that the category was full of undersourced entries. For some I have found sources and dropped them on the talk page, for these I didn't.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2020-05 Killman Zoo ✓ speedy keep

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost no coverage in reliable sources to support notability. I found two news items which provided just a small bit of information about the zoo. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Heidari

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

Non-notable actor. Hanooz (talk) 22:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep does pass WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Mahshid.r (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – none of the criteria in WP:NARTIST is met, and the sources do not come close to WP:SIGCOV – in fact, this one which is the only source that is potentially secondary, says very clearly that this is not a notable person. Could probably be speedy deleted as G5 since the creator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --bonadea contributions talk 14:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject appears to pass the WP:NACTOR threshold, with two or three main roles in TV series. I offer no opinion on WP:GNG, though, as I cannot assess the Persian sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Lexy iris (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mardetanha (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2020 (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 Cobra characters#Wild Weasel. Content was already merged (but remember to leave attribution!) czar 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Weasel (G.I. Joe)

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

Currently sourced to a publication that seems to be affiliated with the comics (likely primary), the comics themselves, and a site titled "yojoe.com" that I would personally not consider to be a reliable source. A WP:BEFORE search does not turn up substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources; mostly pinterest, fan sites, action figure sales sites, etc. Hog Farm (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Cobra characters. This article is sourced mostly to primary sources, and of the non-primary sources one is used to back up in-universe plot info, so there is no reason to suspect it contributes to notability, and the other describes itself as an "Action Figure Database" and does not look reliable at all. Article also fails WP:PLOT, as it is written entirely from an in-universe perspective. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Cobra characters, per the reasoning given in the above comments. I would not recommend using Rattler (G.I. Joe) as the redirect target as suggested, as looking at that article shows that it has all of the exact same issues as this one, and should probably also not be kept as in independent article. Rorshacma (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Cobra characters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2020 (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. czar 02:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhigya Anand

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

Non-notable child astrologer with YouTube videos; sources weak at best. Orange Mike | Talk 02:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the few sources do not meet with WP:RS and it was careless error from my side for contributing to this article. Abishe (talk) 07:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete There do seem to be a number of sources, at least some of which might class as RS. But there is an issue of wp:notnews here. It seems only a few have pickled this up, all recently and all related to one "prediction", which coupled with the credulity shown by some of the sources makes me look at this as just a silly season story with no lasting impact.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally unreliable fringe material.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SENSATIONAL coverage of the YouTube "prediction", if it persists, may garner a line at list of Internet phenomena, but without in-depth coverage of the individual, we can't construct an objective BLP. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are so may astrologers that it is remarkable more did not guess there would be a pandemic. Guy (help!) 23:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PRODIGY and WP:SENSATION. jps (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems to have failed proper notability imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.83.23 (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it seems to have failed proper notability imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:4000:11C0:F5F7:45CB:EAFA:7F2E:3864 (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in this case, just because it quacks, doesn't make it a duck. --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above non notable astrologer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in shock that Wikipedia has allowed these articles to be created like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.81.220 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2020 (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 as between keep and merge. Definitely a consensus against deletion. As is standard, discussions on the appropriateness and extent of any merger can be taken forward on the article talk page, or performed in line with WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Haruhi Suzumiya characters

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

Unsourced in-universe fancruft; WP:V, WP:LISTN, WP:NOTPLOT. The only exception is the section about series protagonist Haruhi Suzumiya (character), which has sources and real-world information. But since she has an article of her own, of which the section here is a summary, nothing of value is lost by deleting the article. And the sources about Haruhi Suzumiya the character do not establish notability for this list of characters. Sandstein 18:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging contributors to the recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuki Nagato: @Lullabying, Dronebogus, Devonian Wombat, and Piotrus: you may want to comment since you already evaluated this topic area's sources. Sandstein 18:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd expect this list for a major anime is notable and meets LISTN, but I don't have time right now to review the sources. There is some discussion of other characters like Kyon here. Hope the rescue squadron and resident inclusionists can help, ping User:Toughpigs. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Character list have always been valid WP:spinoff articles. If it won't fit in the main article, you create a side article to hold it. Dream Focus 03:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I don't think this is a case for complete and utter deletion, but rather for the dissection of fancruft from the article itself. IseDaByThatEditsTheBoat (talk) 14:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Haruhi Suzumiya, there is no evidence that this is a topic that passes WP:LISTN, since secondary sources are only to be found for one of the characters. If the article is a split, that is not a reason to keep, as this level of absurdly detailed fancruft should not be anywhere on Wikipedia. If the fancruft is removed, there is nothing left. Therefore, the best course of action is to merge a list of characters, with the excess cut out, to the main article. Also, I note that even if you merged the entirety of this article to the main article, it would still be under 100k raw bytes, nevermind 100k in prose. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasoning by Dream Focus. Several notable characters are listed on the page, such as Yuki Nagato (as she was the lead character in one of the official spin-offs). lullabying (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the main character list to Haruhi Suzumiya#Plot where they can be covered proportionate to their coverage in reliable, secondary source. No one has provided sources that assert that these characters as a set are independently notable from the series. The only "notable" character right now is the title character, who has her own article and set of sources. The rest have not demonstrated source coverage. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 22:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no evidence is presented that the list meets WP:LISTN. Coverage of characters on the main article should be proportionate to coverage in independent RS for an out of universe perspective. b uidhe 14:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: @Czar: This really doesn't do much for spin-offs like The Disappearance of Nagato Yuki-chan. Not to mention, there are news and reviews from Anime News Network here and here that could easily be used as sources for some character descriptions. lullabying (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both of those look like in universe plot summaries which, unless they are adding independent analysis/commentary, should not contribute to WP:N. b uidhe 21:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every article should be reasonably self-contained for anything readers need to know about the topic. If any extra background is needed for recurring characters, the series article is more than sufficient, but as for weight, unless there's some overabundance of secondary source commentary/analysis about the characters as a group, a summary style split would be unwarranted. Cover proportionately in the parent article as needed, only covering the internal universe as warranted by its secondary source prevalence. czar 22:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Dream Focus. Standard WP:SPINOUT article Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 02:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Satellizer, spinout articles are useful as a matter of style and organization, but they still need to comply with all of Wikipedia's inclusion rules. In particular, they must be about notable topics (WP:N), and they must comply with the policy about what Wikipedia articles are not - particularly, that they are not only descriptions of the plot of works of fiction (WP:NOTPLOT). This article fails these policies. Sandstein 09:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep and improve. I think a no-consensus close would be appropriate, with an understanding that this article can be revisited and renominated for deletion in some number of months if not improved. BD2412 T 22:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Entrepreneur Spotlight: Before Founding Futu, CEO Li Was a Trading Junkie". CAPITAL WATCH. Retrieved 22 May 2020.

[1]