![]() |
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Football player and coach who fails NFOOTY (never played in fully-pro league and never head-coached in one) and GNG (Provided sources are from smalltown local papers.) -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 23:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bohemia Interactive#ARMA series. Lourdes 17:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Unnotable software company with virtually no real-world significance. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Article was created under and remains prone to COI, while the deletion was contested by the COI editor. Lordtobi ( ✉) 22:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Company lacks notability and should be deleted on those grounds. This was deleted as G11 and then identically recreated about an hour later and I think can be deleted on those grounds as well. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
List of trivial minutia not suited to the general reader. This doesn't help as a contextual navigation hub. This doesn't show notability on the subject. Features of the Marvel Universe already has its own list, so this is also redundant. TTN ( talk) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the references currently in the article are an interview (NSFW) and two award rosters. Mr. Tucker's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found only one mention in the cast list of a pornographic film [3]. Cheers, gnu 57 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Award-winning singer, but no award is referenced nor appears notable on its own. Mention in passing in few sources, best of which is a one sentence (and a picture) in Washington Post. Is this enough for WP:MUSICBIO? Because it is not enough for the more general WP:NBIO, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
So this article's a bit of an odd one. Super obscure Tolkien concept, little notability in Middle earth, no notability on the real earth. So the article was created in 2015, and was immediately redirected. The redirect was then undone by the creator of the article (who has been indeffed since 2017), who bypassed AfC to recreate the article and then apparently removed the unreviewed tag himself. See [4]. I don't see this article passing WP:GNG, a reason why the redirect should have been undone, or a clear redirect target since List of Middle-earth animals is no more. Hog Farm ( talk) 19:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus was this is a useful disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 21:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Glorified disambiguation page with no references and no useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 19:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any evidence that these creatures have been meaningfully discussed by academics or journalists. ― Susmuffin Talk 18:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. No bias against redirect and if someone really does think there's something to be merged get in touch and we'll sort out how to handle this in a way that preserves attribution. But absent someone convinced this should be merged, which is not the impression I get, this consensus reads to me a deletable woo. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I think this is blatant promotionalism bordering on WP:SPAM. Essentially nothing but a commercial advertisement for a junk medicine claim. jps ( talk) 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
00:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
12:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)The result was delete. Tone 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No such thing. A catchy term for a nonnotable "a one-man project" Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find independent reliable sources that would support the notability of this duo. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
D&D deity. No third-party sources cited and none found with a quick search. No reason to believe that the topic is notable. Josh Milburn ( talk) 17:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This topic fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG as Thakral was only a candidate that was not elected. He has not held any other public offices. Sources do not seem reliable and more are needed for additional verification. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 16:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No claim of notability in article, no WP:SIGCOV found. Not sure if this film is released yet. My understanding is that CSD A7 isn't applied to films, so I'm listing here. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 16:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 15:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" does not address the sourcing issue. Sandstein 08:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Promotional article with only a single source other than the organisation's own website, and that source is of dubious reliability. My own search turns up only routine reporting on currency prices, or sources based on press releases. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NCORP Hug syrup 15:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Savedroid is very infamous in Germany. They made an ICO about 17 MIO EUR and after the fake-exit-scam they become very infamous even globally. Now there are several trials because of fraudulent action. Sure this article is promotional because all shaddy points are missing. But savedroid is part of the German crypto history and the history of die ICO bubble 2017. Better to increase this article with some facts. Someone want to help? German language skills would be helpful.
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIR It's a fast food chain. I can't tell if it's actually notable for al lthe COI promotional editing going on. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Private school. No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. Private, military school. Unknown credentials for educators, unknown age of school. Bearian ( talk) 20:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. Despite the name, this is a private school of unknown size and rigor. Only accredited for 17 years. Bearian ( talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Not verifiable per WP:V and WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. For some information, see this source. Störm (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Nothing substantial in sources. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. This is another private school that claims to be "top 10th" without any facts, much less independent references. Bearian ( talk) 20:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Some reservation about the appropriateness of a redirect offered, no consensus or evidence suggested for notability, leading to this delete consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 12:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Winter Guard. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't establish notability. TTN ( talk) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – sgeureka t• c 13:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Minor D&D monster. No secondary sources cited, no decent sources identified in a search (one appearance in possibly reliable listicle, but that's not enough alone. No evidence of notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – sgeureka t• c 13:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Minor D&D monster. No secondary sources cited, no decent sources identified in a search. No evidence of notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. A redirect to USC Thornton School of Music seems plausible at first glace, but the scholarship isn't mentioned in that article, so a redirect wouldn't make sense. If somebody wants to create the redirect on their own, that's fine, but I'm not going to make it part of the consensus close. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Not notable. There are no references to it is its own right--the only refs i could find in Google were links to announcement of concerts by people who have received the scholarship. I could not find that any of the recipients in those announcements are notable in our sense --which is a little odd since the scholarship has been awarded annually since 1951.
There certainly are a great many blue links to notable performers in the article--these are the sometimes extremely famous people who have performed at a concert to raise money for the award. That's namedropping, not notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
So-Mang Jeagal
https://music.usc.edu/thorntons-outstanding-graduates/
Dongeui Park
https://music.usc.edu/thorntons-outstanding-graduates/
Dr. HyeJung Shin
https://music.usc.edu/files/2016/12/FAL16_10-21_ConcertChamber.pdf#page=14 https://aimsgraz.com/faculty/hye-jung-shin/ https://www.cui.edu/arts/music/faculty#hyejung-shin
ChoEun-Lee
https://collaborativepiano.music.unt.edu/faculty/choeun-lee https://www.leeuniversity.edu/academics/music/faculty/cho-eun-lee.aspx https://www.leeuniversity.edu/NewsItem.aspx?id=16076
Dr. Kayla Chon
https://www.music.txstate.edu/piano/Faculty/Chon.html https://www.southwestern.edu/live/events/3046-guest-and-faculty-recital-jack-unzicker-bass-kayla
Lisa Edwards
https://performancesalacarte.org/artist/lisa-edwards/
Janet Hui-Chuan Kao
http://music.fullcoll.edu/conn_faculty_detail.php?staffid=231
John Ballerino
https://music.ucsb.edu/people/john-ballerino http://www.pv-vcmtac.org/find-a-teacher#59 https://takelessons.com/profile/john-b125
David Hapner
https://people.wright.edu/david.hapner
Dr. Lorna Eder
https://fairbankssymphony.org/choral-director/
Natalie Dalschaert
https://rancholapuerta.com/special-events/concert/ https://rancholapuerta.com/special-events/concert-brice-martin-flute-and-natalie-dalschaert-piano/
Karenn Chutjian Presti
https://schoolofmusic.ucla.edu/people/karenn-presti/
Alex Lansburgh
https://www.hawaiiperformingartsfestival.org/fellows/alex-lansburgh/
KyungJu Byun
http://www.amacviolins.com/ad/trio1.htm
Soo-Yeon Park
https://www.csub.edu/music/faculty_staff/park/index.html
The assertion above that "There certainly are a great many blue links to notable performers in the article--these are the sometimes extremely famous people who have performed at a concert to raise money for the award. That's namedropping, not notability." is also I think unfair. Wikipedia defines "Name dropping" as: "Name-dropping (or name-checking) is the practice of naming or alluding to important people and institutions within a conversation,[1] story,[2] song, online identity,[3] or other communication. The term often connotes an attempt to impress others; it is usually regarded negatively,[1] and under certain circumstances may constitute a breach of professional ethics.[4] When used as part of a logical argument it can be an example of the false authority fallacy.[5]" But the notable names mentioned in the Koldofsky Scholarship article aren't simply gratuitous conversational mentions for the purpose of impressing others. Instead they are legitimate references from reliable sources directly relevant to the scope of an encyclopedic article.
I don't see any advantage in merging this article with either USC Thornton School of Music or Gwendolyn Koldofsky, and I don't see any advantage in deleting the article completely, since people who come across references to this topic would be disappointed not to find a Wikipedia article on it.
I am the main author of the article. Musicman103 ( talk) 18:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It was claimed above that "department-specific awards are rarely notable on their own and I see nothing showing independent notability." But we do have department-specific award articles, such as John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships at Stanford, and Tiger Athletic Foundation, and university-specific graduate-level awards such as Knight-Hennessy Scholars and the awards listed under "See Also" in that article. The notability of these awards seems to derive mainly from the notability of their benefactors and/or alumni. Musicman103 ( talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the latter part of the above comment that says: "This is an award for a specific department, for which no independent coverage can be found." I consider the following ten references in the article to be independent coverage: #1: The Canadian Encyclopedia; #4: lottelehmannleague.org; #5: geni.com; #6: cabbagetownpeople.ca; #7: latimes.com; #9: latimes.com; #10: latimes.com; #18: cdnc.ucr.edu; #21: latimes; #28: the book "Marilyn Horne: The Song Continues". I would also consider these independent references to be substantial in explaining the origin of the scholarship fund, when and where it was created, and in honor of whom, and its later renaming, how it was funded with annual benefit concerts, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman103 ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per guidelines and practice, the only thing that matters in notability discussions is that there are good sources that can be the basis for an article. The "keep" opinions do not address this, or only assert but do not identify sources, and therefore must be given less weight. Being the first gay lead character in UK comics is probably important, and as such warrants (sourced) mention in appropriate articles e.g. about British comics, but under our guidelines it has nothing to do with whether he should be the subject of a dedicated article. Sandstein 08:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article meets the WP:A7 criterion for speedy deletion. If Mr Patrych has continued to be a notable but not mainstream classical music producer into the age when biographic information went online, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be at least some coverage in reliable sources to support this. See Wikipedia:Notability (music), and in particular the Others section. The ({{Find sources AFD|Joseph Patrych}}) will confirm that this is not the case. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 11:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Apparent promotional article created by SPA, with a lot of maintenance by other SPAs. PROD declined by a new SPA. WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, press releases and the sort of churnalism already in the article. This doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP at all. David Gerard ( talk) 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
The page previously had references from some PR agencies, which we acknowledge was in violation of your policies, and have since removed them.
All the information that the page contains now is genuine and have no promotional/monetary value attached to them whatsoever.
We request you to reconsider the decision, and if we're still found lacking in notability that merits the page's deletion, we request you to please let us know what we can do it avoid it.
Nishevitha ( talk) 13:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I'm the sole operator of my account. And I work in AppViewX, hence the plurality. Nishevitha ( talk) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Nominator David Gerard, did you mean to imply the article was the work of a cloud of SPAs, colluding together? That is not what I saw when I looked at the article's history? What I saw were contributors who disagreed with one another, working to correct what they saw as imperfect wroding by other contributors. So - not colluding. Were they SPAs? I didn't check.
On the other hand, after looking at the sources, I'd say the article is currently quite inaccurate. The references I looked at said AppViewX was spun off in 2016, while our article said it was founded in 2009. That was definitely a problem, but not one for which deletion was the appropriate solution, if the underlying topic was notable.
So, is the topic of AppViewX notable? WP:NCORP says it would have to have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
Well, in addition to those press releases, I think there has been coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. $30 million dollars of venture capital funding is not chicken feed, and that was published in independent secondary sources.
In my opinion the biggest weakness of both the wikipedia article and much of the RS coverage is that they are really vague about the firm's actual products.
Okay, I spent enough time to form an idea of what their product is.
They sell software that provides developers with a visual programming interface. They claim this visual interface will enable developers who aren't professional software developers to develop visual applications of their own, without having to learn how to program.
I was a software guy, a lifetime ago, and I have a strong prejudice against those selling software that makes this kind of undeliverable promise.
But my strong prejudice is irrelevant, if RS talk about this topic. And, no offense, David Gerard, to whatever extent your feelings about this kind of promise, this kind of software, lay behind your nomination, it too should be irrelevant here.
If third party venture capitalists put down $30 million bucks, and third party IT journals wrote about it, our personal prejudices should count for nothing. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Only played at a U19 level, and while selected to play in the 2018 ICC World Cricket League Division Four tournament, he did not play in a match. User has created dozens of non-notable articles during their time on WP (see their talkpage). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish Inquisition was not active in The Netherlands because The Netherlands were not technically part of the Spanish Crown and it could never hold jurisdiction there. There was an inquisition but it was not the malevolent secretive organization it is portrayed as here. Executions were more likely to be conducted by political authorities and not the church. Most of this article is based on 16th century rumors, Protestant propaganda, and 19th century historiography. The Talk page contains a list of references to which I suspect the author did not have access to because they often dispel the 'myth' or 'legend' of the Spanish Inquisition in The Netherlands as it is portrayed here. Oda86 ( talk) 09:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
References
References
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 08:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Does not adhere to WP:CRYSTAL. jaclar0529 ( talk) 09:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe that this page doesn't satisfy the specific notability requirements noted at WP:ACADEMIC, nor does it pass the rule-of-thumb "Average Professor Test" described on the same page, and should thus be deleted, along with the redirect on Giovanni Leone and articles and redirects on Wikipedia in other languages.
While I don't believe this should be a controversial deletion, it appears possible that this page was created by its subject or an associate; hence, I would appreciate some other eyeballs to counteract any bias on my part or the part of the contributing editors to this page. Wikkist ( talk) 07:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This announcement was made twice and since both times there wasn't candidates, it was appointment as director until the end of 2019. The page itself provide a large number of details that are not relevant to a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.203.4.48 ( talk) 02:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 08:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
List was originally created in 2012; citations are mostly for 2009 or 2010; the original list was subsequently headed 2013, without updating the data; the table was then copied into a second table headed 2015–2017, but some of the data was just copied (I have today blanked those entries), and almost all of it is uncited; most of the figures in the older table fail verification. If this is a notable topic, it would be better to start from scratch ( WP:TNT). – Fayenatic London 14:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable film production company. Speedy was declined because they are supposedly "responsible" for several blue-linked films. In reality, per the credits of those films on IMDB, they are merely one of several production companies involved in making said films (ie, they are not a primary film production company like MGM or Miramax that arranges for films to be made, but a company you contract to help with shooting your film).
I found no results on a Google search for news or books. Newspapers.com had some trivial mentions in Boston papers as well as one fluff piece in the North Adams Transcript about how nice it was that the company was shooting in their little town. There are no sources outside of Massachussets, so it fails WP:AUD even if that fluff piece + trivial mentions were enough to squeak it over WP:GNG. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fictional race that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. BEFORE does not show any analysis, only in-universe style summaries. Deprodded by anon with no rationale, so we again need to discuss this fancruft here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I found what I believe to be a migrated link for the official website here, but other than that, I can't find any coverage I'd call significant. Most other mentions in French news seem to be referring to parties in other countries, like Cyprus hewhoam areismyself 06:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable attorney (not to be confused with Alan Rothenberg), no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that there are millions of Jewish people and evangelical Christians within the United States. And he certainly is one of the most well known attorneys in Philadelphia to everyone. That’s why I decided to write an article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tt123yv ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable historian, researcher and journalist with no evidence of notability. Current sources are passing mentions and give no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS 💬 03:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 08:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails GNG, none of the cited sources are RS. I have little doubt that these dogs exist but I could find nothing attributable about them. Cavalryman ( talk) 00:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 05:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable, seeming to fail to meet the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC.
He does come close to meeting #1 of ACADEMIC, but it appears that Tornqvist indexes have not had sufficient impact. He does also come close to meeting a broad definition of #2, having an award named after him, but not awarded to him. However, this award does not seem to "highly prestigious" within Finland, and it is not so internationally, and so again it seems he does not qualify.
Neither of the two provided independent sources covering Tornqvist are substantial, with one of them being an obituary. However, the other source is a Swedish encyclopedia dedicated to correcting the under-representation of Finnish history within world encyclopedias, so it is possible that the individual is sufficiently notable in Scandinavia to warrant inclusion.
A search for additional sources that would affirm notability do not provide anything, but I have been unable to comprehensively review Swedish or Finnish sources due to an inability to read Swedish or Finnish. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hawkeye (Clint Barton)#Reception. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable fictional character TTN ( talk) 14:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:NBOOK fail. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 21:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
What makes a phone model notable? Major awards (not shown here, only some minor ones). Reviews from major publications (not shown here, of course, some low quality reviews on a blog or two can be found). Overall, not seeing any coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, all there is are press-releases and low quality blog/SM reviews and like. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 05:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an autobiography. The subject has won no awards, has had only a series of minor media appearances, and does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Vanity page. A loose necktie ( talk) 03:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time, and evidence of sufficient discussion of the subject in reliable sources that inclusion is not clearly impermissible. Based on the course and high participation of the discussion, it is not apparent that relisting would generate any further clarity. BD2412 T 14:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
While he has received some recent coverage due to his longevity, don't think he meets WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 01:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.In war he was highly decorated. Two of his awards were the Silver Star and Bronze Star.
It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources.Lightburst ( talk) 05:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Given that a redirect is now not possible. Sandstein 08:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK; article has no sources; subject has no official English translated version nor adaptations. lullabying ( talk) 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP. I could not locate any significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro ( talk) 00:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the sources currently in the article are all interviews, database entries, PR content, or award rosters. Ms. Banxxx' industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only an Elite Daily "contributor" article covering a seminar on race and pornography at which Ms. Banxxx had spoken [10], a Mic article which quotes her on the same topic [11], and various other sources with trivial, unreliable, or promotional coverage. Cheers, gnu 57 00:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. There must be verifiable sources which demonstrate notability for a product. There is a consensus that this phone does not have sourcing which satisfies our guidelines for notability. Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
An article about a phone which doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. The sources about the phone are all from a forum, which isn't reliable because it is entirely user-generated content. A Google search turns up almost results about the phone, especially News and Books searches. This appears to be a product that made no real impact on the world, and isn't notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 04:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
80sCompaqPC ( talk) 06:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
80sCompaqPC ( 80sCompaqPC) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 08:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
In the 13 years of this article, it's only amassed 3 sources, and seems to fail WP:BASIC. No additional sources have been added since the BLP sources template was added nearly 8 years ago. Zinnober9 ( talk) 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Passion of the Christ#Sequel. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Nominating for deletion as per WP:NOTFILM. The movie hasn't started shooting (indicated by its lack of significant coverage), so it's currently stuck in development period. As such, creating a Wikipedia article about it would be too soon. You've gone incognito ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Navigator#In science fiction. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fictional term. Might belong in wiktionary but it fails at being an encyclopedic article due to failures of WP:GNG. Sure, it is used in a number of works, but outside making a "list of books and other media that use the term astrogator" there is is little to work with, and such a list would fail WP:LISTN anyway. I am not sure if there is any valid redirect target ( Interstellar travel#In fiction?) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sleeper (1973 film). People who feel like it can merge stuff from history. Sandstein 08:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Here's a 'fun' topic to discuss. Problems are the usual ones: list of appearances in fictional media (quite a few, given the usual har-har associated with this; this also makes search for sources painful; there have even been several books and dozen+ articles that use this term in their title, etc.). But all it means this likely fails WP:GNG. No source I see discusses it in depth, the extent of analysis is that this term has been coined by Woody Allen's movie Sleeper (and Allen was mocking Wilhelm Reich's ideas), and then a sentence about in-universe plot (device that allows to trigger orgasms, har har) and then was used in few other works. The point to bear in mind that while the joke of Orgasmatron is used to ridicule some things, said joke itself has not been subject to any in-depth analysis, and so the article is simply unable to develop beyond a two-liner definition and then a list of works using this term. Is this enough to warrant an encyclopedic article? I think that this should be simply a paragraph at best in the Sleeper movie (but there is nothing to merge there from the current article). PS. As far as I can tell, this term does not have its own entry in any encyclopedia of sf terms or such, neither. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable story-teller and brand coach. Ref's are mix of press releases and syndicate feeds. No effective coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk
![]() |
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Football player and coach who fails NFOOTY (never played in fully-pro league and never head-coached in one) and GNG (Provided sources are from smalltown local papers.) -- BlameRuiner ( talk) 23:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Bohemia Interactive#ARMA series. Lourdes 17:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Unnotable software company with virtually no real-world significance. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Article was created under and remains prone to COI, while the deletion was contested by the COI editor. Lordtobi ( ✉) 22:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)The result was delete. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 22:11, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Company lacks notability and should be deleted on those grounds. This was deleted as G11 and then identically recreated about an hour later and I think can be deleted on those grounds as well. Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
List of trivial minutia not suited to the general reader. This doesn't help as a contextual navigation hub. This doesn't show notability on the subject. Features of the Marvel Universe already has its own list, so this is also redundant. TTN ( talk) 21:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the references currently in the article are an interview (NSFW) and two award rosters. Mr. Tucker's industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for new sources and found only one mention in the cast list of a pornographic film [3]. Cheers, gnu 57 20:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 21:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Award-winning singer, but no award is referenced nor appears notable on its own. Mention in passing in few sources, best of which is a one sentence (and a picture) in Washington Post. Is this enough for WP:MUSICBIO? Because it is not enough for the more general WP:NBIO, IMHO. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
So this article's a bit of an odd one. Super obscure Tolkien concept, little notability in Middle earth, no notability on the real earth. So the article was created in 2015, and was immediately redirected. The redirect was then undone by the creator of the article (who has been indeffed since 2017), who bypassed AfC to recreate the article and then apparently removed the unreviewed tag himself. See [4]. I don't see this article passing WP:GNG, a reason why the redirect should have been undone, or a clear redirect target since List of Middle-earth animals is no more. Hog Farm ( talk) 19:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Consensus was this is a useful disambiguation. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 21:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Glorified disambiguation page with no references and no useful content Rathfelder ( talk) 19:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any evidence that these creatures have been meaningfully discussed by academics or journalists. ― Susmuffin Talk 18:55, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. No bias against redirect and if someone really does think there's something to be merged get in touch and we'll sort out how to handle this in a way that preserves attribution. But absent someone convinced this should be merged, which is not the impression I get, this consensus reads to me a deletable woo. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I think this is blatant promotionalism bordering on WP:SPAM. Essentially nothing but a commercial advertisement for a junk medicine claim. jps ( talk) 18:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
00:46, 7 December 2019 (UTC){{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
12:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)The result was delete. Tone 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No such thing. A catchy term for a nonnotable "a one-man project" Staszek Lem ( talk) 18:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I couldn't find independent reliable sources that would support the notability of this duo. Bbarmadillo ( talk) 18:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
D&D deity. No third-party sources cited and none found with a quick search. No reason to believe that the topic is notable. Josh Milburn ( talk) 17:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This topic fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 17:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:GNG as Thakral was only a candidate that was not elected. He has not held any other public offices. Sources do not seem reliable and more are needed for additional verification. Lefcentreright Talk (plz ping) 16:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No claim of notability in article, no WP:SIGCOV found. Not sure if this film is released yet. My understanding is that CSD A7 isn't applied to films, so I'm listing here. Skeletor3000 ( talk) 16:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, advertising The Banner talk 15:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. The "keep" does not address the sourcing issue. Sandstein 08:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Promotional article with only a single source other than the organisation's own website, and that source is of dubious reliability. My own search turns up only routine reporting on currency prices, or sources based on press releases. Fails WP:GNG & WP:NCORP Hug syrup 15:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Savedroid is very infamous in Germany. They made an ICO about 17 MIO EUR and after the fake-exit-scam they become very infamous even globally. Now there are several trials because of fraudulent action. Sure this article is promotional because all shaddy points are missing. But savedroid is part of the German crypto history and the history of die ICO bubble 2017. Better to increase this article with some facts. Someone want to help? German language skills would be helpful.
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTDIR It's a fast food chain. I can't tell if it's actually notable for al lthe COI promotional editing going on. Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Private school. No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. Private, military school. Unknown credentials for educators, unknown age of school. Bearian ( talk) 20:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. Despite the name, this is a private school of unknown size and rigor. Only accredited for 17 years. Bearian ( talk) 20:32, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
No substantial coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Not verifiable per WP:V and WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. For some information, see this source. Störm (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Nothing substantial in sources. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - fails my standards for secondary schools. This is another private school that claims to be "top 10th" without any facts, much less independent references. Bearian ( talk) 20:41, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Private school, no coverage in WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Some reservation about the appropriateness of a redirect offered, no consensus or evidence suggested for notability, leading to this delete consensus. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:40, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 12:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Winter Guard. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This doesn't establish notability. TTN ( talk) 12:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – sgeureka t• c 13:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Minor D&D monster. No secondary sources cited, no decent sources identified in a search (one appearance in possibly reliable listicle, but that's not enough alone. No evidence of notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 12:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. – sgeureka t• c 13:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Minor D&D monster. No secondary sources cited, no decent sources identified in a search. No evidence of notability. Josh Milburn ( talk) 12:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. A redirect to USC Thornton School of Music seems plausible at first glace, but the scholarship isn't mentioned in that article, so a redirect wouldn't make sense. If somebody wants to create the redirect on their own, that's fine, but I'm not going to make it part of the consensus close. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Not notable. There are no references to it is its own right--the only refs i could find in Google were links to announcement of concerts by people who have received the scholarship. I could not find that any of the recipients in those announcements are notable in our sense --which is a little odd since the scholarship has been awarded annually since 1951.
There certainly are a great many blue links to notable performers in the article--these are the sometimes extremely famous people who have performed at a concert to raise money for the award. That's namedropping, not notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
So-Mang Jeagal
https://music.usc.edu/thorntons-outstanding-graduates/
Dongeui Park
https://music.usc.edu/thorntons-outstanding-graduates/
Dr. HyeJung Shin
https://music.usc.edu/files/2016/12/FAL16_10-21_ConcertChamber.pdf#page=14 https://aimsgraz.com/faculty/hye-jung-shin/ https://www.cui.edu/arts/music/faculty#hyejung-shin
ChoEun-Lee
https://collaborativepiano.music.unt.edu/faculty/choeun-lee https://www.leeuniversity.edu/academics/music/faculty/cho-eun-lee.aspx https://www.leeuniversity.edu/NewsItem.aspx?id=16076
Dr. Kayla Chon
https://www.music.txstate.edu/piano/Faculty/Chon.html https://www.southwestern.edu/live/events/3046-guest-and-faculty-recital-jack-unzicker-bass-kayla
Lisa Edwards
https://performancesalacarte.org/artist/lisa-edwards/
Janet Hui-Chuan Kao
http://music.fullcoll.edu/conn_faculty_detail.php?staffid=231
John Ballerino
https://music.ucsb.edu/people/john-ballerino http://www.pv-vcmtac.org/find-a-teacher#59 https://takelessons.com/profile/john-b125
David Hapner
https://people.wright.edu/david.hapner
Dr. Lorna Eder
https://fairbankssymphony.org/choral-director/
Natalie Dalschaert
https://rancholapuerta.com/special-events/concert/ https://rancholapuerta.com/special-events/concert-brice-martin-flute-and-natalie-dalschaert-piano/
Karenn Chutjian Presti
https://schoolofmusic.ucla.edu/people/karenn-presti/
Alex Lansburgh
https://www.hawaiiperformingartsfestival.org/fellows/alex-lansburgh/
KyungJu Byun
http://www.amacviolins.com/ad/trio1.htm
Soo-Yeon Park
https://www.csub.edu/music/faculty_staff/park/index.html
The assertion above that "There certainly are a great many blue links to notable performers in the article--these are the sometimes extremely famous people who have performed at a concert to raise money for the award. That's namedropping, not notability." is also I think unfair. Wikipedia defines "Name dropping" as: "Name-dropping (or name-checking) is the practice of naming or alluding to important people and institutions within a conversation,[1] story,[2] song, online identity,[3] or other communication. The term often connotes an attempt to impress others; it is usually regarded negatively,[1] and under certain circumstances may constitute a breach of professional ethics.[4] When used as part of a logical argument it can be an example of the false authority fallacy.[5]" But the notable names mentioned in the Koldofsky Scholarship article aren't simply gratuitous conversational mentions for the purpose of impressing others. Instead they are legitimate references from reliable sources directly relevant to the scope of an encyclopedic article.
I don't see any advantage in merging this article with either USC Thornton School of Music or Gwendolyn Koldofsky, and I don't see any advantage in deleting the article completely, since people who come across references to this topic would be disappointed not to find a Wikipedia article on it.
I am the main author of the article. Musicman103 ( talk) 18:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
It was claimed above that "department-specific awards are rarely notable on their own and I see nothing showing independent notability." But we do have department-specific award articles, such as John S. Knight Journalism Fellowships at Stanford, and Tiger Athletic Foundation, and university-specific graduate-level awards such as Knight-Hennessy Scholars and the awards listed under "See Also" in that article. The notability of these awards seems to derive mainly from the notability of their benefactors and/or alumni. Musicman103 ( talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with the latter part of the above comment that says: "This is an award for a specific department, for which no independent coverage can be found." I consider the following ten references in the article to be independent coverage: #1: The Canadian Encyclopedia; #4: lottelehmannleague.org; #5: geni.com; #6: cabbagetownpeople.ca; #7: latimes.com; #9: latimes.com; #10: latimes.com; #18: cdnc.ucr.edu; #21: latimes; #28: the book "Marilyn Horne: The Song Continues". I would also consider these independent references to be substantial in explaining the origin of the scholarship fund, when and where it was created, and in honor of whom, and its later renaming, how it was funded with annual benefit concerts, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicman103 ( talk • contribs) 22:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Per guidelines and practice, the only thing that matters in notability discussions is that there are good sources that can be the basis for an article. The "keep" opinions do not address this, or only assert but do not identify sources, and therefore must be given less weight. Being the first gay lead character in UK comics is probably important, and as such warrants (sourced) mention in appropriate articles e.g. about British comics, but under our guidelines it has nothing to do with whether he should be the subject of a dedicated article. Sandstein 08:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Fictional character. No evidence of stand-alone notability. Not a shred of analysis. Pure WP:PLOT and list of appearances in media. Fails WP:PLOT, WP:GNG, WP:NFICTION. BEFORE shows nothing that's not in passing or a plot summary. Deprodded by User:Necrothesp with no rationale. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion, this article meets the WP:A7 criterion for speedy deletion. If Mr Patrych has continued to be a notable but not mainstream classical music producer into the age when biographic information went online, it would be reasonable to expect that there would be at least some coverage in reliable sources to support this. See Wikipedia:Notability (music), and in particular the Others section. The ({{Find sources AFD|Joseph Patrych}}) will confirm that this is not the case. Pete AU aka Shirt58 ( talk) 11:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Apparent promotional article created by SPA, with a lot of maintenance by other SPAs. PROD declined by a new SPA. WP:BEFORE shows passing mentions, press releases and the sort of churnalism already in the article. This doesn't appear to pass WP:NCORP at all. David Gerard ( talk) 10:56, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
The page previously had references from some PR agencies, which we acknowledge was in violation of your policies, and have since removed them.
All the information that the page contains now is genuine and have no promotional/monetary value attached to them whatsoever.
We request you to reconsider the decision, and if we're still found lacking in notability that merits the page's deletion, we request you to please let us know what we can do it avoid it.
Nishevitha ( talk) 13:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I'm the sole operator of my account. And I work in AppViewX, hence the plurality. Nishevitha ( talk) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Nominator David Gerard, did you mean to imply the article was the work of a cloud of SPAs, colluding together? That is not what I saw when I looked at the article's history? What I saw were contributors who disagreed with one another, working to correct what they saw as imperfect wroding by other contributors. So - not colluding. Were they SPAs? I didn't check.
On the other hand, after looking at the sources, I'd say the article is currently quite inaccurate. The references I looked at said AppViewX was spun off in 2016, while our article said it was founded in 2009. That was definitely a problem, but not one for which deletion was the appropriate solution, if the underlying topic was notable.
So, is the topic of AppViewX notable? WP:NCORP says it would have to have "been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
Well, in addition to those press releases, I think there has been coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. $30 million dollars of venture capital funding is not chicken feed, and that was published in independent secondary sources.
In my opinion the biggest weakness of both the wikipedia article and much of the RS coverage is that they are really vague about the firm's actual products.
Okay, I spent enough time to form an idea of what their product is.
They sell software that provides developers with a visual programming interface. They claim this visual interface will enable developers who aren't professional software developers to develop visual applications of their own, without having to learn how to program.
I was a software guy, a lifetime ago, and I have a strong prejudice against those selling software that makes this kind of undeliverable promise.
But my strong prejudice is irrelevant, if RS talk about this topic. And, no offense, David Gerard, to whatever extent your feelings about this kind of promise, this kind of software, lay behind your nomination, it too should be irrelevant here.
If third party venture capitalists put down $30 million bucks, and third party IT journals wrote about it, our personal prejudices should count for nothing. Geo Swan ( talk) 19:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Only played at a U19 level, and while selected to play in the 2018 ICC World Cricket League Division Four tournament, he did not play in a match. User has created dozens of non-notable articles during their time on WP (see their talkpage). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish Inquisition was not active in The Netherlands because The Netherlands were not technically part of the Spanish Crown and it could never hold jurisdiction there. There was an inquisition but it was not the malevolent secretive organization it is portrayed as here. Executions were more likely to be conducted by political authorities and not the church. Most of this article is based on 16th century rumors, Protestant propaganda, and 19th century historiography. The Talk page contains a list of references to which I suspect the author did not have access to because they often dispel the 'myth' or 'legend' of the Spanish Inquisition in The Netherlands as it is portrayed here. Oda86 ( talk) 09:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
References
References
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 08:53, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Does not adhere to WP:CRYSTAL. jaclar0529 ( talk) 09:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 08:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I believe that this page doesn't satisfy the specific notability requirements noted at WP:ACADEMIC, nor does it pass the rule-of-thumb "Average Professor Test" described on the same page, and should thus be deleted, along with the redirect on Giovanni Leone and articles and redirects on Wikipedia in other languages.
While I don't believe this should be a controversial deletion, it appears possible that this page was created by its subject or an associate; hence, I would appreciate some other eyeballs to counteract any bias on my part or the part of the contributing editors to this page. Wikkist ( talk) 07:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
This announcement was made twice and since both times there wasn't candidates, it was appointment as director until the end of 2019. The page itself provide a large number of details that are not relevant to a Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.203.4.48 ( talk) 02:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 08:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
List was originally created in 2012; citations are mostly for 2009 or 2010; the original list was subsequently headed 2013, without updating the data; the table was then copied into a second table headed 2015–2017, but some of the data was just copied (I have today blanked those entries), and almost all of it is uncited; most of the figures in the older table fail verification. If this is a notable topic, it would be better to start from scratch ( WP:TNT). – Fayenatic London 14:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable film production company. Speedy was declined because they are supposedly "responsible" for several blue-linked films. In reality, per the credits of those films on IMDB, they are merely one of several production companies involved in making said films (ie, they are not a primary film production company like MGM or Miramax that arranges for films to be made, but a company you contract to help with shooting your film).
I found no results on a Google search for news or books. Newspapers.com had some trivial mentions in Boston papers as well as one fluff piece in the North Adams Transcript about how nice it was that the company was shooting in their little town. There are no sources outside of Massachussets, so it fails WP:AUD even if that fluff piece + trivial mentions were enough to squeak it over WP:GNG. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:30, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fictional race that fails WP:NFICTION, WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. BEFORE does not show any analysis, only in-universe style summaries. Deprodded by anon with no rationale, so we again need to discuss this fancruft here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
I found what I believe to be a migrated link for the official website here, but other than that, I can't find any coverage I'd call significant. Most other mentions in French news seem to be referring to parties in other countries, like Cyprus hewhoam areismyself 06:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable attorney (not to be confused with Alan Rothenberg), no meaningful coverage. Praxidicae ( talk) 18:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I think that there are millions of Jewish people and evangelical Christians within the United States. And he certainly is one of the most well known attorneys in Philadelphia to everyone. That’s why I decided to write an article about him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tt123yv ( talk • contribs) 23:27, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:48, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable historian, researcher and journalist with no evidence of notability. Current sources are passing mentions and give no in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS 💬 03:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Yunshui 雲 水 08:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails GNG, none of the cited sources are RS. I have little doubt that these dogs exist but I could find nothing attributable about them. Cavalryman ( talk) 00:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 05:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Subject does not appear to be sufficiently notable, seeming to fail to meet the criteria of WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC.
He does come close to meeting #1 of ACADEMIC, but it appears that Tornqvist indexes have not had sufficient impact. He does also come close to meeting a broad definition of #2, having an award named after him, but not awarded to him. However, this award does not seem to "highly prestigious" within Finland, and it is not so internationally, and so again it seems he does not qualify.
Neither of the two provided independent sources covering Tornqvist are substantial, with one of them being an obituary. However, the other source is a Swedish encyclopedia dedicated to correcting the under-representation of Finnish history within world encyclopedias, so it is possible that the individual is sufficiently notable in Scandinavia to warrant inclusion.
A search for additional sources that would affirm notability do not provide anything, but I have been unable to comprehensively review Swedish or Finnish sources due to an inability to read Swedish or Finnish. BilledMammal ( talk) 04:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Hawkeye (Clint Barton)#Reception. Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:31, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable fictional character TTN ( talk) 14:16, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Tone 21:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
WP:NBOOK fail. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC) ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 04:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Tone 21:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
What makes a phone model notable? Major awards (not shown here, only some minor ones). Reviews from major publications (not shown here, of course, some low quality reviews on a blog or two can be found). Overall, not seeing any coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, all there is are press-releases and low quality blog/SM reviews and like. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 05:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an autobiography. The subject has won no awards, has had only a series of minor media appearances, and does not appear to have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources. Vanity page. A loose necktie ( talk) 03:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete at this time, and evidence of sufficient discussion of the subject in reliable sources that inclusion is not clearly impermissible. Based on the course and high participation of the discussion, it is not apparent that relisting would generate any further clarity. BD2412 T 14:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
While he has received some recent coverage due to his longevity, don't think he meets WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 TT me 01:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times.In war he was highly decorated. Two of his awards were the Silver Star and Bronze Star.
It is important to note that a person who does not meet the criteria mentioned above is not necessarily non-notable; ultimately, this determination must be made based on the availability of significant coverage in independent, secondary sources.Lightburst ( talk) 05:06, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Given that a redirect is now not possible. Sandstein 08:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK; article has no sources; subject has no official English translated version nor adaptations. lullabying ( talk) 18:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:BLP. I could not locate any significant coverage of the subject in reliable secondary sources. Comatmebro ( talk) 00:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the sources currently in the article are all interviews, database entries, PR content, or award rosters. Ms. Banxxx' industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. I looked for additional sources and found only an Elite Daily "contributor" article covering a seminar on race and pornography at which Ms. Banxxx had spoken [10], a Mic article which quotes her on the same topic [11], and various other sources with trivial, unreliable, or promotional coverage. Cheers, gnu 57 00:50, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. There must be verifiable sources which demonstrate notability for a product. There is a consensus that this phone does not have sourcing which satisfies our guidelines for notability. Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
An article about a phone which doesn't meet WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. The sources about the phone are all from a forum, which isn't reliable because it is entirely user-generated content. A Google search turns up almost results about the phone, especially News and Books searches. This appears to be a product that made no real impact on the world, and isn't notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 04:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
80sCompaqPC ( talk) 06:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
80sCompaqPC ( 80sCompaqPC) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
The result was keep. Yunshui 雲 水 08:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
In the 13 years of this article, it's only amassed 3 sources, and seems to fail WP:BASIC. No additional sources have been added since the BLP sources template was added nearly 8 years ago. Zinnober9 ( talk) 07:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to The Passion of the Christ#Sequel. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Nominating for deletion as per WP:NOTFILM. The movie hasn't started shooting (indicated by its lack of significant coverage), so it's currently stuck in development period. As such, creating a Wikipedia article about it would be too soon. You've gone incognito ( talk ⋅ contribs) 09:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Navigator#In science fiction. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Fictional term. Might belong in wiktionary but it fails at being an encyclopedic article due to failures of WP:GNG. Sure, it is used in a number of works, but outside making a "list of books and other media that use the term astrogator" there is is little to work with, and such a list would fail WP:LISTN anyway. I am not sure if there is any valid redirect target ( Interstellar travel#In fiction?) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Sleeper (1973 film). People who feel like it can merge stuff from history. Sandstein 08:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Here's a 'fun' topic to discuss. Problems are the usual ones: list of appearances in fictional media (quite a few, given the usual har-har associated with this; this also makes search for sources painful; there have even been several books and dozen+ articles that use this term in their title, etc.). But all it means this likely fails WP:GNG. No source I see discusses it in depth, the extent of analysis is that this term has been coined by Woody Allen's movie Sleeper (and Allen was mocking Wilhelm Reich's ideas), and then a sentence about in-universe plot (device that allows to trigger orgasms, har har) and then was used in few other works. The point to bear in mind that while the joke of Orgasmatron is used to ridicule some things, said joke itself has not been subject to any in-depth analysis, and so the article is simply unable to develop beyond a two-liner definition and then a list of works using this term. Is this enough to warrant an encyclopedic article? I think that this should be simply a paragraph at best in the Sleeper movie (but there is nothing to merge there from the current article). PS. As far as I can tell, this term does not have its own entry in any encyclopedia of sf terms or such, neither. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 16:37, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Non-notable story-teller and brand coach. Ref's are mix of press releases and syndicate feeds. No effective coverage per WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep Talk